U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–486 PDF 2016

PROMOTING AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, TRADE, 

AND SALES (PARTS) ACT OF 2015 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 1057 

FEBRUARY 2, 2016 

Serial No. 114–59 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Vice-Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

JOE KEELEY, Chief Counsel 

JASON EVERETT, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 2, 2016 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 1057, the ‘‘Promoting Automotive Repair, Trade, and Sales (PARTS) 

Act of 2015’’ .......................................................................................................... 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet .......................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 

Property, and the Internet .................................................................................. 7 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 8 

WITNESSES 

Jack Gillis, Director of Public Affairs, Consumer Federation of America 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13 

Kelly K. Burris, Intellectual Property Attorney, Burris Law, PLLC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 22 

Pat Felder, Owner and Founder, Felder’s Collision Parts, Inc. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 32 

Dan Risley, President, Automotive Service Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 39 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 9 

Material submitted by the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ................................................ 51 

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 74 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Questions for the Record from Jack Gillis, Director of Public 

Affairs, Consumer Federation of America .......................................................... 90 

Response to Questions for the Record from Kelly K. Burris, Intellectual Property Attorney, Burris Law, PLLC ....................................................................... 94 
Page

IV 

Response to Questions for the Record from Pat Felder, Owner and Founder, 

Felder’s Collision Parts, Inc. ............................................................................... 96 

Response to Questions for the Record from Dan Risley, President, Automotive 

Service Association ............................................................................................... 98 

Letter from the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) ....... 100 
(1) 

PROMOTING AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, TRADE, 

AND SALES (PARTS) ACT OF 2015 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 4 p.m., in room 2141, 

Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, Collins, DeSantis, Nadler, Conyers, Chu, Jeffries, Cicilline, Lofgren, and Cohen. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Vishal Amin, Senior Counsel; Eric Bagwell, Clerk; and (Minority) Jason Everett, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. ISSA. The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, 

and the Internet will come to order. Without objection, the Chair 

is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. 

We welcome everyone here today for a hearing on H.R. 1057, the 

‘‘Promoting Automotive Repair, Trade, and Sales Act of 2015,’’ otherwise known as the PARTS Act. I will now recognize myself for 

an opening statement. 

This afternoon’s hearing is about an important piece of pro-consumer legislation, the PARTS Act. It is narrowly focused and designed to once and for all call, appropriately, attention to the use 

of ornamental patents for broader than their original purpose. For 

a great many years, patents, known as design patents, were clearly 

understood to be ornamental, meaning if someone were to duplicate 

the appearance of a patented product, they would be violating that 

look for a period of 14 years. Under the PARTS Act, this is a limited bill. It relates only to car parts that are typically replaced after 

collision, and it allows a limited exemption to the design patents 

so the aftermarket parts of like use, of form, fit, and quality can 

be available for basic repairs. 

This does not mean that marginal or low quality parts are by 

definition to be considered as acceptable. In no way, shape, or form 

is this about the quality, as we all know, and we know too well, 

automobile companies around the world have made magnificent 

automobiles. They also made the Pinto, the Vega, the Yugo, the 

Lada, and I need not go on to tell you there have been cars that 

have been shoddy in their manufacturer, unreliable, and yes, I 
2 

have visited the Corvair Museum. There are cars with other notability. But in this case, we are simply creating a balance between 

the rights of the manufacturer to produce an ornamental design 

and protect it for a period of 14 years from its competitors, people 

who would produce a similar automobile look. That is the intent of 

a design patent. It was never intended to be, in fact, a substitute 

for the ability to simply repair a portion of something you have 

purchased. 

Now, let’s understand the automobile industry is unique. They do 

create rolling pieces of art. Those rolling pieces of art should, in 

fact, enjoy their distinctive advantage. However, it is notable that 

it is very seldom does General Motors sue Toyota, Toyota sue 

Honda, or any of them sue Mercedes when they make cars that are 

so close together that even their commercials find it hard to find 

the automobile that matches. They make fun of how similar cars 

look and yet, you do not see automobile patent suits related to 

their design patents, meaning the auto companies do not consider 

there to be a great value to the design patents when they are looking at similar designs between automobile companies. Having said 

that, the very lucrative auto aftermarket business related to collision parts is an area in which the auto companies have attempted 

to establish greater and greater exclusivity. And I support that exclusivity, but for a limited period of time. The PARTS Act is intended, recognizing that an automobile exceeds $30,000, and one 

would spend three or four times that if you were to buy it in parts 

from the manufacturer that in fact, instead of pounding out a fender, welding or bondoing it, an affordable replacement in a competitive market is in the best interest of safety, and of course, the consumer. 

Additionally, a healthy aftermarket means more affordable parts 

for everyone, and particularly in the case of small production, or 

out of date older automobiles, or automobiles that are no longer 

produced, such as the Saturn or the DeLorean, or for that matter, 

the 1965 Mustang. These parts, without the PARTS Act, if a 

healthy aftermarket industry does not exist, will not and are not 

typically made at an affordable price by the manufacturer. Manufacturers do not want to have a lifetime responsibility to keep a set 

of tooling to make a part. If they did, certainly they would be a desirable place for the classic car repair business. People in Europe 

already enjoy some of the considerations that are in the PARTS 

Act, and for a good reason. The consumer has an expectation that 

it is, and a reasonable expectation, that there will be a competitive 

market for repair parts for their automobile. There certainly is for 

brake pads. Why would there not be for a bent fender? I look forward to working with people on both sides of the aisle, and on both 

sides of this issue to ensure we make the kind of limited, narrow, 

and appropriate changes to the patent law to allow automobiles to 

be repaired, while in fact protecting the intellectual property of the 

auto manufacturer or any other original equipment producer now 

or in the future. 

[The bill, H.R. 1057, follows:] 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

Mr. ISSA. I look forward to our witnesses today, and I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member on this 

area as we move forward with the PARTS Act and it gets signed 

into law. I now would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. Nadler from New York, for his opening statement. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we consider H.R. 

1057, the ‘‘Promoting Automotive Repair, Trade, and Sales,’’ or 

‘‘PARTS Act of 2015.’’ This legislation introduced by Chairman Issa 

and the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, would reduce 

the term of design patent protection for exterior automotive repair 

parts like fenders, side view mirrors, and headlights from 14 years 

to two and a half years. Supporters see it as a pro-consumer bill 

to foster much needed competition in the collision repair parts market. But opponents see it as an unfair exemption to established 

patent law at the expense of one industry, with potential safety implications. Each side makes compelling arguments, and I appreciate the opportunity to examine these issues in greater detail 

today. 

According to supporters of the PARTS Act, thousands of consumers each year pay artificially inflated prices for car repairs because auto manufacturers control more than 70 percent of the market for repair parts. To make matters worse, they say, manufacturers have recently begun to enforce their design patents against generic parts makers, threatening to eliminate whatever competition 

currently exists for aftermarket parts. Without the PARTS Act, 

they argue, consumers could see already high prices soar even 

higher as the generic market shrinks and automakers seize a near 

monopoly on repair parts. These consumers see a market with little 

competition, and wonder why there is a thriving market for generic 

drugs, but not for generic taillights. According to some estimates, 

since generic auto parts can cost up to 50 percent less than brand 

name alternatives, consumers would pay over $1 billion a year 

more for repair parts if the independent market were to be eliminated altogether. And if repair parts cost more, insurance companies will be forced to raise their rates too, further hurting consumers. 

The PARTS Act would provide automakers 30 months of design 

patent protection for aftermarket products, long enough, supporters 

argue, for automakers to receive a healthy return on investment, 

but not so long that it would stifle the competitive market for repair products that consumers deserve. And car companies would 

still retain a full 14 years of protection against other automakers 

that might seek to copy their designs on new cars, since the bill 

only applies to repair parts. But this begs the question why single 

out only one industry for weaker patent protection? Opponents of 

the PARTS Act believe it would set a dangerous precedent in intellectual property law. They fear a slippery slope in which more and 

more industries are carved out for special treatment under the patent system, leading to a system that is both incoherent and unfair. 

How should we draw the lines between which industries are deserving of full protection, full 14-year protection, and which are 

not? We may not always appreciate the aesthetic design of a car’s 

component parts, but automakers invest significant resources to de-
8 

sign every aspect of their products so that they stand out to potential buyers. 

Opponents of the PARTS Act argue that it would be unfair to deprive these manufacturers of the full return on their investment. 

They also note that auto manufacturers employ nearly 30,000 people in the U.S. in design centers. We risk losing some of these jobs 

if we reduce the incentives for automakers to create the innovative 

designs. Opponents further warn that the bill could threaten the 

safety of unsuspecting consumers who purchase a generic repair 

part, which may be of lower quality than its brand name equivalent. If a generic bumper looks identical but provides insufficient 

protection in an accident, it is certainly no substitute. As we examine the PARTS Act, we should consider whether additional safeguards ought to be put into place to protect consumers from shoddy 

parts before encouraging a significantly larger market for such generic products. Today’s hearing hopefully will help us to determine 

the answers to these and other important questions, as we examine 

the proper balance between respecting the rights of creators and 

ensuring that customers enter a safe, competitive marketplace. We 

have an excellent set of witnesses to help us sort through these 

issues, and I look forward to their testimony. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman 

from Michigan, the home of most, but not automobiles. 

