Legal Document

377 U.S. 422 84 Supreme Court Reporter 1561 12 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 419 WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY et al., Petitioners,v.Max K. KUTHER. Number 109. Argued Feb. 20, 1964. Decided June 8, Frank Atlantic Neal, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners. Carlisle M. Moore, respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondent is owner a combination patent covering fish-canning machine. A number machines covered by were manufactured and sold under his authorization. Among them four in suit, petitioner Wilbur-Ellis Company being second-hand purchaser. received out original purchase price royalty $1,500 per As originally constructed each these packed fish into '1-pound' cans: 3 inches diameter 4 11/16 high. Three when acquired corroded, rusted, inoperative; all required cleaning sandblasting to make usable. retained Leuschner put condition so they would operate resize six 35 elements that made up patented combination. The resizing was purpose enabling pack '5-ounce' 2 1/8 1/2 long. One corroded it could be rendered operable only grinding down size suitable use with smaller can. This suit infringement followed; both District Court, 200 F.Supp. 841, Appeals, 314 Federal Reporter, 2nd 71, held case here on certiorari. 373 921, 83 1525, 10 41. We one side where discovery or invention resided embraced either locational characteristics replaced commodity which machine operated. claims before us do not reach far. also replacement component patent. W deal unpatented components. question terms law precedents whether what done machines, manufacture sale had been licensed patentee, amounted 'repair,' event there no infringement, 'reconstruction,' was.1 idea 'reconstruction' this context has special connotation those acts impinge patentee's right 'to exclude others from making,' Code KF62 § 154, article. stated Wilson versus Simpson, 9 How. 109, 123, 13 L.Ed. 66, '* * material ceases exist, whatever way may occur, renew depends upon invention. If does rebuild combination.' On other hand, 'When wearing injury partial, then repair restoration, reconstruction.' Ibid. Replacing worn-out cutting knives planing supra. Our latest Aro Mfg. company Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 336, 81 599, 5 592, majority construe as holding replace fabric convertible automobile top, whose patentee. See 75, 376 476, 1526. Whatever view taken first case, believe governs present one. These spent; years usefulness remaining though needed repair. Had renovated cans, but 'repaired,' 'reconstructed,' within meaning cases. When resized relocated, invasion resulted, we have said cans serviced part invention; nor size, location, shape construction patented. Petitioners adapting old related doing more than customary sense; did kin bore useful capacity combination, paid. call without saying making' machine, infringed. Yet adaptation can rights purchased, since an 6 nonpatented improved machines. That not, however, are asked substance treat if petitioners license only. But sales outright, restriction. Adams Burke, 17 Wall. 453, 456, 21 700, therefore controls: 7 person having rights, sells instrument sole value its use, he receives consideration parts restrict use.' 8 And see Univis Lens 316 241, 250, 62 1088, 1093, 86 1408. Reversed. HARLAN affirm judgment substantially reasons given 71. Cotton-Tie Simmons, 106 89, 52, 27 79 (reconstruction); Heyer Duplicator 263 100, 44 31, 68 189 (repair).

Classification Label: 7