Aro Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc.

Summary

The Court held that replacing the worn-out, unpatented fabric of a patented convertible-top combination is permissible repair, not infringing reconstruction, and reversed the Court of Appeals. A combination patent does not separately protect its unpatented components, and contributory infringement requires direct infringement. Black concurred fully, emphasizing a straightforward new-making test and the uncertainty that multifactor standards would impose on owners and replacement-parts suppliers. Brennan concurred in the result, favoring a multifactor standard and independent appellate review; he would preserve relief concerning replacements on Ford cars before July 21, 1955. Harlan, joined by Frankfurter and Stewart, dissented, arguing that reconstruction requires a fact-sensitive inquiry and that the lower courts’ application of proper standards deserved deference; he would affirm.