Mr. CONYERS. All the big three. 

Mr. ISSA. Oh, yes, but Cleveland rocks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Members of 

the Committee, this bill would create an exception for certain automotive parts from patent protection, and so we should review the 

bill’s impact on patent law, but also on consumers. To begin with, 

we should consider whether the exception in this bill to design patent law undermines our intellectual property system. Intellectual 

property protection is a cornerstone of our economy. This legislation, however, creates an exception for design patents, and could 

arguably weaken our patent system. It could foster the importation 

and sale of all unauthorized copies of patent protected vehicle 

parts. Automotive companies make significant investments in the 

development of new exterior automotive parts. Then they acquire 

a design patent so other companies cannot use these designs without their approval. Our patent system protects the patent holder, 

as it should. 

Now, if Congress is going to legislate a carve-out in patent law, 

the reasons for it should be exceptional. Supporters of this legislation contend that Congress needs to create an exception because 

the cost of replacement parts offered by car companies is too expensive. They argued that lower prices would benefit consumers who 

need to make repairs to their vehicles. But automotive manufacturers may raise prices on new cars to replace lost revenue parts that 

would otherwise infringe their design patents are allowed on the 

trade market. This will hit consumers’ pocketbooks when they go 

to purchase new cars and trucks, and it will hurt car companies 

who are still getting back on their feet. We have heard this cost 

argument in other situations, but if we weaken the patent system 
9 

by creating an exception, we will be weakening the incentive for 

companies in every industry to be innovative and to bring new 

products to market. Finally, we must consider how the bill would 

impact consumer safety. I am concerned that off brand parts in 

general may be less safe than those provided by car companies because there are no Federal regulations requiring minimum safety 

standards for off-brand parts. In fact, the vast majority of these 

parts are never subject to inspection by third party testing organizations. 

Without Federal minimum safety standards on the quality of 

non-original replacement parts, consumers’ safety may be at risk. 

Consumers already have a difficult time telling the difference between a quality part and an inferior or even dangerous one. An exception to patent protection as proposed by the measure under examination this afternoon could make this problem worse. While a 

part protected by a design patent is not necessarily a guarantee of 

quality, the fact is, is that if car companies churn out inferior or 

defective parts, they are ultimately held accountable. I am sympathetic to the consumer cost concerns that supporters of this bill are 

raising today. But I am not yet convinced that such an exception 

will bring forth the benefits they claim will come. While there is 

no guarantee that the insurance companies will pass savings onto 

consumers, what is guaranteed is that if this bill passes, there will 

be more unregulated, untested car parts on the market, and we 

will see many more groups seeking exceptions to our patent laws. 

And for these reasons, I come to this hearing skeptical of creating 

an exception in our design patent laws as envisioned by the measure before us today. And I thank the Chairman, and yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. I now ask unanimous consent 

that the Chairman of the full Committee, Chairman Goodlatte’s 

opening statement be placed in the record. Without objection, so ordered. Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will 

be made a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

Good afternoon. Today’s hearing will look at design protection to determine 

whether amendments should be made to the law to limit protection for component 

parts of automobiles. 

Chapter 16 of the Patent Act allows an inventor a design patent for any new, 

original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. 

However, the chief limitation on the patentability of designs is that they must be 

primarily ornamental in character. 

If the design is dictated by the performance of the article, then it is judged primarily functional and ineligible for design patent protection. 

Combined with the cost of patenting, this explains why some inventors, including 

car companies, have traditionally filed for relatively few design patents. However, 

auto manufacturers assert that automotive suppliers lose upwards of $12 billion annually to counterfeit products. And at least one prominent car company invests $100 

million or more in the design of each new car line. 

There has been a recent increase in the number of applications for design patents 

for individual parts of vehicles. This has raised the ire of those who work in the 

automotive aftermarket parts industry. Independent garage owners fear they will go 

out of business if the Patent Act is used by the auto manufacturers to obtain design 
10 

patent protection for more and more individual parts rather than for the design of 

the car as a whole. Insurers worry that the cost of insuring vehicles will increase 

for consumers if manufacturers aggressively assert these rights because there will 

be less competition for replacement parts. 

The aftermarket parts industry argues that we cannot afford to maintain the legislative status quo on patent designs. It argues the auto manufacturers are filing 

more design patents under current law to reap more profits, meaning the independent garages could lose a war of attrition. 

Representative Issa has introduced H.R. 1057, better known as the PARTS Act. 

While the bill does not prevent auto makers from patenting designs on replacement 

parts, it greatly reduces the time period during which they may sue competitors for 

patent infringement from 14 years to 30 months. 

Today we will weigh these competing interests and the consequences of establishing the precedent of creating an exemption to design patent law. I remain openminded on this issue and look forward to the testimony that we will receive. 

I think we have a great panel assembled today and I look forward to hearing from 

all of our witnesses. 

Mr. ISSA. Today, we have a distinguished panel before us, two 

witnesses for the bill, two witnesses who are skeptical, as the 

Ranking Member said. The witnesses’ opening statements or written statements have been entered into the record in its entirety, 

and I ask please for you each to summarize in approximately 5 

minutes. If you can stay within the time, it will allow us not only 

to get through your opening statements, but through a robust set 

of questions from this side of the dais, and still adjourn before our 

votes, which will come some time probably shortly after 5. 

Before I introduce the witnesses, and pursuant to the Committee’s rule, would all four of you please rise to take the oath? And 

please raise your right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Please be seated. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. Our witnesses today include Mr. Jack 

Gillis, director of public affairs for Consumer Federation of America; Ms. Kelly Burris, intellectual property attorney and owner of 

Burris Law Firm, PLLC; Ms. Pat Felder, owner and founder of 

Felder’s Collision Parts. And which city in Louisiana, ma’am? 

Ms. FELDER. Baton Rouge. 

Mr. ISSA. Baton Rouge. I love to just say that. That is such a 

pretty, pretty city. And Mr. Dan Risley, president of the Automotive Service Association. Again, your entire written statements 

will be placed in the record, and Mr. Gillis, you are first up. 

Mr. GILLIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ISSA. I am afraid, Mr. Gillis, for the record, if you could either turn on your mic, or pull it closer, or both. 

Mr. GILLIS. It was off. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF JACK GILLIS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 

CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. GILLIS. In addition to representing the Consumer Federation, 

I am also representing the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 

the Center for Auto Safety, Consumers Union, which is the policy 

and research arm of Consumer Reports, and Public Citizen. We are 

extremely grateful for your invitation to appear today. I would like 
11 

you to consider any of the following experiences, which happen 

every day. You back into a pole, you sideswipe your car, and fortunately, these fender benders generally do not result in injuries, but 

they do result in shocking repair costs. Why does a fender bender 

have to cost $2,000 to $3,000 to get your car fixed? Well, one reason is the cost of the parts that we need to get our cars repaired. 

For example, Ford charges the same price for a fender as Dell 

charges for a computer and a flat screen monitor. An unpainted 

door from Toyota costs the same as a Sears refrigerator, and that 

refrigerator comes with two doors already painted and already installed. 

In fact, a variety of products are cheaper and better today thanks 

to one thing, competition. In the early 1990’s, the car companies 

asked Congress for special design copyright patent protection on 

these replacement parts and Congress said no. Blatantly ignoring 

Congress’ admonition, there has been an enormous spike in the 

number of design patents by companies like Honda, Toyota, and 

Ford. For these companies to come before you today and say that 

suddenly, these parts are patentable, when for years and years 

they were not, is both disingenuous and extraordinarily costly for 

the American consumer. This is a newfound business strategy, not 

a legitimate use of U.S. patents. The competition that the car companies are trying to kill lowers prices, provides choice, and improves quality. When we plunk down our hard-earned dollars for 

a new car, we are buying a car, not a lifetime of indenture to the 

car companies to buy their brand of parts. 

Regarding the safety of these parts, the very organization cited 

by the car companies, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 

did address this issue, and determined in both low-speed damage 

tests and high-speed crash safety tests, that alternative parts, 

CAPA certified to be the same, in fact performed nearly identically. 

I have been fighting for safer cars for over 35 years, and I find it 

bizarre that the car companies are coming before this Committee 

to allege that their illicit use of design patents is for safety reasons. 

This very Congress has caught these car companies red-handed, 

foisting unsafe air bags, ignition switches, and other defects on 

their very own customers. In fact, in addition to cheating on fuel 

economy standards for the last 2 years, about three times as many 

cars have been recalled as have been actually sold. The most tragic 

irony of the lack of competition is what I call the automaker’s double whammy. Not only can the car companies charge whatever they 

want for the parts that we need to fix our cars, but when they 

charge so much that the car is totaled, our only recourse is to go 

back to them and buy another one of their products. Imagine that 

business model. 

