Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 JUNE 2002

Distinction Between Permissible Repair and Impermissible Reconstruction Is Whether the Part Is "Readily Replaceable"

United StatesIntellectual Property

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a summary judgment finding of non-infringement, ruling that the replacement of the mold and carrier plate of an injection molding system was a permissible repair rather than an impermissible reconstruction. Husky Injection Molding Sys., Ltd. v. R&D Tool & Eng’g Co., Case No. 01-1346 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2002).

R&D had purchased one of Husky’s injection molding systems and informed the Husky salesman of its intent to use the system to make replacement molds. Husky then sued R&D for contributory infringement of its patented injection molding system that uses a carrier plate that corresponds to a design-specific mold.

In the injection molding system, the carrier plate allows preforms to be removed from the mold before the preform is completely cool. Since the cooling process is the time-limiting step in the injection mold process, moving the preform out of the mold for cooling increases production rates. If a

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from