Aro Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Convertible Top Replacement Company, Inc. (1960)
- Docket
- 21
- Decided
- 1960-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Can a patent holder prevent the manufacture and/or distribution of a replacement part for a patented device when the replacement part is not itself patented? Conclusion: No. Justice Charles E. Whittaker, writing for a 6-3 majority, reversed. The Supreme Court held that because Convertible Top did not patent the fabric top individually, there was no direct patent infringement. With no direct infringement, there could be no contributory infringement. The patent only covered the combination of parts that made up the folding top, not each individual part that made up that top. Justice Hugo L. Black concurred, writing that the other concurring opinion and the dissenting opinion were unnecessarily confusing. Justice William J. Brennan concurred in the result, arguing that there was no infringement because the cost of the replacement top in comparison with the device as a whole was so small made replacing the top a permissible repair instead of a reconstruction. Justice John M. Harlan dissented, arguing that the replacement of an unpatented part in a patented device is a forbidden reconstruction of the device. This constitutes direct patent infringement. Justice Felix Frankfurter and Justice Potter Stewart joined in the dissent.