And here is the icing on the cake. In spite of all of their admonitions against competitive parts, Ford, GM, and Chrysler have all 

entered into special agreements, specifically allowing independent 

manufacturers to make their patented parts with no oversight or 

specifications. Are not these the very parts that they are railing 

against? Nevertheless, because of these patents, they are getting 

royalties for the manufacture of the very parts they are telling this 

Committee should not exist. That, to me, is the height of hypocrisy. 

So we applaud Representatives Issa and Lofgren for introducing 
12 

H.R. 1057. It is a step forward in protecting the American consumer from being forced to pay unfair prices to fix our own cars, 

while still enabling the car companies to retain the design patent 

protection on the overall vehicle. So on behalf of the Consumer 

Federation of America, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the Center for Auto Safety, Consumers Union, and Public Citizen, I strongly urge Congress to adopt the repair clause to the design patent law. And we thank you very much for providing us 

with the opportunity to discuss this issue we did today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gillis follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. Ms. Burris? 

TESTIMONY OF KELLY K. BURRIS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

ATTORNEY, BURRIS LAW, PLLC 

Ms. BURRIS. Good afternoon, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member 

Nadler, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to be here today, and to share my views 

on another version of the PARTS Act, the PARTS Act of 2015, on 

none other than Groundhogs Day. I cannot be the only one that noticed that, right? So I have serious concerns with the legislation 

and the impact it would have in three primary areas. First of all 

is jobs, good, high paying, white-collar jobs. Second, as we have all 

been discussing, the safety, and the quality of the vehicles. And 

third, more important to me, is the impact it would have on our 

legal system, and more specifically, the degradation of our patent 

systems. So jobs, briefly, which was set forth in more detail in my 

written statement, in the United States, this is a hub for industrial 

designers in the United States for automotive vehicle design. You 

have 15 OEMs with 21 design centers in the United States, in 

Michigan, in Ohio, and in California. Those design centers employ 

roughly 30,000 industrial designers and there is to the tune of billions of dollars being spent in the United States on the look of that 

car, something that is eye pleasing to the consumers. 

And so, this is a hub for industrial designers here in the United 

States. And in a time when we are pushing STEM education to our 

youth, I just find it odd that we are pushing students to go that 

direction, but yet devaluating what it is that an industrial designer 

produces as a result of their engineering efforts. So number two is 

the safety and quality, which we will I know talk about more. And 

one of the things I do not think we have really flushed out a lot 

is we are not looking at these parts in a vacuum. These parts, 

these exterior parts of the vehicle, are part of an overall system. 

And as the automotive manufacturers are putting collision avoidance technology into the vehicles, lane avoidance, lane detection, 

there are sensors all over the car. And are we looking at the interaction between those sensors and the exterior parts? And what if 

you replace a part that does not have the same quality standards, 

will it function the same with the rest of the system? And as we 

move toward autonomous vehicles, I think that situation gets a little more intense, so that is something I think we should have a 

conversation around. Third and more important to me as a patent 

attorney is, okay, so we carve out this exception for repair parts. 

What is next? I drop my smartphone on the floor. I have to get it 

repaired. It is too expensive. Do we go to Apple and Samsung and 

say, ‘‘Hey, guys, guess what? We are going to take away your design patents, too’’ because they have many more design patents, 

and I would love to look at a curve of what their design patents 

look like in that industry, especially after the Apple-Samsung case. 

Secondly, I think the practical impact of the 30 months is really—amounts to much less than 30 months if any term whatsoever, 

because it is from the date of the offer for sale, and automotive 

manufacturers, any design patent applicant does not have that design patent in hand as soon as they go launch their product at an 

auto show, at a trade show, off to the trimmers. So by the time the 
21 

consumer gets in the car and hits the road, I do not think you are 

going to see any patent term at all, so that 2-1/2 years does not— 

it is not 2-1/2 years from a practical standpoint. The language of 

the bill also talks about motor vehicles. It is not automobiles. We 

are talking about motorcycles, scooters, farm equipment. If you 

look at Caterpillar, Harley-Davidson, they own hundreds of design 

patents themselves, so this is reaching into other industries besides 

automotive. So that is another concern that I have. And I know 

that there has been discussions about this type of legislation being 

enacted in Australia and also in Europe, but I have not seen any 

facts to show what impact that is having in those countries. And 

I will also note that the deliberations in the European Union, they 

are talking about making sure that those parts are being marked 

and that there is compensation to the original design patent owner. 

So I will stop my remarks there, and I thank you for your time, 

and I look forward to our discussions today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Burris follows:] 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, and I will mention that I had to get on 

three airplanes, one after another, and get off of them before I finally got on the plane that brought me here, so I feel groundhog 

is with us. Ms. Felder? 

TESTIMONY OF PAT FELDER, OWNER AND FOUNDER, 

FELDER’S COLLISION PARTS, INC. 

Ms. FELDER. Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Nadler, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, I am Pat Felder. My husband and 

I own Felder’s Collision Parts in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Felders 

is a small business, which has been making quality, lower-cost, 

aftermarket collision repair parts available in the marketplace 

since 1987. At the outset, I would also like to thank Chairman Issa 

and Representative Lofgren for their bipartisan leadership in sponsoring the PARTS Act, as well as the other House Judiciary Committee co-sponsors of this bill. I am testifying on behalf of all of the 

independent aftermarket distributors throughout the country, who 

have, like Felder’s, been on the front lines of the car companies’ efforts to eliminate competition through design patent enforcement. 

It has been a gut-wrenching experience having to lay off good, longterm employees who are all like family. 

To help frame this issue, if you have ever been in a fender bender, and at that time you had your car repaired, you have benefited 

from competition in the collision repair part marketplace, whether 

you knew it or not. This competition has existed for decades between the car companies and the aftermarket industry. The collision repair parts to which I am referring are cosmetic in nature; 

the exterior parts of a car, such as a fender, a hood, or a grill; generally speaking, these parts are not structural or safety-related 

parts. The purpose of these parts is to restore the vehicle’s original, 

pre-accident appearance. These are must-match parts that leave no 

room for innovation by alternative suppliers. The car companies 

currently have two-thirds of the collision repair market, while alternative suppliers have about 14 percent, with salvage making up 

the difference. Despite our relatively small market share, the competition that we provide is important because alternatively-supplied collision repair parts typically are 26 to 50 percent less expensive than the car company parts. But even if a consumer uses a 

more expensive car company part, the competitive marketplace has 

caused companies, car companies, to lower their collision part 

prices. The estimated total benefit to consumers from the availability of alternative parts is approximately $1.5 billion per year. 

Despite the benefit of competition, some car companies are seeking to eliminate competition, and expand their dominant share of 

the market by obtaining 14-year design patents on their collision 

parts, and enforcing them against alternative suppliers. In 2005 

and 2008, Ford filed design patent infringement complaints at the 

International Trade Commission against aftermarket suppliers of 

collision repair parts for the F-150 pickup truck and Mustang, respectively. Ultimately, these suits resulted in an exclusive settlement by which one of the aftermarket competitors must pay a royalty to Ford for every Ford aftermarket part it sells, a cost that will 

be passed along to the consumer. And for all of the aftermarket 

suppliers like Felder’s, who are not part of this exclusive settle-
31 

ment with Ford, we are at risk of design patent infringement suits 

if we continue to sell these parts as we have done in the past. As 

a result, Ford effectively created a duopoly, diminishing competition in the repair parts marketplace for owners of Fords. Since that 

time, Chrysler and General Motors have followed Ford’s lead. 

The impact of eliminating competition in the collision repair market falls directly on consumers in several ways. $1.5 billion would 

be added to insured automobile repair costs every year, resulting 

in higher premiums. Consumers paying out of pocket might choose 

to forego repairs, and higher repair costs may increase the likelihood of a vehicle being declared a total loss. The impact would be 

much greater on those of low income or fixed income consumers 

who can least afford it. Moreover, the average consumer keeps 

their vehicle for 11 or more years, and it depends on the competitive repair marketplace, not only for the affordable quality repairs, 

but also to the extent that the car companies no longer can sell 

these certain or do sell these certain collision parts. We are not 

here today to advocate for the use of one part over another. We believe that the PARTS Act will preserve competition in the market 

for collision repair parts and benefit consumers by helping to keep 

the cost of car ownership as low as possible. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Felder follows:] 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. Mr. Risley. 

TESTIMONY OF DAN RISLEY, PRESIDENT, 

AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. RISLEY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Dan Risley. 

Mr. ISSA. We are going to need you just a little closer to the 

microphone. 

Mr. RISLEY. Closer to the microphone. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. RISLEY. My name is Dan Risley, and I am the president of 

the Automotive Service Association, and I am here today representing our association. ASA is the largest not-for-profit trade association of its kind, dedicated to and governed by automotive service and collision repair professionals. ASA serves an international 

membership base and includes numerous affiliate state and chapter groups from both the collision and mechanical repair segments 

of the automotive service industry. Prior to ASA, I worked at a 

family-owned collision repair facility, served as the executive director of another automotive association, as well as spent a number 

of years at Allstate Insurance Company. ASA has a long history of 

working with insurance companies, and ensuring our customers the 

best possible repair experience after an accident. ASA is supportive 

of insured direct repair programs, provided the vehicle owner has 

a choice and is properly informed of it. Many of our leaders serve 

on direct program repair advisory boards of State and national insurance companies, including myself. 

