The doctrine of repair and reconstruction in United States patent law distinguishes between permissible repair of a patented article, which the right of an owner of property to preserve its utility and operability guarantees, and impermissible reconstruction of a patented article, which is patent infringement.
Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.[1] The Aro case states the rule in these terms: The decisions of this Court require the conclusion that reconstruction of a patented entity, comprised of unpatented elements, is limited to such a true reconstruction of the entity as to "in fact make a new article," after the entity, viewed as a whole, has become spent.
The Supreme Court said in Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther[2] that such a right was "kin to repair for it bore on the useful capacity of the old combination, on which the royalty had been paid."
The House of Lords declared a similar principle—the doctrine of non-derogation from grants—concerning car owners' repair and replacement of automobile parts, in British Leyland Motor Corp. v. Armstrong Patents Co.
This article relating to law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub.