Chris Eggert Helps Land a Sea Change Ruling for LKQ

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations is a landmark legal case widely regarded as the most significant shift in design patent law in over fifty years. If you’re in patent law, you know the case. Chris Eggert, senior corporate counsel at LKQ, was a central figure in this case, and he’d only graduated law school in 2016. It’s a case that any lawyer would be happy to have define their career, and it happened in the senior counsel’s first decade of practice.

After a licensing agreement between aftermarket parts company LKQ and GM expired without renewal, LKQ challenged several GM design patents, raising the question of how to properly assess whether a design patent is “obvious,” sufficiently different from prior designs to merit patent protection.

The case escalated to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which granted an en banc review, a rare occurrence, especially in patent law. The long-standing Durling test, which had governed design patent “obviousness” for decades, was overturned. The new standard would align more closely with the approach used for utility patents, requiring a more flexible and fact-intensive analysis.

The ruling would likely make it easier to challenge and invalidate design patents, potentially increasing competition in the aftermarket parts sector and reducing consumer costs. Regardless of what does happen, the case is a sea change in its field, creating a substantial amount of commentary and analysis in the IP community.

“It’s so fascinating to me. I’d be happy to talk about that case for hours if you’ll let me,” Eggert jokes. “It’s not every day that you get to work with two of your professors from law school on a case.”

Eggert’s professors were Barry Irwin and Mark McKenna, two giants in the patent and trademark space. The Notre Dame Law graduate was first introduced to LKQ through his former law firm, Irwin IP, where the associate earned his legal stripes. Before he passed the bar, Eggert worked as a clerk at the firm, driving to Chicago from South Bend, staying in a hotel across from the firm for three or four days, then driving back to Indiana to study for the weekend.

After being hired as an associate, LKQ quickly became not just one of Eggert’s clients but his main client.

“I got to know the leadership team, their product teams, and the in-house counsel here,” Eggert recalls. “Eventually, I basically worked with them directly without oversight.”

Eggert proved himself invaluable in a complex matter involving LKQ and US Customs. LKQ was facing seizures of its products due to alleged trademark infringements. Customs was more focused on enforcing rights than examining the validity of the claims, and LKQ had to sue both US Customs and the rights holders to get due process. They fought for a declaratory judgment that LKQ products did not infringe the asserted trademarks.

“Then COVID happened, and suddenly no one felt like litigating IP rights,” the lawyer remembers. “Things got a little bleak for the IP world.”

In an incredible show of faith, LKQ and Eggert’s boss reached an agreement for him to be seconded to LKQ. Eventually, LKQ made him a full-time offer to come in-house, setting the stage for the landmark 2024 case against GM.

“I get to work on really interesting problems with really interesting people. What more could you want?”

Chris Eggert

It’s funny how a decision made on a whim can have such lasting implications. Eggert, the son of two engineers, only decided to take a first-year trademark elective because it was taught by a professor he’d enjoyed in one of his required classes. And while others might see the engineer parents as making his career in IP a lock, the future lawyer initially pursued a life in politics.

Eggert was an intern for the US House of Representatives and was asked to serve as social media campaign staff for a US congressional reelection campaign.

“After that campaign, I had to make a decision about whether or not I wanted to keep working in politics in Michigan or if I wanted to do something else,” Eggert says. “I had met a lot of people who had law degrees and were working on Capitol Hill, and it was always something I was interested in. And so I made the decision to go to law school.”

Less than a decade into his career, Eggert has a unanimous decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a transformative moment in design patent law, on his résumé. Eggert says the chance to continue working with his former colleagues (and even professors) has provided continued education and inspiration in the young lawyer’s career. He even gets to keep a foot in DC, working on LKQ’s government affairs team and visiting Capitol Hill to speak with lawmakers and lobbying groups.

“I get to work on really interesting problems with really interesting people,” the senior counsel says. “What more could you want?”

---