Many years ago, I participated on a top three insurance carrier’s 

advisory panel. Although we work closely with insurers, we are 

mindful that our customers’ vehicles are our first priority, and that 

these vehicles must be safely and properly repaired. We do have 

concerns when some insurers insist on repairs that are simply 

cheaper and quicker without regard to quality and safety. This is 

not to imply that all insurance carriers are the same. There is a 

difference between standard and non-standard. That is why my 

board of directors, made up of repair shop owners from across the 

U.S., wanted to meet to testify here today before you. 

The automobile is the second most expensive purchase made by 

Americans. Although the automobile is a major part of most Americans’ daily lives, few vehicle owners know much about collision repair. After an accident, other than contacting law enforcement or 

other emergency personnel, the vehicle owner contacts their insurance company for help and direction. Unfortunately, very few consumers have any knowledge about the types of crash parts used to 

repair their vehicles, and there are numerous parts choices in the 

marketplace, such as original equipment manufacturer parts, certified and non-certified aftermarket parts, remanufactured, and recycled. The fundamental language used in this bill would systematically validate any and all aftermarket parts to be the equivalent 

of an OEM part. In section 2 of the bill it states, ‘‘So as to restore 

such vehicle to its appearance as originally manufactured.’’ This is 

impossible unless, of course, there is a standard by which all the 

aftermarket parts companies are required to meet. We have several 

standard settings parts certifiers in the marketplace today, CAPA 
40 

being one, and NSF being another, and it is supported and endorsed, recognized by the industry, both collision and insurers. 

CAPA was created in the 1980’s because there was no standard. 

There were no requirements, no monitoring of aftermarket parts. 

It was the equivalent of the wild, wild West. Having worked in a 

family-owned collision repair facility, I can assure you that we ordered, and I have personally installed, many parts in the early ’80’s 

when CAPA did not exist. These parts that were deemed to be 

OEM equivalent were later deemed to be inferior in terms of fit 

and function. Although an aftermarket part looks the same as an 

OEM, it does not mean it is the equivalent of an OEM-quality part. 

It does not mean that the part has the same corrosion resistance, 

metallurgical properties, or that it will perform the same in a subsequent accident, similar to how an OEM would perform. Certification helps to eliminate or narrow those gaps. Although parts certification is not perfect, it does positively impact parts quality. I 

have spent several years chairing a Committee, working with the 

Taiwanese aftermarket parts manufacturers as well as their government. One of the biggest challenges for the Taiwanese was the 

U.S. marketplace and balancing the cost versus quality. The fact 

is, certified parts do cost more to produce. Certification not only is 

important but critical to this debate. 

Under the current language in H.R. 1057, providing a faster, less 

expensive path for aftermarket crash parts manufacturers to put 

non-certified parts in the marketplace will both harm both consumers and small businesses. It has been proven through many 

years of collision repair’s trial and error that the vast majority of 

non-certified parts are inferior in many aspects, not only to the 

OEM, but also to the equivalent, certified aftermarket part. 

Aftermarket crash parts manufacturers will manufacture parts to 

achieve the lowest cost in an effort to sell the parts inexpensively 

to distributors in the U.S. demanding a low-cost basis. I have personally witnessed aftermarket parts, non-certified, that did not 

have holes where there are supposed to be holes to fasten it to the 

vehicle. I have personally witnessed parts that have additional 

holes, where there was not supposed to be any to fasten it to the 

vehicle. I have witnessed parts that were not of the same metallurgical thickness, parts that were significantly lighter, and prone to 

dent, missing brackets, missing headlamp parts, wrong color, improper reflective properties. When parts do not fit or there are 

other issues, collision shops have to return the parts to the distributor. These returns add cost to the collision repair process as 

well as delay the repair. 

Whether it is legislation being discussed today or in mandates 

that insurers place on collision parts facilities such as where to buy 

parts, insurers will argue that these initiatives lower premium 

costs. We do not see where these parts savings are passed onto consumers. It is a good soundbite, but the consumer will continue to 

be the loser in this equation. 

I want to leave you with a few key points. Number one, a free 

and open marketplace does not entail enacting a law that states 

aftermarket parts are equal to OEM. This should be decided by the 

people actually purchasing the parts. Competition is good. There is 

a need for alternative parts such as certified aftermarket parts, re-
41 

cycled, remanufactured, used. Legislating competition so that Company X and Y are equal is similar to legislating that Walmart 

shirts are similar to something you might see at Macy’s just because it looked the same online in a picture. You may hear or have 

heard testimony here today about these parts being cosmetic. I can 

assure you, a hood is not a cosmetic part. A hood is designed to 

crumple. In the event that the hood should fail to crumple, the 

hood is going to be pushed into the windshield and into the occupants. If it does not fold like an accordion—I am going to close it 

up. We ask the Committee to consider the implication this legislation will have on the consumer and small business. We ask the 

subcommittee to oppose the PARTS Act. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Committee today, and thank you very 

much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Risley follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Mr. ISSA. I thank you. We have a number of Members that have 

to go to the floor, so what I am going to do is I am going to take 

the liberty of, without objection, calling on Members that must 

leave for the floor out of order. If anyone objects, please let me 

know. Otherwise, I am going to try to accommodate Members that 

I know have to leave. With that, I will go to my Ranking Member, 

Mr. Nadler, first. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, and I appreciate this. I do have to go 

to the floor to debate an amendment shortly. Mr. Gillis, what is the 

rationale for singling out just the auto parts industry for special 

treatment under the patent laws, and do you worry about the 

precedent that this bill would set by limiting patent protection for 

one narrow category of items? 

Mr. GILLIS. Yes, that is a possibility. I think that overall there 

are probably a number of industry areas that could use this type 

of repair clause for manufacturers. 

Mr. NADLER. What is the rationale for singling out this industry? 

Mr. GILLIS. Well, at this point right now, it is one of the most 

expensive items that consumers experience on a day-to-day basis. 

When you back into a pole and it costs you $3,000 or $4,000. 

Mr. NADLER. It is very expensive. That is the rationale. And the 

other rationales? 

Mr. GILLIS. That is right. Expense is the key rationale. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay, and why now? Why not 20 years ago, or, I 

mean, why are we seeing this now? 

Mr. GILLIS. Well, 20 years ago, the car companies came before 

Congress, and Congress said, ‘‘No,’’ so thankfully, to Representative 

Issa and Representative Lofgren, we have raised this issue again. 

Mr. NADLER. But they have not changed? In other words, I 

thought you said that there was a change recently. 

Mr. GILLIS. Yes. As you see from that chart over there, there is 

an exponential increase in the number of parts that are being designed patent by the car companies. 

Mr. NADLER. But the change in the behavior of the auto companies in exercising these patents. 

Mr. GILLIS. Exactly. 

Mr. NADLER. And what sort of protections are in place or should 

be in place to ensure the quality and safety of generic repair parts? 

Mr. GILLIS. Well, first and foremost, the parts should be certified 

to be functionally equivalent to the car company brand parts. 

Mr. NADLER. Certified by whom? 

Mr. GILLIS. Well, there is at least one agency that I am familiar 

with called the Certified Automotive Parts Association. It has been 

around since 1987, and in the interests of full disclosure, I am the 

executive director of that nonprofit group. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Burris, I am sorry. We have 

heard about the potential threat to safety that generic repair parts 

may pose. Can you point to any studies that document that there 

are in fact such risks? 

Ms. BURRIS. Well, I believe there were some studies pointed out 

in a written statement that I submitted. I have also gathered information from the automotive companies that, for example, a bumper 

and the material that it is made out of is designed to absorb energy 
49 

from a crash, and in one specific instance there was a design with 

I believe some continuous glass fibers in the bumper. 

Mr. NADLER. That is one specific. 

Ms. BURRIS. Yeah. 

Mr. NADLER. Is there data to show the generic parts involved in 

accidents have a greater rate than parts made by the manufacturers? 

Ms. BURRIS. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. There is? 

Ms. BURRIS. Yes, and as a matter of fact, there are reports in my 

written statement, and I would be glad to follow up with additional 

reports. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay, and according to estimates referred today, 

auto manufacturers control more than 70 percent of the market for 

repair parts. If the industry continues to enforce these design patents against generic parts, it could achieve a near-monopoly. Without competition, how can consumers be sure they are receiving a 

fair price for these products, if we are not to pass this bill? 

Ms. BURRIS. Well, there are options for the consumers. The consumers can use refurbished parts. They can repair the parts. There 

are a lot of technologies you can use to repair. You can also make 

the design look different. 

Mr. NADLER. All right. Let me ask one last question. Under current law, design patents and auto repair parts receive 14 years of 

protection against infringement. Most consumers do not own their 

cars for that long. Does this not effectively provide car companies 

a lifetime protection against competition for repair parts in most 

instances, and if this bill, if 30 months is too short, I think somebody said 30 months is too—I think you said. 

