Distinction between Repair and Reconstruction of a Patented Product and Category of Cases in United States

Distinction between Repair and Reconstruction of a Patented Product and Category of Cases in United States

 

Title
Distinction between Repair and Reconstruction of a Patented Product and Category of Cases in United States
Author
Jia-Lin Chen
Keywords
patented product, repair, reconstruction, patent exhaustion doctrine, implied license
Abstract
The purchaser of a patented product sold by the patentee or its licensees
without effective restriction thereon has the rights to use it, discard it, or resell it.
The right to use the patented product includes replacement or modification, but
does not include the right to construct an essentially new article on the template
of the original one. This is so-called the doctrine of permissible repair, which
originates from the patent exhaustion doctrine and implied license. Permissible
repair of a patented product includes disassembly and clean of the product as well
as replacement of unpatented components, regardless of whether the replaced
components are spent or not. Reconstruction of a patented product is basically to
make a new article, after the entity, viewed as a whole, has become spent. The
Supreme Court of United States first addressed the issue about distinction between
repair and reconstruction in 1850, and numerous cases have been decided
in different levels of courts. This paper analyzes the recent patent infringement
cases in United States regarding distinction between repair and reconstruction of
patent products to obtain the guideline.
Abstract Article

8 Downloads

59 Downloads

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *