Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.
1961 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court redefined the U.S. patent law doctrine of repair and reconstruction.[1] The decision is sometimes referred to as Aro I because several years later the Supreme Court readdressed the same issues in a second case in 1964 involving the same parties—Aro II.[2]
Quick Facts Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Argued October 13, 17, 1960 Decided February 27, 1961 ...
Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. | |
---|---|
Argued October 13, 17, 1960 Decided February 27, 1961 | |
Full case name | Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. |
Citations | 365 U.S. 336 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | 270 F.2d 200 (1st Cir. 1959); cert. granted, 362 U.S. 902 (1960). |
Subsequent | 312 F.2d 52 (1st Cir. 1962); cert. granted, 372 U.S. 958 (1963); affirmed in part, reversed in part, 377 U.S. 476 (1964); motion to dismiss granted, 240 F. Supp. 805 (D. Mass. 1965); affirmed, 352 F.2d 400 (1st Cir. 1965); cert. denied, 383 U.S. 947 (1966). |
Holding | |
Petitioners were not guilty of either direct or contributory infringement of the patent. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Whittaker, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark |
Concurrence | Black |
Concurrence | Brennan (in judgment) |
Dissent | Harlan, joined by Frankfurter, Stewart |
Close