Ms. BURRIS. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. It does not go into effect right away, is there some 

other period greater than 30 months but less than 14 years that 

might be a fair solution, and how would you determine that? 

Ms. BURRIS. Well, my concern with reducing it to any term below 

14 years is, what other exceptions are going to be made for other 

industries? That is what I worry about. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay, I understand that generic argument. I made 

it myself, but talking about design patents, one argument you 

made was that—I mean, there are two things here. One, people do 

not own cars for 14 years, and that would seem to argue against 

the 14-year patent, and two, you said that—I should not say nobody owns a car for 14 years. My father did, but most people do 

not. 

Ms. BURRIS. I do. 

Mr. NADLER. But that is number one, and number two, you 

pointed out that under this bill, it does not go into effect right 

away, that is 30 months after. 

Ms. BURRIS. It is retroactive. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Would there be a different period longer than 

30 months but under 14 years that might be a more fair resolution? 

Ms. BURRIS. Yeah, I think that is a question that the automotive 

companies should try to answer. From a legal policy standpoint, I 
50 

would not, I do not, again I worry about what that would do in 

other areas. 

Mr. NADLER. So your basic argument is uniformity of the patent 

law? 

Ms. BURRIS. Pardon me? 

Mr. NADLER. Your basic argument is uniformity across different 

areas of the patent law? 

Ms. BURRIS. Right, because as soon as you make an exception, 

right? 

Mr. NADLER. Got it. Thank you. I thank the Chairman for allowing me to question out of order. 

Mr. ISSA. I very much thank you for your comments and input. 

At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the following documents be placed in the record. The statement by Robert 

L. Lyon, president and CEO of Rockingham Group, and others. 

Without objections, so ordered. And a second document, 

‘‘Aftermarket Shock: The High Cost of Auto Parts Protectionism,’’ 

by Brian Garst, 2016. Without objection, so ordered. Additionally, 

I will ask that design patent number 352685, dated 1994, and design patent 345317, March 22, 1994, be placed in the record, and 

I will note I was the designer of those and may just choose to ask 

questions on that. And with that, I would like to go to Mr. Collins, 

who also has to go to the floor. 

[The material referred to follows:] 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Mr. COLLINS. And I do appreciate it, Chairman. It is always good 

to be with the Chairman. This Committee I think is really hitting 

on one of the biggest parts, but I will also not that the patents that 

just got admitted into by unanimous consent also were good for 14 

years, so that is an aspect, which is good and which it needs to be. 

I think there are some aspects about this bill that are good. There 

are some aspects that need to be discussed, but there are also some 

very disturbing, you know, questions. Ms. Burris, you brought up 

some. Mr. Gillis, we are going to get to some. The heart of this, 

though, and I want to get back to this, and Ms. Burris, I will just 

start with you. If you take the premise of the bill as correct, okay, 

which I have no doubt the authors, you know, in looking at it and 

I think there are some ways that we can work together. I have 

some specific concerns about language in the bill, but I think there 

are some possibilities we can work on. The premise of the bill is, 

do consumers lack affordable options in the marketplace due in full 

to ornamental design patent protections? If you take the premise 

of the bill, that is what the premise of the bill basically is because 

we have heard about it already. It is money. Mr. Gillis just said 

that, so is that true? 

Ms. BURRIS. No, it is not true. The consumers have choices. They 

can go with refurbished parts, remanufactured parts, they can repair the parts. And, you know, from my perspective as a patent attorney, they just need to make it look a little different, and then 

it will not be infringing the design patent. 

Mr. COLLINS. Right. 

Ms. BURRIS. It is not that tough. 

Mr. COLLINS. No, it is not, and I think—well, take that a step 

further, and even if the cost differential of the parts is different, 

there is no evidence that consumers directly would save money if 

this bill is enacted. 

Ms. BURRIS. That is correct. The last hearing that we had, I believe the testimony was that consumers’ insurance premiums would 

not go down. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay, and I think Mr. Gillis, I would think you 

would disagree, but is there hard and fast evidence that consumers 

will save money post-enactment of this legislation? 

Mr. GILLIS. Absolutely. When you look at the comparative cost of 

an OEM part to an aftermarket part, it is phenomenally different, 

and that is what consumers pay for if they are crashing the car 

themselves and paying for it themselves, or it is being incorporated 

into their insurance premiums. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay, and I think you take a major leap of faith 

there, which I am a man of faith, so I will go with your leap of 

faith. 

Mr. GILLIS. Thank you. 

Mr. COLLINS. I could understand if I was buying it myself, like 

my Honda has a broke front end right now. Zip ties work wonderful, but if I did it myself, then I possibly could save money there, 

but if I depend on the insurance company to pass their savings 

along to me, can you honestly sit here under oath and say that I 

am going to see savings from my insurance company? 

Mr. GILLIS. Well, I think you are already seeing those savings because most insurance companies do already use aftermarket parts. 
72 

Mr. COLLINS. Exactly, but you are extrapolating there, if this bill 

was enacted, that that would happen. 

Mr. GILLIS. Well, I think you have extrapolated the opposite way, 

and you would probably see insurance premiums raised if these 

parts were not available to the marketplace. 

Mr. COLLINS. I think that is the wonderful thing for these hearings is discussions and disagreements such as that. But in your 

written testimony, I do have an interesting question, and this 

will—and I am going to sort of finish up here because, like I said, 

I think the Chairman and Ms. Lofgren, who I have the greatest respect for, there is some ideas here that we might could work for, 

but in your written testimony, you make a comment, and it is on 

page three of your written testimony. It says, ’’Not only do customers have the right to competition, they both have the right to 

safe and high quality competitive parts.’’ I am just curious. Where 

are you getting a right to competition? 

Mr. GILLIS. Well, I think that is a fundamental right of the 

American capitalistic marketplace that has caused consumers great 

benefit over the years and taking away competition from the consumer is un-American. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I mean we can debate American or un-American, but really when you say a ‘‘right,’’ you are implying almost 

a legal concept here, and I think that is an interesting way to hyperbole to put that. 

Mr. GILLIS. I am implying a fundamental right to choice, a fundamental right to options in the marketplace, and that fundamental right is also one of the biggest benefits that corporate 

America experiences when they offer us different products. 

Mr. COLLINS. So conversely, for someone such as myself, who believes that a strong and robust patent system actually encourages 

creation and not discourages creation, would you agree with me 

that patent owners have a right to enforce their patents? 

Mr. GILLIS. They have a right to enforce those patents when 

those patents are legitimate, but in the case of this particular situation, I would like your opinion as to why all of a sudden, all of 

these parts are patentable, when 10 years ago they were not. 

Mr. COLLINS. Were they patentable 10 years ago? 

Mr. GILLIS. Look at the list. 

Mr. COLLINS. They were. They chose not to. 

Mr. GILLIS. And they chose not to patent them. 

Mr. COLLINS. And again—— 

Mr. GILLIS. Why are they choosing to patent them today? They 

are choosing to patent them today because that is a way to limit 

competition. 

Mr. COLLINS. So as a conservative who believes in free markets, 

you are going to run to the government to say, ‘‘Government, put 

your thumb on the scale.’’ Mr. Gillis, I think that is a problem, and 

you make a business choice either way. I believe this bill has merit. 

I believe there are some things we can work on to move forward 

on this. But frankly, there is some concern here when you distinguish patents and you do this in such a way that you do it—as you 

said before, it is all about money. There are also rights of the patent holders and the protection we afford to them, so I look forward 

to continuing the discussion. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. 
73 

Mr. ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COLLINS. Always. 

Mr. ISSA. I know you have to go, but before you go, I will just 

mention for example those two fenders that are down front. We 

brought them in for a reason. One is live, one is Memorex. Unless 

you look at the label, you probably will not notice the difference. 

Mr. COLLINS. Can I get one for my Honda? 

Mr. ISSA. Absolutely, absolutely. The gentlelady from Louisiana 

can help you. 

Mr. COLLINS. Which speaking of which, by the way, thank you 

for being here. I always enjoy these panels, and when you have actually someone here who does the business every day, the one who 

gets up and writes the payroll checks and comes to—I love the 

other testifying witnesses, but when you have got someone like 

yourself, we may disagree in parts on this, but thank you for actually keeping America’s economy running. Thank you. 

Ms. FELDER. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA. But one of the things that we are going to dig into as 

we go further into the bill is that were these thousands, tens of 

thousands of design patents evaluated based on not the ornamental 

entirety, but the ornamental pieces, then the rules of distinct ornamental nature would have to be searched by the PTO, by the examiners, and this is one of the tests they currently do not do. In other 

words, when a certain car looks a lot like another car and then a 

particular part looks a whole lot like another part, at what point 

is it novel and new? And this is one of the challenges of—this is 

design. This legislation is designed not to take on the hard part of 

making the patent office evaluate the distinct nature of a mirror 

or other parts, so we will get into more of it, but I wanted to make 

sure that your concerns were allied, that we are not—allayed, that 

we are not planning on—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, and I think the Chairman brings up a great 

point. If you really want to get into the overall patent issue, which 

we have, you and I have, talked about many times, we have to 

have good, robust patent systems that are actually examined. The 

problem we have right now is patents that can be challenged because they frankly are bogus patents, and that goes across the 

spectrum. You brought up a great point, Mr. Chairman. That is the 

reason we have this, and it is a pleasure to be on the Committee 

with you. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. RISLEY. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. ISSA. Well, I apologize, but that colloquy exceeds by far the 

Ranking Members’ time, so we will give you time, but not at this 

moment. Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to 

enter into the record the following two letters. One is from original 

equipment manufacturers, labor unions, automotive trade associations, and the Intellectual Property Owners Association opposing 

this legislation. The other is a letter from the American Bar Association, IP law section. 

