United Kingdom Supreme Court Upholds The Right To Remanufacture - aftermarketNews

United Kingdom Supreme Court Upholds The Right To Remanufacture

The Automotive Parts Remanufacturer's Association (APRA) had previously filed an amicus curiae letter in the case, supporting the remanufacturer's appeal. In its letter, APRA advised the court of the desirability of remanufacturing products and the favorable treatment that has been given to the remanufacturing of patented products in the United States.

CHANTILLY, Va. – In a decision closely watched by remanufacturers in the United Kingdom and Europe, the Supreme Court of the U.K. affirmed the right of companies to remanufacture patented products originally made by another company. The Automotive Parts Remanufacturer’s Association (APRA) had previously filed an amicus curiae letter in the case, supporting the remanufacturer’s appeal. In its letter, APRA advised the court of the desirability of remanufacturing products and the favorable treatment that has been given to the remanufacturing of patented products in the United States.
 
The case, Werit (U.K.) Limited v. Schutz (U.K.) Limited, involved the reconditioning of intermediate bulk containers. These containers are used to transport liquids. They consist of a metal cage on a wooden pallet in which a large plastic bottle is fitted. The bottle must fit inside the cage as snugly as possible to avoid damage during transport. Often the bottle cannot be reused because it is damaged or contains residues of a toxic liquid. The metal cage has a much longer life. Schutz was the licensee of a company that had patented a new bulk container in which the bottle fit more snugly into the metal cage and therefore was less prone to damage. Werit made new bottles, which were then sold to re-conditioners who used them to replace unusable bottles in the patented bulk containers originally produced by Schutz. At trial, the court said that using Werit’s bottles did not infringe the patent, but the appellate court disagreed and found that infringement had occurred. Werit took the case to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it.
 
The Supreme Court based its decision on the issue of whether Werit was “making” the patented product. While the court recognized an owner’s right to repair, it was unwilling to base its decision solely on determining whether what was done by Werit and the re-conditioners was repair. Instead, it felt that it had to decide whether in replacing a part of a patented article “making” occurred. In its holding, the court ruled that each case had to be decided on its own facts and that “… it is a matter of degree, to be assessed in each case, whether replacing a worn or damaged part of patented article amounts to ‘making’ the patented article.”
 
While each case is to be fact-driven, the court did enumerate certain guidelines and factors to be considered in making that decision. First, it found that replacement of a “damaged essential element” of a product can constitute repair rather than making the product. Next, it believed that replacement of a part which, though essential, was clearly a subsidiary part of the patented product did not involve “making.” Another factor it considered was whether a part was physically easy to replace and in practice relatively perishable. Such factors would favor a conclusion that its replacement did not constitute “making.” The court also looked at whether the inventive concept resided in the part that was being replaced, i.e., if the part the component where the patented improvements were incorporated. Finally, it felt that if the used part had no value (was not a marketable core), then that would favor the idea that its renewal would be “making” bulk containers. After reviewing all those factors, the court decided that what Werit and the re-conditioners were not “making” new bulk containers.
 
The court’s decision follows similar logic used by U.S. courts to uphold the right to remanufacture. Starting with the U.S. Supreme Court, those courts have focused on whether the work done by the alleged patent infringer is “re-construction” of the patented product or merely “permissible repair.” The U.S. courts also look to the facts of each case. U.S. courts also have made it clear that even replacement of a key or dominant element of a patented product does not constitute illegal reconstruction of that product.
 
According to APRA General Counsel Michael Conlon, “In Werit, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has recognized and confirmed the previous decisions of U.S. and European community courts, upholding the right to remanufacture patented products. These decisions are vitally important to the continued remanufacturing and reuse of motor vehicle parts and other products.”
 
 
 

You May Also Like

Bridgestone’s Firestone Rubber Farm Receives Recognition

Bridgestone said its Liberia facility earned the ISCC Plus certification for its efforts in reducing environmental impacts.

Bridgestone’s Firestone Liberia rubber farm receives ISCC Plus recognition

Bridgestone Americas said its Firestone Liberia natural rubber growing and processing facility earned the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) Plus recognition. The Firestone Liberia facility is Bridgestone’s first natural rubber farm to achieve this certification.

According to Bridgestone, its Firestone Liberia facility earned the ISCC Plus certification for its efforts in reducing environmental impacts. The certification also recognized the farm for the implementation of good agricultural practices, including proper working conditions, complying with local regulations and fostering ongoing growth through management practices, Bridgestone said.

SKF Aims to Eliminate Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

SKF joined and co-funded Mission 0 to help deliver solutions to eliminate GHG emissions in materials, production and end-of-life of passenger cars.

SKF Aims to Eliminate Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
Polestar Performance SUVs on Display in New York

The Polestar 3 and Polestar 4 will be showcased at the NY International Auto Show for the first time.

Polestar Performance SUVs on Display in New York
Corteco Strengthens Expansion in Southeast Europe

Freudenberg Sealing Technologies’ aftermarket unit opens a warehouse in Turkey and a sales office in Serbia.

Corteco Strengthens Ambitions in Southeast Europe
Marelli Presents New Interior Innovation Center

The location is implementing three key initiatives inspired by the theme, “What’s next? Innovation for the new era.” 

Marelli presents its new Interior Innovation Center

Other Posts

Auto Care Association Welcomes GAO Report on Vehicle Repair Restrictions

Auto Care is renewing its call for Congress to advance federal Right to Repair legislation that protects independent business owners and consumers.

Right to repair 2
MEMA Applauds the EPA on Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards

MEMA says the EPA final rule includes an amended and more comprehensive analysis of technological alternatives.

Opposition Grows for California’s Mandate Banning New Gas-Powered Vehicle Sales
Analysis: Post-Covid Years for Expats, Int’l. Business Travelers

Allen Koski discusses how artificial intelligence is affecting global healthcare trends, among other topics.

Analysis: Post-Covid Years for Expats, Int'l. Business Travelers
Yokohama to Build New Tire Plant in Mexico

The facility is set to begin production in early 2027, with a planned annual output of 5 million tires. 

Yokohama Tire Plant Mexico