Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.

(1961). Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. U.S..

Type

Court case

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

1961

Link

no authoritative link yet

Cited by

1 citation across 1 artifact.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Domain-specific

• Doctrine of Repair and Reconstruction
  • Because 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) makes unauthorized “making” an act of infringement, reconstruction can infringe even though the actor owns old components and even though none of the replaced components is separately patented

    This sourceSupplies the two qualifications on the § 271(a) rule: that reconstruction can infringe although the actor owns the old components, and although none of the replaced components is separately patented, because what the claim protects is the combination rather than any single element. Supplies Aro's whole-entity, 'second creation of the patented entity' test for distinguishing permissible repair from impermissible reconstruction. Supplies Aro's rejection of an 'essential element'/'heart of the invention' theory for combination patents.

    SupportedVerified against the source

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:d89a81b17bb4 · see in the full table