[The material referred to follows:] 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 

Mr. ISSA. Without objection, and I would stop the clock. I apologize. The gentleman has to leave. I just wanted to let him if he had 

anything to say, since he has been very patient. If you have something, I did not mean to cut you off. 

Mr. RISLEY. No, not at all, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I have a family medical emergency, and I have to fly home, and so if it is okay 

I would like to—— 

Mr. ISSA. Well, you and your family will be in our prayers, and 

thank you very much for being here today. 

Mr. RISLEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Quite all right. Thank you. Could I ask Attorney 

Burris about the ability to receive patent protection for an invention encourages innovation? It provides an incentive to create new 

products or improve upon other products. How would this legislation, in your view, affect creativity and innovation? 

Ms. BURRIS. Well, I think it would significantly dampen that creativity. I mean, there is no incentive to create an invention, whether it be a design patent or utility patent or a plant patent under 

our systems. Where is the motivation to develop new technology, to 

advance that technology? I think I put a quote from Abraham Lincoln in my written statement. I mean, it is a fuel that provides incentive to develop new designs, new technology in our country and 

in countries around the world. 

Mr. CONYERS. And thank you. And how, Attorney Burris, would 

it impact jobs in the automotive manufacturing industry? 

Ms. BURRIS. Yeah, thank you. I talked a little bit earlier about 

the design centers in the United States. Industrial design is a little 

different beast than the traditional engineering that we are used 

to, mechanical, electrical, chemical, et cetera. There are very creative artist-type engineers, and there are, in the automotive industry, approximately 30,000 industrial designers that are working on, 

you know, the shape of your door handle on your car, the shape 

and the colors and the texturing of your side view mirrors, and 

there is not just one designer working on a car. There may be four 

designers working on just the handle. I mean, I see—I have gone 

to—I go to the auto show every year, and I see these really sharplooking designs on these cars, and those I know are products of industrial designers, so jobs in the United States, not just U.S. companies, but foreign: Honda, Toyota, just in my home state, Toyota 

and Hyundai put in research centers right between Ann Arbor and 

Detroit. These are industrial designers developing eye-pleasing cars 

for U.S. consumers, so 30,000. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thanks so much. What do you think if this legislation were to pass, other industries would request similar legislation 

to shorten patent protections? 

Ms. BURRIS. Well, you name it. Mr. Gillis might have that answer for us on what is more expensive. That should not be too expensive. Smartphones. Consumer apparel, I mean, look at the companies who get design patent protection, you know. You have the 

Hewlett-Packards and, you know, the shape of a printer, the Nikes, 

the Apples, the Samsungs. It could go on and on forever. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now supporters of this bill might argue that these 

are just patents on the look and style of the exterior car parts, so 
79 

they do not need usual patent term protections. Do you think they 

are correct? 

Ms. BURRIS. Well, there are laws—our laws provide—well, it is 

actually now 15 years since we signed up to the Hague, but our design patent protection is 15 years to the date of issue of that patent 

versus utility patents, which is 20 years from the date of filing the 

patent application, so there is a different patent term depending on 

whether it is a design or utility patent. 

Mr. CONYERS. Let’s see, Mr. Risley has left. Let’s see. Mr. Gillis, 

I am concerned that the consumer safety could be threatened if this 

legislation were to pass. Do we have Federal laws in place that 

would ensure that replacement parts from independent vendors or 

overseas vendors would meet the high safety standards that we 

would place on automobile manufacturers here in the United 

States? 

Mr. GILLIS. Well, thank you, Representative Conyers. As you well 

know, I am one of America’s leading auto safety advocates, and this 

is of great concern to me. The good news is that all of these parts 

are subject to the same recall requirements that car company 

brand parts would be subject to. In addition, with the concept of 

reverse engineering, it is relatively straightforward to make a part 

that is functionally equivalent to the car company parts, and finally, the industry that is probably most concerned about auto 

safety is the insurance industry, not only because they may be good 

guys, but because it is in their best interests to keep personal injury claims down, and as a result they created the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which has tested parts that have been 

certified to be the same, and they perform the same in both lowspeed and high-speed crash tests, so I do not think Representative, 

you have to be concerned about the safety issue, as long as the 

manufacturer has been certified to be the same as the car company 

brand part. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, and we will now go to the gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. Ms. Felder, I understand that there has 

been uptick in number of design patents that the auto industries 

have filed over the years. In addition, companies like Ford began 

filing infringement complaints at the International Trade Commission. The complaints were filed against aftermarket suppliers of 

collision repair parts for popular and iconic cars like the F-150 and 

the Mustang. What are the outcomes of these cases, and how have 

they affected the overall market? Is it more difficult to find 

aftermarket parts for these cars today compared to years past? 

Ms. FELDER. Are we talking about the settlement cases? 

Ms. CHU. Yes. 

Ms. FELDER. Yes? Okay. The terms of the infringement patent 

suits, settlement has made the parts in question more expensive 

since only one aftermarket distributor in the country has the exclusive right to sell these aftermarket parts. They are paying royalties 

in order to be able to do so. That cost is passed on to the consumer. 

It is not absorbed by the distributor. That in turn is creating a 

problem for the repair industry. We are not allowed to supply these 

parts. We would be sued for infringement if we were to buy the 
80 

parts from Ford, Chrysler, and now General Motors. Of course, our 

contention is, this is indeed a slippery slope. Pretty soon, we will 

not be able to do it for Toyota or Honda or any of the other parts 

that are made, so consequently, by allowing this patent situation 

to continue, we know that it has significantly diminished the competition and has created a duopoly. 

Ms. CHU. And you have stated that your own company cease and 

desist letters from a number of car companies who warned you of 

your infringement liability risk if you continue with your business. 

How did you react when you received these warnings, and what are 

you doing to address them? 

Ms. FELDER. The distributor that has the exclusive licensing 

agreement is allowed to resell those parts. We do not prefer to buy 

them because there is no economic incentive to do so. By the time 

we purchase the parts for the price that we have to pay, put them 

in a truck, get them to the customer, we often have lost money. We 

have done it because we have certain customers that have asked 

us to do it. They know it is going to cost a little more. We have 

to at least try to cover the cost of doing so, but we would prefer 

not to sell these parts. We have received a letter from Chrysler saying that we had—a cease and desist letter. It cost us over $3,000 

to hire a patent attorney to answer this letter and state we were 

purchasing the parts from the licensed distributor who had the 

right to sell those parts to us. They did not just take our word for 

it, so we had to go to the expense of paying a patent attorney to 

represent us in this case. 

Ms. CHU. Okay. Thank you, and Mr. Gillis, you are urging Congress to address the automakers misuse of design patents on their 

crash replacement parts. Can you explain how you believe design 

patents are being misused by the auto industry? 

Mr. GILLIS. Well, first and foremost, I think the evidence is in 

this chart over to my left. All of a sudden, in an effort to disrupt 

the competitive marketplace, the car companies are starting to put 

design patents on these individual parts. There is nothing more 

special about these parts today than 15 years ago, but they have 

taken on the design issue or design patent issue as a business 

strategy rather than a legitimate means to protect the design of an 

individual part. The second issue is that by putting these patents 

on individual parts, they are preventing me as a consumer from 

having a variety of choices when I go out to get my car repaired. 

As I said in my testimony, I bought the car. I did not necessarily 

want to become an indentured buyer to the car company for the 

rest of that car’s life. I want choice. 

Ms. CHU. Okay. Thank you. Well, if I could have Ms. Burris respond to the same thing? 

Mr. ISSA. Of course. 

Ms. BURRIS. Sure. About the rise in the number of design patents? 

Ms. CHU. Well, of this claim that design patents are being misused. 

Ms. BURRIS. Right. Well, I mean, under our patent laws, our design patents cover an ornamental article of manufacture, so that is 

in our laws, and anyone who applies for a design patent is entitled 

to protection, provided it meets the requirements of the patent of-
81 

fice. I think a couple of things are going on with the rise in the 

number of patents that you see, design patents. I think that number one, first of all, the parts are not the same as they were 15 

years ago. They are much more advanced technologically with new 

materials, with integration with other sensor systems in the car, 

and the styling of the cars is much more attractive than it used to 

be 15 years ago. I think that offshore companies are able to make 

those parts very quickly with digital scanning technologies. They 

do not have to cut a tool or a mold. They scan the part. They have 

got a tool automatically, and they can chunk out parts very quickly, so there became—I think there came in this influx, which is 

why it went to the IFTC of parts that were basically copied, so that 

was a response to, I think in part, a response to the influx of parts 

that were being copied overseas. 

