United States: United States District Court For The State Of Arizona: Design Patent Lessons From The $2B Lawsuit Against Tesla Truck Designs

Nikola Corp. v. Tesla Inc. 2:18-cv-01344-GMS (D. Ariz. filed May 1, 2018)

The recently filed lawsuit by Nikola Corp. against Tesla, Inc. over semi-truck designs illustrates various enforcement issues regarding design patents, and also provides insights into how multiple design patents can be used to proceed against a single infringing design by claiming sub-elements.

The suit, filed in Arizona District Court on April 30, 2018, alleges that certain newly-introduced large Tesla semi-trucks infringe upon design patents Nikola obtained on aspects of their alternative-fuel semi-trucks. Nikola seeks damages "estimated to be in excess of $2 billion."

In the pleading, the basic contention by Nikola is that Tesla semi-trucks are substantially similar to their truck designs:

See Complaint, p. 4.

But Nikola's actual infringement claim is based on three patents, U.S. Design Patent Nos. D811,944, D811,968 and D816,004, where each claim a single distinct feature of the truck cab shown above. The '944 patent claims only the outer "fuselage" or profile of the cab, shown in solid lines below in one of the Figures from the patent, but does not claim any other features such as windshield, windows, doors, chassis—which are shown in broken lines below:

The '968 patent covers only the windshield portion of the cab, again as shown in solid lines in the Figure below from the patent:

Lastly, the '004 patent covers only the side doors of the cab:

Nikola contends that Tesla engaged in copying of its overall cab design, stating in the complaint that the following side-by-side comparison reveals this:

However, the asserted design patents focus on singular and discrete elements of the cab, not the entirety of the cab design. Thus, the basis of comparison would not be the cab designs in their entireties, but only the similarities between those corresponding portions claimed in Nikola's asserted design patents.

Notably, Nikola stated in the complaint that it owns a design patent for "the overall semi-design." This is entitled "Semi-Truck" and it covers most of the truck cab:

D814,357 (issued April 3, 2018).

But this patent was not asserted in this action.

It seems clear that within this strategy lies some recognition that the cabs embody significant design differences, and that by making of issue only those specific features claimed by its asserted design patents, Nikola can remove dissimilar features from the infringement analysis.

The merits of the case await decision. But from a design patenting strategy standpoint, the pleading illustrates the benefits of using design patents to break down an overall design into sub-units that may be more similar to the design that each design patent claims.

The pleading also illustrates a number of other points worth considering.

1) Design patents may be the only viable form of protection available for designs of utilitarian articles.

As between the most generally available forms of protection--copyright, trademark (trade dress) and design patents—design patents are most readily available for protecting articles of manufacture that have utility, or are meant to be utilitarian in nature rather than purely artistic (although design patents can certainly cover artistic creations as well—the Statue of Liberty is a famous example of a design patent covering a sculptural creation).

Copyright will not typically protect utilitarian articles, including many fashion articles like shoes or handbags, unless they have sculptural or artistic features that are separable from the article (i.e., function and design are considered to "merge" and yield no copyrightable elements).

The trademark laws will also often not provide suitable alternative grounds for proceeding against infringements. Trademark rights in product design are considered "trade dress,", and the law requires a showing that the design has achieved distinctiveness (often called "secondary meaning") to be protected as a mark. Such a showing is difficult to make for product designs that are new to the market. Moreover, if the design also reflects a superior functional attribute, or is more effective in carrying out its function than other available designs, that in itself can bar trademark protection. This principle is embodied in the "functionality" doctrine of trademark law (a complex issue that deserves its own extensive article).

Design patenting, which apply to any new, novel, and non-obvious article of manufacture, often is the best, and perhaps only, viable protection. Although design patents also may be barred on the basis of functionality, the case law is somewhat vague and it appears that the functionality doctrine is less applicable and is usually less likely to bar design patent rights than trade dress rights. The drawback with design patenting is that it must be sought quickly. Novelty of a design is destroyed by any public disclosure of the same design before filing (although an applicant has a one-year grace period in the U.S. to file its design patent application after its own first disclosure).

2) Design patents need not cover an entire article, but may cover portions, especially those more likely to be infringed.

As can be seen in the Nikola case, the design patents asserted are directed to singular features or elements of the truck, and these elements are the ones forming the basis for comparison with the accused infringing article. The above illustrates a useful strategy in obtaining design patents. Looking at the asserted patents in the Nikola case, separate claims were set out in each application putting Nikola in a good position to proceed against infringements of just the fuselage, the door, or the windshield design, or other individual elements in other patents that may also have issued.

Unfortunately, U.S. practice does not normally permit multiple design claims of different scope to be patented together in the same application. Separate applications are typically required. But where individual features of a design may be more likely to show up in infringing articles, applications directed to such individual features can be quite useful as they would then avoid having to include extrinsic features of an article in the claim construction and infringement comparison—only those features that are subject to the specific design claim would be compared.

