Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961)¶
(1961). Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961).
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.
- 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
Verification¶
This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:d89a81b17bb4 · see in the full table