Secondly, and I am actually going to do this when I get back 

home when I have time. Design patents overall have taken off. 

They really have shot up at a much higher rate than they have in 

the past overall, and there are statistics at the patent office that 

you can see, and I think ever since that Apple-Samsung case, design patents are—they are kind of in vogue right now. A lot of people are filing more and more design patents, and it is not just the 

automotive companies. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. We will now go to the gentleman from New 

York. I am going to do cleanup so, you know, hang around, though. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and let me just 

thank the witnesses for their presence here today. Ms. Burris, you 

are opposed to this legislation, correct? 

Ms. BURRIS. That is correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And is your opposition anchored in large part to 

your view that there should be uniformity across the patent law 

system that we have in this country? 

Ms. BURRIS. Yeah, my primary objection is this carve-out, this 

exception for automotive repairs parts and where might that lead 

us after this? What else might be too expensive for the consumers? 

There has got to be another way to fix this. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, is there any precedent for this type of carveout as it relates to intellectual property law as you understand it? 

Ms. BURRIS. In the United States? 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Yes. 

Ms. BURRIS. Outside of pharmaceuticals and generics, I am not 

aware of any. There is certainly not any in the design patent world. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, is there any concerns that you have as it relates to taking this approach in the automobile parts space? 

Ms. BURRIS. Oh, absolutely. As I mentioned earlier the shape, 

the look of the car has been—the car companies have spent a lot 

of money with their industrial designers to come up with that eyepleasing design, and now we are going to say, ‘‘Well, no, we are not 

going to allow you any protection on that.’’ I mean, it is a lot of 

effort that goes into these, you know, ‘‘repair parts.’’ It is more than 

that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And with respect to the legislation’s broad applicability, it is my understanding that this would be retroactive. Is that 

correct? 
82 

Ms. BURRIS. That is my read, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And so that means that it would apply to patents 

that have already been issued, right? 

Ms. BURRIS. Correct. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. As well as applications that are pending? 

Ms. BURRIS. Correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Could you just speak for a moment to the issue of 

the equity in sort of retroactively changing the length of time of a 

patent from I guess what would be 15 years down to 30 months? 

Ms. BURRIS. Well, sure. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Some of them already had a reasonable expectation based on existing law at the time of them getting the patent, 

of filing the application. 

Ms. BURRIS. Sure. I mean, when a patent applicant filed their 

application 5 years ago, the bargain was—I mean, that is the quid 

pro quo. I am going to disclose my design in return for a 14-year, 

which is now a 15-year, term. That is what you bargained for when 

you filed that patent application. That application that was filed 5 

years ago, if this bill were to go through, would be expired if it 

were—it would just be gone. It would evaporate. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Do you have a sense of whether there would be 

any sort of Fifth Amendment takings concerns in connection with 

retroactive application? 

Ms. BURRIS. Actually, I had not really thought about that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. If you have any thoughts subsequent to this 

hearing, I would be interested in you sharing those with me and 

or the Committee. Mr. Gillis, it is my understanding that you believe were this legislation to be enacted, that the cost savings that 

it would yield would inure to the benefits of the consumer. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. GILLIS. That is correct, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And so, you do not believe that the purported cost 

savings that would take place would not result in either the 

aftermarket car manufacturers yielding any additional profits or 

the insurance companies yielding those additional profits? It is 

your contention that the savings would be passed to the consumer, 

is that right? 

Mr. GILLIS. Well, first of all, it is important to note that the parts 

are here today, and consumers are benefitting from those parts 

being in the marketplace, and they are benefitting in two ways. 

They have access to less expensive parts, plus their very existence 

keeps the costs of the car company part in check. When you pull 

these parts out of the marketplace, there will be no reason for the 

car companies to keep their prices low. They will have a monopoly, 

and they can charge anything they want for those prices, so thankfully the parts are here, and thankfully consumers are benefitting 

from those parts. The problem with these patents laws is that they 

are now taking these parts out of the marketplace, and that is 

what is going to hurt consumers. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay, now if this legislation were to pass, would 

the insurance companies likely see an increase in their profit margin, separate and apart from the question of whether that thing 

gets passed along to the consumer, but are they likely to see an increase in their profit margin? 
83 

Mr. GILLIS. Right now, the—probably, there are few industries 

that are more competitive than the insurance industry. We consumers are shopping around like crazy for insurance policies, so if 

the insurance companies can keep their policy prices in check, they 

are going to be very happy to be able to do that, and if they can 

lower their prices, they certainly will because that is the way we 

are buying insurance these days if you see any of the ads on TV 

about which insurance company is the least expensive. So conversely, however, if these parts are pulled out of the marketplace, 

you are going to see substantial increases in the cost of getting cars 

repaired, and that cost will be simply passed right on to us either 

in higher insurance premiums, or if we do not have adequate insurance out of our own pockets. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. I am going to try and get through a lot of 

questions quickly. Ms. Burris, I am going to go through a couple 

with you because you made some interesting points, and I want to 

make sure we get them in the record. First of all, you made the 

point about 30 months not necessarily being 30 months. If it was 

30 months from the first sale, would that make a difference to you 

in the legislation, since you said they would not get 30 months? If 

they got 30 months, in other words, from first sale, would that matter to you? 

Ms. BURRIS. No. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay, so the fact that it is not—your concern is you 

want 14 years. Is that correct? 

Ms. BURRIS. Yeah, that is what the law says; 15 now, actually. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, that is what Congress made. 

Ms. BURRIS. Yeah. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay, how long is the patent on a dress? 

Ms. BURRIS. Pardon me? 

Mr. ISSA. How long is the patent on a dress? 

Ms. BURRIS. How long? 

Mr. ISSA. If a designer does a gown? 

Ms. BURRIS. Sure. 

Mr. ISSA. How long is the patent? 

Ms. BURRIS. It is 15 years from the date of issue. If it is filed 

on or after May 13th of 2015, it is now 15 years under the Hague 

agreement. 

Mr. ISSA. And that is something the United States did not have. 

We tried to have design legislation for dresses for years, right? 

Ms. BURRIS. I am not familiar with the years of legislation on 

dresses, no. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. 

Ms. BURRIS. All right, I am sorry. 

Mr. ISSA. The gentleman who once sat right here, Mr. Berman 

and I coauthored a bill to actually create a patent for designers, 

which they had in Europe and we did not. So let me get through 

a couple of quick questions. First of all, if we made it 14 years, you 

would be happy, is that right? 

Ms. BURRIS. The law, the design patent law—— 

Mr. ISSA. No, no. Just answer the question because you are here 

representing companies. You have talked about a lot beyond the 

scope of patents. 
84 

Ms. BURRIS. Well, I have an engineering background, as well. 

Mr. ISSA. You have talked about the auto companies, and you— 

but you have included a lot of material that it clearly came outside 

of patent law. Would you be happy with 14 years’ exclusivity? 

Ms. BURRIS. I would be happy with a term that the design patent 

laws provide—— 

Mr. ISSA. Yeah, the current law. 

Ms. BURRIS. The current law is now actually 15, but 14, yeah. 

It is 15 under the Hague. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Okay, but you are not happy with 30 months. 

Ms. BURRIS. No 

Mr. ISSA. Okay, so we are arguing over your level of happiness 

based on length. Let’s go through a few of these points. What about 

the fact that auto companies change their designs, and they change 

the arbitrarily for design reasons? Do you think a patent should go 

on even though a car is out of production? They are no longer making that vehicle. Do you think that should trigger any change in 

it? 

Ms. BURRIS. No. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay, is there anything that would cause you not to 

simply want greater exclusivity for the auto manufacturer? 

Ms. BURRIS. I am sticking to the language of the design patent 

laws. The 15 years is what we should—— 

Mr. ISSA. No, ma’am, I appreciate that, but I just want to know 

if your position is that you like the fact that as the auto companies 

are currently pushing the law through litigation, and particularly 

through the International Trade Commission, which is not an Article 3 court, they are trying to gain exclusivity for 15 years for each 

and every part of an automobile, and as they are increasing that 

and suing to get it, you are fine with that, right? 

Ms. BURRIS. I do believe a patent owner should be entitled to enforce their patent, yes. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay, well, let’s go through a fairly straightforward 

thing. Ms. Felder, you are an expert in the auto parts industry. 

You know about fenders and bumpers and so on. Now, you have 

got really good people, I am sure, in your company that deliver 

those pars, right? 

Ms. FELDER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. How often do they confuse the wrong part if they do 

not check the number closely because these fenders all look alike, 

and a lot of these parts look alike, right? 

Ms. FELDER. No, Mr. Chairman, they do not. The parts when you 

bring them, quite obviously, if they are wrong, it is very easy to 

see. We have two fenders here. If I brought in—these fenders are 

for a Malibu. If I were to bring in a fender for a Honda, you would 

be able to put it up and say, ‘‘This is not the same fender.’’ 

Mr. ISSA. Yeah, but that is not the standard for design patent. 

Ms. Burris, you have two patents in front of you. Looking at the 

siren patent that is in front of you, the one on the right, does it 

look like a siren? 

