The shared design of car companies' platforms is converging, and lawyers interpret the risks of intellectual property infringement and anti unfair competition
Lead
Stellantis Group, the world's fourth largest car company, recently released six "new answers" to the public. The core idea is to promote platform sharing within the group to reduce research and development costs, while emphasizing that the design language of each brand must maintain differentiation and not lead to appearance homogenization just because of sharing chassis and three electric systems. This strategy is not uncommon in the automotive industry, as giants such as Volkswagen, Toyota, and Geely are all making similar layouts. But from a legal perspective, the line between platform sharing and design convergence is precisely the high-risk area for intellectual property infringement and anti unfair competition disputes. For car companies, suppliers, and even independent design companies participating in platform cooperation, figuring out which ones can be shared and which ones must be isolated is no longer a commercial multiple-choice question, but a legal requirement.
The legal essence of platform sharing: patent cross licensing and trade secret isolation
The so-called platform sharing usually refers to multiple car companies sharing the same chassis architecture, battery pack layout, electronic and electrical architecture, and even underlying code for intelligent driving. This kind of cooperation is often achieved legally through * * patent cross licensing agreements * *. According to Article 53 of the Patent Law, no unit or individual may manufacture, use, offer for sale, sell, or import their patented products for the purpose of production and operation without the permission of the patentee. In platform sharing, if A car company's chassis structure patent is directly used by B car company on the sharing platform, there must be a clear licensing arrangement, otherwise it constitutes infringement.
The more covert risk lies in * * trade secrets * *. In the process of platform sharing, the engineering data, simulation models, and testing parameters of all parties will inevitably cross flow. Article 9 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law stipulates that operators shall not obtain the trade secrets of rights holders through theft, bribery, fraud, coercion, electronic intrusion or other improper means. In practice, many car companies only mention "shared achievements" in their joint development agreements, but do not make isolation agreements for background technology and process data. Once one party resigns and the engineer changes jobs with data, or if the cooperation breaks down and one party continues to use the other party's chassis calibration data, it will trigger a trade secret infringement lawsuit.
When serving clients in the automotive industry chain, lawyers from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm found that many technology cooperation agreements focus on commercial terms, and the provisions on intellectual property ownership, improved technology feedback, and data isolation obligations are actually very rough. It is recommended that car companies conduct a round of intellectual property due diligence before signing platform sharing agreements, clarifying which patents require cross licensing, which technical secrets need to be physically isolated, and which improvement results need to be identified in advance.
The boundary of design convergence: dual protection of design patents and copyrights
Stellantis emphasizes that design cannot converge, and legally corresponds to two protection paths: * * design patent * * and * * copyright * *. Design patents protect new designs that are aesthetically pleasing and suitable for industrial applications based on the shape, pattern, and combination of the product, with a protection period of fifteen years. If the shared platform causes the front face, waistline, and taillights of two cars to be highly similar, the first party to be listed can claim the design patent right according to the Patent Law, demand to stop selling and compensate.
However, there is a certain degree of ambiguity in the determination of infringement of design patents. In judicial practice, courts usually use "whether the overall visual effect is similar" as the standard, while considering factors such as design space and conventional design. If two cars only share the same chassis, resulting in similar body proportions, but visible parts such as the front grille, headlights, and bumper are clearly distinguished, the risk of infringement will be reduced. On the contrary, if the position of the door handle and the direction of the waist line are the same, even if the brand logo is different, it may also be identified as infringement.
The path of copyright cannot be ignored either. Car design drawings, clay models, and digital renderings may all constitute works of art or graphic works and are protected by the Copyright Law. If one designer comes into contact with another's design sketches in a shared platform project and subsequently launches a car model with a highly similar style, the rights holder can claim copyright infringement. In 2023, a new energy car company sued another car company for plagiarizing its concept car design drawings. The court ultimately determined that it constituted copyright infringement and ordered compensation of over ten million yuan. The warning to the industry from this case is that platforms can share design drawings and modeling data, but firewalls must be established.
Bottom line regulation of the Anti Unfair Competition Law: Confusion behavior and commercial defamation
When there is a gap between patent and copyright protection, Article 6 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law can play a fallback role. This provision stipulates that operators shall not use without authorization signs that are identical or similar to the product name, packaging, decoration, etc. that have a certain influence on others, leading people to mistakenly believe that they are other people's products or have specific connections with others. If the overall design and interior style of a car have formed a stable correspondence with a specific brand through long-term use and promotion, it may be recognized as "decoration with certain influence".
Stellantis has many brands under its umbrella, and if the appearance of a certain car after sharing the platform reminds consumers of another brand, it may trigger a confusion lawsuit. A more extreme scenario is that if one party implies in their promotion that they are "on the same platform as a luxury brand" and thus cling to their reputation, it may also constitute false advertising as stipulated in Article 8 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law.
In addition, the common issues of * * non compete * * and * * talent mobility * * in platform sharing cooperation are also worth paying attention to. Article 23 of the Labor Contract Law allows employers to agree on non compete agreements with senior management and technical personnel, with a term not exceeding two years. Car companies often send engineers to each other in shared platform projects. If these engineers leave and join competitors, the original unit can claim liquidated damages based on non compete agreements. However, it should be noted that non compete restrictions require monthly payment of economic compensation, otherwise the terms may be deemed invalid.
Lawyer's suggestion: Compliance checklist shared by car company platforms
For car companies that are currently or plan to participate in platform sharing, lawyers from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm suggest establishing a compliance framework from five dimensions:
Firstly, * * protocol comes first * *. Sign intellectual property ownership agreements, trade secret protection agreements, and non compete agreements before the start of technology sharing, clarifying the boundaries of background intellectual property, prospect intellectual property, and improvement intellectual property.
Secondly, * * data isolation * *. Implement hierarchical management of core secrets such as styling design data, chassis tuning parameters, and intelligent driving algorithms, combining physical and logical isolation to avoid "sharing" becoming "shared".
Thirdly, * * design review * *. Before the launch of the new model, conduct a search for exterior design patents and an infringement risk assessment to ensure that it is clearly distinguishable from other models on the shared platform in visible areas.
Fourth, leave evidence traces. Emails, meeting minutes, and design review records during the cooperation process should be kept intact. Once disputes arise, these are key evidence to prove independent research and development.
Fifth, * * Dispute Resolution Plan * *. Agree on arbitration or litigation jurisdiction, temporary injunction application mechanism in the agreement to avoid being passive after disputes occur.
The trend towards platformization and modularization in the automotive industry is irreversible, but legal risks will not automatically disappear just because the business logic is reasonable. The platform can share, but the design cannot converge. This statement is not only a product strategy, but also a legal bottom line. While pursuing economies of scale, car companies can only truly avoid "sharing" becoming "losing together" by ensuring compliance with intellectual property regulations.
