It contends that it never intended for the drills to be retipped. E.J. contends that its retipping service is a lawful repair of the patented drills. On summary judgment, the district court held that E.J. s retipping was a permissible repair, not a reconstruction of the drills. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Whether defendant s actions constitute a permissible repair or an infringing reconstruction is a question of law which we also review de novo.
Direct infringement includes the making of a patented article without authority.
However, when Sandvik sold its patented drills to its customers, it granted them an implied license to use the drill for its useful life, see Aro Mfg. The Supreme Court has taken an expansive view of what constitutes a permissible repair. In Aro Mfg. Therefore, even if E.J. s retipping service cost almost as much as the drill or if the replacement of the tip is difficult and time consuming, as in this case, these factors are not dispositive of reconstruction. The Court also rejected the heart of the invention test.