Ms. BURRIS. Well, the title says, ‘‘Siren,’’ so yes. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay, let’s be—— 

Ms. BURRIS. Now, I look at it. Now it looks like a siren. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. 
85 

Ms. BURRIS. Honestly, when I looked at this side, I thought, I 

wondered, if it was an ice cream maker, maybe because it is getting late in the day. 

Mr. ISSA. Now, there is a limitation on what that patent means 

under the law, right? The law, the law that you are so pleased with 

as it currently is, there is a limitation on that patent. What is the 

limitation of that patent? What does somebody get if they apply for 

that patent and receive it in 1994? 

Ms. BURRIS. This design patent covers the ornamental appearance of this article of manufacture, at this time 14 years from the 

date it issued. 

Mr. ISSA. Right, from date of issue of the old law. And so that 

is an exclusivity in its entirety, correct? 

Ms. BURRIS. What do you mean by in its entirety? 

Mr. ISSA. If it is substantially different but looks similar, it 

still—it is not patented, right? 

Ms. BURRIS. I am not sure I follow your question. You are talking 

about someone who might be trying to design around this patent? 

Mr. ISSA. Yeah, exactly, somebody can make an extremely similar product. As a matter of fact, that is similar to the sirens manufactured by every single auto security company and home security 

company in the world in that period of time. They pretty much all 

look the same, so what you really had there was a very narrow patent. Is that correct? 

Ms. BURRIS. I cannot say how narrow it is not knowing the prior 

art. I mean, there is some prior art listed here on the front, but 

I would have to take a closer look to see how broad or narrow it 

would be. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay, well, this brings up the point. What should be 

the standard, if not this legislation, which gives absolutely exclusivity and does not raise the test for these parts? What should be 

the test when a fender is basically very similar previous fender? In 

other words, if you have nothing—and I will go to Mr. Gillis because I have left him out—if the auto companies are in fact consistently adding a line, taking away a line, putting in a line, making 

a change, making it rounder, making it squarer, at what point 

should the patent office look back 50 years, even 100 years because 

the auto industry is now over 100 years old, and hold them to a 

high standard of whether or not the ornateness of that subpart of 

an automobile, not the entire automobile, but that subpart—is in 

fact de minimis over the prior art and thus not worthy of a design 

patent? 

Mr. GILLIS. Well, congressman, you know that our position actually is from day one, they should not be allowed to put design patents on these individual items. If it is wrong after 30 days, or if 

it is correct after 30 months plus one, it should be correct after plus 

one, so I think that where you are going with this is number one, 

we fully respect the design of the car should not be tampered with, 

and Ford should not be able to copy Chevy’s car at all, nor should 

Ford be able to build parts to copy a Chevrolet. The beauty of your 

legislation is that we call it a repair clause. These parts are designed to be repaired to allow the consumer to repair the car, not 

build a new car or make it look like the original car, but to repair 

their own car, and we need the freedom to be able to buy these 
86 

parts unencumbered at a reasonable price, so if the manufacturer 

wants to hold these designs for 14 years, and, as you suggest, then 

the next year slightly put another wave in it, then they get another 

14 years and another 14 years on top of that, again, we see that 

as an illicit use of very important design patent laws. 

Mr. ISSA. Ms. Burris, you are not as old as I am, so I am going 

to ask, are you familiar with the history of Xerox and other photocopy companies who have tried to design their products to prohibit 

people from essentially making the consumable parts that go into 

them? 

Ms. BURRIS. Oh, yes, I am very familiar with consumable part 

protection, yes. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. 

Ms. BURRIS. For not just Xerox, for other industries as well. 

Mr. ISSA. So the ability to have, if you will, quiet enjoyment of 

something you paid for, which includes the ability to, if you will, 

get toner with competition, you are familiar with that and you are 

comfortable with that. Is that right? 

Ms. BURRIS. Well, they spent a lot of money designing a product 

that, I mean, that they had patent protection on. They should be 

able to enforce the patent. 

Mr. ISSA. But they do not get design patent protection. They only 

get utility to the extent that they have to. 

Ms. BURRIS. Yeah, I am not familiar with their patent portfolio. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, you are familiar that there are aftermarket products available for your copy machine and—— 

Ms. BURRIS. Sure, oh, you can always design around a patent. 

You can always get—it is just, you know, how much more expensive is it going to be? Is it going to perform the same way? But you 

can—even design patents, you can design around them. 

Mr. ISSA. I am sure you can always make a fender that does not 

match the other fender. 

Ms. BURRIS. You mean, the front and the back? 

Mr. ISSA. The left to the right. 

Ms. BURRIS. Well, the quarter panels. 

Mr. ISSA. Right. Not very desirable. First sale concept, Mr. Gillis. 

Your position, I assume, is that even though we are trying to find 

legislation that accommodates middle ground, that in fact when 

you purchase something and you get a ding in it, and you have a 

choice of pound it out, put some Bondo in it and hope for the best, 

or replace it, that you should be able to buy a replacement part 

from anywhere you want since it is only a subcomponent of that 

patented or unpatented product that you bought and paid for. Is 

that right? 

Mr. GILLIS. That is exactly right, and the best evidence of that, 

congressman, is who among us after our warranty is expired is 

going to go back to Ford to buy a battery? To buy a muffler? Very 

important and sophisticated parts of the car, or to buy a tire. We 

like that freedom in mechanical parts, which are probably far more 

important to the safety of the vehicle than exterior cosmetic parts, 

so we just want that same freedom when it comes to exterior cosmetic parts. 

Mr. ISSA. And your point being that if I want to put a new manifold on, they are not bothering to patent that under design patent, 
87 

and yet they do want to have the part that gets hit in a fender 

bender. 

Mr. GILLIS. That is right, and in fact Ms. Burris alludes to the 

concept of utility patents in her presentation, her written presentation, and our theory is, if the hood has certain waves in it that 

are of a utility function, then they should get a utility patent, and 

that is perfectly fine, but what we are talking about is design patents for very important functional parts. 

Mr. ISSA. Ms. Felder, the Chairman has indicated in his opening 

statement, and I know you did not get to hear him present it, but 

that he is open and he wants to continue with this legislation and 

begin, you know, finding, if you will, legitimate concerns and seeing 

if we cannot address them. Let me ask a question for you, and this 

is a question from one former business person to a current businesswoman. One of the things you mentioned in these exclusive 

settlements is, in fact, that you cannot produce or find a producer 

of a product, even if they are QS9000, ISO qualified, they are making a certified part. The fact is, they cannot get a license from the 

auto company, but somebody did, right? So as a businesswoman, if 

the auto companies like the music producers and the—and so on 

had a compulsory license where they had to allow anyone to get a 

license to use, if you will, that, would that be something where at 

least you would see an even playing field where you pay the $2.50 

for the license on the fender, but competition can find 10 different 

people to produce a product and have real competition on how it 

is distributed and how it gets to you and whether it is competitive? 

Ms. FELDER. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ISSA. This is a business question—— 

Ms. FELDER. Right. 

Mr. ISSA [continuing]. Not would we not love to have $2.50 in licensing fees in a product? 

Ms. FELDER. Our concern, of course, is, again, restriction of competition. In a free market, which is what our country has been 

based on, we should not have to go and pay a licensing fee to provide a customer with a competitive product. There are many instances where, I am sure, that might be an appropriate situation. 

In my opinion, that is—this is not one of them. 

Mr. ISSA. And I apologize, but there is a vote on the floor, so I 

still have to answer the bell, so if you could wrap it up, please. 

Ms. FELDER. Very briefly, I want to explain that over the course 

of the time between the patent legislation, the patents were enforced, 2007. We have seen this industry literally almost erased. In 

our state alone, there were over—there were five independent distributors. Today, we are the only man standing, and this is national and this is as—— 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. Mr. Gillis, I will let you do the close. Right 

to repair. It is talked about a lot. It is gaining speed around the 

world. Notwithstanding questions as to patents, both utility and 

design, do you believe that it should be an open market for quality 

certified products to be able to have access to licensing fees so as 

to provide a real market and not a monopoly? 

Mr. GILLIS. Well, right to repair is critically important, and it 

has become more important as automobiles have become more sophisticated, and the car companies tend to be closing up the ability 
88 

of independent repairs to be able to get the computer diagnostic 

materials, the parts, even the tools, in some cases, to repair those 

cars. So it is clear that the fender, hood, and grill issue is just the 

beginning of the car companies wanting complete vertical integration over the control of this particular part, and that is bad for consumers. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, there will be more to follow. I would encourage 

all of you to, if you will, revise and extend, if you have thoughts 

on things that were not asked and you would like to submit them. 

My expectation is that the Chairman and I will work on future 

hearings, including with the Patent and Trademark Office. I want 

to thank you for your kindness in waiting for a little later time 

today. That helped a great many of us work around our schedule, 

and with that the hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:31 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to 

the call of the Chair.] 
(89) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
90 
91 
92 
93 

f 
94 
95 

f 
96 
97 

f 
98 
99 

f 
100 
101 
102 

Æ