Under Aro, when is a seller not liable as a contributory infringer for supplying components?

Under Aro, when is a seller not liable as a contributory infringer for supplying components?

• A. When the replacement of unpatented parts is legitimate repair.
• B. When the seller knows the components will be used infringing.
• C. When the components are raw materials.
• D. When the seller intends to violate patent law.

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is the repair/repair-part defense in contributory patent infringement under Aro. The rule is that a seller isn’t liable for supplying components that have substantial noninfringing uses and are not specially made for infringing use when those components are for legitimate repair of a patented device. In other words, standard replacement parts used to repair a machine are not contributory infringement, because they are staple articles with noninfringing uses and are not designed solely to enable infringement. So replacing worn unpatented parts to repair a patented device fits this defense, which is why that option is the best answer. The other ideas—knowing the parts will be used to infringe, the parts being raw materials, or intent to violate patent law—don’t provide the same protective shield in the repair context and don’t capture the repair-part justification the court recognized.

The key idea here is the repair/repair-part defense in contributory patent infringement under Aro. The rule is that a seller isn’t liable for supplying components that have substantial noninfringing uses and are not specially made for infringing use when those components are for legitimate repair of a patented device. In other words, standard replacement parts used to repair a machine are not contributory infringement, because they are staple articles with noninfringing uses and are not designed solely to enable infringement.

So replacing worn unpatented parts to repair a patented device fits this defense, which is why that option is the best answer. The other ideas—knowing the parts will be used to infringe, the parts being raw materials, or intent to violate patent law—don’t provide the same protective shield in the repair context and don’t capture the repair-part justification the court recognized.