There are some downsides to this approach, however. In covering only specific features, an applicant does run the risk of making the claim too broad and running into prior art designs that may affect novelty. For instance, if trucks or even automobiles featuring the same windshield shape, or the same door shape and location, existed before Nikola's application, they could anticipate the issued patents and possibly invalidate them, even if the trucks or automobiles otherwise were very different in their overall design. Distilling the claim down to a specific feature then has to be balanced with a knowledge of the relevant prior art, and whether such individual features have been in use in earlier designs.

Also, filing separate design applications, as Nikola apparently did, can get expensive at the outset. For the designer of a semi-truck cab and rig that will involve huge capital expenditures to develop, this approach may be cost-effective, but it may not be effective where more modest designs are concerned and where intellectual property war chests are more limited.

There is perhaps an available strategy that may prove more cost-effective, as discussed hereafter.

3) Multiple Design Patents Can Issue From A Single Filing

The design patents asserted in the Nikola case were each separately filed in 2015. But Nikola may have been able to file a single application at that time that incorporated all the disclosures necessary to support multiple claims spread over multiple later-filed continuation or divisional applications to vary the overall protective scope of its design.

For example, an original application can include a full and comprehensive claim of an entire article—for instance, the entire cab of the Nikola truck. Based on this original filing, the applicant can file later applications that claim to the original priority filing date of the first application, that, for instance, claim smaller or discrete aspects of the overall design, like the door, the fuselage and the windshield in the Nikola example. Thus, a single application can result in design claims to different individual elements in later-filed "child" applications. Although the costs of filing and prosecuting all the applications will be the same as if they were all filed separately at the outset, since continuations or divisional applications can be filed months, sometimes even years later, the costs are deferred. This strategy is available as long as each application adds no new elements or features of the design, and are co-pending with the application immediately before them so that all applications extend back in a sort of "blockchain" of filings, eventually leading back with priority to the original parent application.

There are significant pitfalls to this approach, and it must be carefully constructed and administered. For instance, the original disclosure must show all the designs in the subsequent applications—if any are indefinite, or vague, or incomplete, the later child applications will not obtain priority to the original filing date. And where novelty is dependent on using the original filing date to antedate third party designs that come out in the meantime, as well as any prior sales or other disclosures more than a year before by the owner, making sure the original disclosure is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed can be critical.

But unlike trademark applications that have to be separately filed for each "mark" or design (even if the design is a subset of a larger design), and which will not obtain a shared early filing date, the single chain of parent and child design patent applications that stretch back to the original priority date can be very useful enforcement tools, especially where used to modify the design claim to meet design iterations that may appear after the initial application issues as a patent and others become aware of the patented design.

4) Design Patent Damages Can Still Be Significant

The Nikola case also shows that design patent litigations still can be big money affairs. The 2016 Supreme Court decision in Apple vs. Samsung tempered design patent damages awarded under Patent Act Section 289, i.e., the "total profit" of all infringing articles of manufacture. That case held that an "article of manufacture" embodying a patented design could be just a component of an overall device, and not necessarily its entirety. As such, awarding the "total profit" based on sales of the entire article may then be misplaced. A new test of "total profits" remains to be worked out by the lower courts, but it was clear that, where Apple was concerned, hundreds of millions in damages based on all profits from smart phones would likely not be obtainable.

Of course, pleadings often set exceedingly high damage claims, but Nikola here did not only plead damages under Section 289. Rather, Nikola set out its claim for a specific amount, $2 billion, based on a "reasonable royalty" that would have been due if a license had been taken, which is a separate measure of damages. Typically, a design patent plaintiff can allege both "total profits" and a "reasonable royalty," but must eventually choose its measure of damages. A "reasonable royalty" is the more typical measure of damages for utility patents, for which there is no special statutory "total profits" award. The fact that Nikola listed a specific number as to the "reasonable royalty" measure but not as to Section 289 may reflect concerns that any "profits" claim may either be reduced, or prove too difficult to determine, in view of subsequent interpretations of the Supreme Court Apple v. Samsung decision.


Although the case is in its earliest stages, and the allegations in the complaint remain to be proven, it appears for now that Nikola has prepared its position well. It has asserted multiple design patents covering smaller and distinct features of a larger and more comprehensive design that, taken in its entirety, may have made a weaker case of design infringement given multiple visible differences. A claim based on a single design patent covering the entire article may not have been as strong. Nikola has also set out its damage numbers under a separate prayer for relief, and not under a damages claim that is currently under review and likely to be reduced in its effect.

This complaint then shows the potential effectiveness of strategizing design patent filings to file narrowly at first for an entire design, but thereafter keep open the possibility of filing multiple applications based on the original filing that vary and broaden the design claims within the ambit of the original design disclosure (and as permissible in view of prior art designs).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions