Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther
Citations
- 377 U.S. 422
- 84 S. Ct. 1561
- 12 L. Ed. 2d 419
- 1964 U.S. LEXIS 2351
- 141 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 703
About this case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1964 United States Supreme Court case
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:
**Wilbur-Ellis Company v. Kuther **
Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther, 377 U.S. 422 (1964),[1] is a United States Supreme Court decision that extended the repair-reconstruction doctrine of _Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. _[2] to enhancement of function.
Drawing of the patented fish-canning machine involved in this patent infringement lawsuit
Background
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilbur-Ellis_Co._v._Kuther&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
]
Wilbur-Ellis Company (Wilbur-Ellis) purchased four used, patented sardine-canning machines that were badly in need of repair.[3] Wilbur-Ellis tried to persuade Kuther, the patent owner, who had originally made and sold the machines, to refurbish them but met with no success. Wilbur-Ellis therefore hired a mechanic to repair and modify them so that they would handle different sized cans and different sized sardines.[4] Kuther then sued Wilbur-Ellis for “making” the machine anew.
Opinion of the Court
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilbur-Ellis_Co._v._Kuther&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")
]
The Supreme Court (per Justice Douglas ) held that modifying the machine to improve its functionality was akin to permissible repair, which Aro had held lawful. The patent did not cover the size of the cans or of the sardines, and Wilbur-Ellis did not replace all of the parts of the machine. No replaced part was patented individually. The patented machine was a combination of unpatented parts.[5] Although the machines were in poor condition, they were not worn out or "spent"--"they had years of usefulness remaining though they needed cleaning and repair."[6]
Kuther "in adapting the old machines to a related use [did] more than repair in the customary sense" but it "was kin to repair for it bore on the useful capacity of the old combination, on which the royalty had been paid."[7] Kuther's original sale of the machines exhausted the patent monopoly.[8] The Court thus held that modification of the patented machine to enhance its functionality was part of the property right of the machine's owner, just as the right to repair it to keep it in good order was.
Justice John Marshall Harlan II dissented on the basis of the opinion of the lower court.
References
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilbur-Ellis_Co._v._Kuther&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: References")
]
The citations in this Article are written in Bluebook
style. Please see the Talk page for this Article.
- ↑ Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther, 377 U.S. 422 (1964). This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document .
- ↑ _Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. _, 365 U.S. 336 (1961).
- ↑ They were "corroded, rusted, and inoperative; and all required cleaning and sandblasting to make them usable." 377 U.S. at 423.
- ↑ Wilbur-Ellis replaced six of the 35 parts with different sized components, so that the machine would pack 5-ounce cans instead of 1-pound cans. 377 U.S. at 423.
- ↑ 377 U.S. at 423.
- ↑ 377 U.S. at 424.
- ↑ 377 U.S. at 425.
- ↑ 377 U.S. at 425 (citing _Adams v. Burke _ and _United States v. Univis Lens Co. _).
External links
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilbur-Ellis_Co._v._Kuther&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: External links")
]
- Text of Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther, 377 U.S. 422 (1964) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilbur-Ellis_Co._v._Kuther&oldid=1351349034 "
Hidden categories:
Search
Search
Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther
Add languages Add topic
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a purchaser's \reconstruction\ of a patented machine \would impinge on the patentee's right 'to exclude others from making' ... the article\ (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 154 (1964 ed.) )
- determining that repurposing a patented machine was permissible repair
- stating: “Petitioners in adapting the old machines to a related use were doing more than repair in the customary sense; but what they did was kin to repair for it bore on the useful capacity of the old combination, on which the royalty had been paid.”
- holder of patent on fish canning machine has no authority to prevent owner’s “repair” of the machine to pack smaller-sized cans
- modification of fish canning machine to change size of cans used— held: “kin to repair”
- “We also put to one side the ease where replacement was made of a patented component of a combination patent. We deal here with a patent that covered only a combination of unpatented components.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Douglas, Harlan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.