Imagine That IP Law Blog

The February 2026 federal district court and ITC complaints filed by General Motors against various aftermarket parties allegedly working “in concert” in the automotive replacement-parts market portend a new chapter in design-patent enforcement litigation. They may also provide a testing ground for two important Federal Circuit decisions: Automotive Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC, (“ABPA”) in 2019, and LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC,) (“LKQ”) in 2024. In those decisions, the Federal Circuit confirmed, on the one hand, in ABPA, that design patents can provide original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) with valuable protection against unauthorized aftermarket production and sale of replacement parts. On the other hand, in LKQ, the Federal Circuit gave accused aftermarket replacement-part manufacturers a more flexible pathway to challenge OEM design patents as obvious.

GM’s latest enforcement campaign for 20 design patents is a reminder for those charting an IP strategy in the auto industry that the road does not end upon production of a vehicle or automotive part that is sold into commerce, but continues long after launch into the complex stream of the aftermarket involving multiple parties. Indeed, GM’s complaints name accused parties spanning the entire aftermarket parts supply chain, from major OEMs to the end consumer. (See, e.g., Complaint, Gen. Motors LLC v. Mitchell Int’l, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00129-JLH (D. Del. Feb. 3, 2026); Complaint, Gen. Motors LLC v. LKQ Corp., No. 1:26-cv-01233 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2026); Complaint, Gen. Motors LLC v. Best Value Auto Body Supply, No. 1:26-cv-01223 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2026); Complaint, Gen. Motors LLC v. Quality Collision Parts, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-10391 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2026); Complaint, Certain Vehicle Parts, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1491 (U.S.I.T.C. Feb. 5, 2026)).

One category of accused parties appears to be a newly identified player in the aftermarket: companies that provide the software platforms used by collision repair shops to write estimates and order replacement parts. For example, the collision repair technicians — the auto body workers who assess damage and perform repairs — use these software platforms to compare replacement parts pricing and to place orders on behalf of the repair shop. When a technician selects a replacement part listed on the software platform, the transaction is completed in real time without ever leaving the estimating software.

To understand how this newly named category of accused parties - software platforms - fits within the auto industry aftermarket parts supply chain and GM’s design patent enforcement strategy, it is helpful to review the aftermarket parties from a higher level, from GM’s perspective:

GM’s complaints categorize these aftermarket participants into three buckets:

1. manufacturers who make replacement parts,
2. software platforms that connect aftermarket participants and facilitate transactions for replacement parts, and
3. distributors who sell the replacement parts.

GM’s complaints attempt to enforce 20 design patents covering a range of parts frequently required after an end user has purchased a vehicle: front and rear bumpers, front and rear bumper covers (i.e., fascia), hoods, fenders, bumper impact bars, and headlamps, for example.

GM’s strategy for naming accused parties within each of the three categories depends on each party’s respective role in the aftermarket parts supply chain relative to a basis for design patent infringement (direct, induced, or contributory) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a)–(c). The following general flow chart is helpful for understanding the flow of these supply chain roles in the aftermarket replacement parts industry:

To enforce its design patents across the range of participants in the supply chain shown above, GM is relying on theories of direct infringement under § 271(a) as well as indirect infringement under §§ 271(b)–(c):

Direct
(a) … whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

Indirect — Induced
(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.

Indirect — Contributory
(c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, . . . constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent . . . shall be liable as a contributory infringer.

GM’s arguments based on direct infringement by the manufacturers, part suppliers, and distributors under § 271(a) are straightforward: GM alleges these parties directly infringe by manufacturing and distributing parts that infringe GM’s asserted design patents.

To enforce further down the supply chain against the software platforms and repair shops, GM relies on induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and contributory infringement under § 271(c), both of which require an underlying act of direct infringement by another party to be actionable.

The most notable accused parties named in GM’s complaints are the companies that allegedly knowingly sell components of the infringing “will fit” products to repair shops and end users (constituting contributory infringement under § 271(c)) and that also operate the aforementioned estimating and purchasing software platforms between the parts suppliers and the repair shops that purchase the alleged “will fit” parts (constituting induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)).

According to GM, these software platforms “connect insurers, repair shops, and parts suppliers so that a customer can receive an estimate of how much it will cost to repair a damaged vehicle and buy repair parts.” (Mitchell Compl. ¶ 18). For example, GM asserts that Mitchell infringes under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) “by providing software that connects repair shops with distributors … to import, use, sell, and/or offer to sell the Accused Products in the United States.” (Compl. ¶ 23).

How design patents may be enforced against digital software platforms (i.e., Mitchell International, Inc., CCC Intelligent Solutions Holdings Inc. and CCC Intelligent Solutions Inc.) under § 271(b) appears to be a relatively novel issue, especially in the context of litigation involving the automotive aftermarket parts supply chain. GM’s enforcement strategy against these software platforms based on induced infringement under § 271(b) is most emblematic of its determination to stop alleged “will fitters” in the aftermarket.

The presumed knowledge of GM’s design patents by the software platform defendants, the proximity of the software platforms to the direct infringers (the distributors and repair shops), along with the platforms’ active role in the automotive repair market by facilitating the identification, estimating, invoicing, and processing of orders for alternative replacement parts directly through the software platform may support GM’s theory under § 271(b). Such involvement by the software platforms could potentially be seen as rising to a higher level than, for example, eBay’s online marketplace in the case of Blazer v. eBay, Inc., where the sole proprietor of Carpenter Bee Solutions sued eBay for listing third-party products that allegedly infringed a design patent on Carpenter Bee Traps under § 271(b). For example, in Blazer, the court noted that “eBay does not have expertise in the field of the patent or allegedly infringing products” and that “eBay does not know the art of carpenter bee traps.”   

With digital software platforms and media playing a significant role in driving manufacturing, distribution, and sales in the aftermarket supply chain, design patents may serve as a reliable way to protect parts in the aftermarket arena under theories of direct and indirect infringement. For example, even when a will-fitter generates a digital CAD (Computer-Aided Design) file for a particular automotive part based on reverse engineering for mass production of that part via 3D printing, design patents on that part may still provide protection for the original manufacturer against aftermarket manufacturers that directly infringe. Likewise, as seen in GM’s 2026 enforcement campaign, design patents may also provide protection downstream in the supply chain against the digital software platforms that facilitate infringing conduct by distributors, importers, and repair shops that indirectly infringe.

Takeaways
For aftermarket parts manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, and software platforms, GM’s 2026 campaign underscores the need to evaluate design-patent risk across the entire aftermarket supply chain. Manufacturers developing non-infringing replacement parts may wish to consider filing design patents on complete parts and components within a product line for layered protection against potential will-fitters. Design patents on the complete parts give the aftermarket manufacturer direct infringement coverage under § 271(a), and separate design patents on a critical sub-part or interface component add another layer — a competitor who attempts to design around the complete part design patent by modifying the overall appearance may still face contributory infringement exposure under § 271(c). Induced infringement under § 271(b) may also reach distributors and software platforms that actively facilitate those sales. GM’s 2026 campaign is one example of this layered strategy in action. The same approach is available to smaller aftermarket manufacturers, even those with a modest portfolio built around a specific product line.

While GM’s February 2026 actions remain pending, and the ITC investigation schedule currently sets a Final Initial Determination deadline of June 21, 2027, parties within the aftermarket supply chain are well advised to consider their respective IP strategies in light of the design-patent enforcement principles of ABPA and the design-patent invalidity framework established by LKQ.