In Jazz Photo Corp. v. ITC, is refurbishing a patented article for continued use permissible as repair?

In Jazz Photo Corp. v. ITC, is refurbishing a patented article for continued use permissible as repair?

• A. Permissible repair.
• B. Infringement.
• C. Reconstruction.
• D. Disassembly is illegal.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is the distinction between repair and reconstruction after a patented article has been sold. When you refurbish a patented item to keep it functioning, you’re performing repair as long as you restore it to its original operating condition without creating a new embodiment of the invention. Jazz Photo Corp. v. ITC supports this: refurbishing or replacing worn parts to allow continued use of the same patented device is considered permissible repair, not reconstruction. The goal of this rule is to permit ordinary maintenance so a buyer can keep a purchased product working, while still barring actions that would effectively produce a new infringing article. So refurbishing for continued use fits the repair category, whereas reconstruction—creating a new item that embodies the patented invention—would go beyond repair.

The key idea is the distinction between repair and reconstruction after a patented article has been sold. When you refurbish a patented item to keep it functioning, you’re performing repair as long as you restore it to its original operating condition without creating a new embodiment of the invention. Jazz Photo Corp. v. ITC supports this: refurbishing or replacing worn parts to allow continued use of the same patented device is considered permissible repair, not reconstruction. The goal of this rule is to permit ordinary maintenance so a buyer can keep a purchased product working, while still barring actions that would effectively produce a new infringing article. So refurbishing for continued use fits the repair category, whereas reconstruction—creating a new item that embodies the patented invention—would go beyond repair.