## Facts

- Bottom Line Management, Inc. owned U.S. Patent No. 5,070,775 covering a removable upper cooking surface (“platen”) used in commercial two-sided “clamshell” hamburger cookers.
- The platen was a flat aluminum plate with a Teflon-coated food-contact surface and studs on the back used to attach the platen to the cooker.
- The claimed design included studs welded to the back, leaving the cooking surface smooth and unpierced, improving coating uniformity and reducing grease/food accumulation.
- In normal use, the Teflon coating wore out within roughly six to twelve months; during removal or handling, studs were often bent or broken.
- The patent specification contemplated that platens could be removed and refurbished rather than discarded.
- Pan Man, Inc. and Garry T. Less purchased used platens, stripped and replaced the Teflon coating, straightened bent studs, and replaced broken studs by welding or soldering new studs onto the existing plate, then resold the refurbished platens.
- Bottom Line sued for patent infringement, alleging Pan Man’s activities amounted to impermissible reconstruction of the patented article.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Pan Man, holding the conduct was permissible repair; Bottom Line appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether refurbishing a patented article by recoating a worn surface and straightening or replacing damaged, unpatented components constitutes permissible repair or infringing reconstruction.
2. Whether using welding/soldering to replace studs converts refurbishment into reconstruction when welded studs are important to the claimed article, but the patent does not claim a repair method.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Pan Man.
- Pan Man’s recoating of the cooking surface and straightening or replacing studs restored used platens to working condition and extended their useful life.
- The court held these acts were permissible repair rather than making a “new article” constituting infringing reconstruction.
- The court rejected the argument that use of welding/soldering to replace studs, by itself, transformed repair into infringement.

## Legal Principles

- After an authorized sale of a patented article, the owner (including later purchasers) may repair the article to preserve its useful life, absent an express contractual restriction.
- Replacing worn, consumable, or short-lived elements, and repairing or replacing damaged, unpatented components of a patented article, generally constitutes repair rather than reconstruction.
- The repair/reconstruction line turns on whether the accused activity effectively creates a “new article,” not on whether the activity restores important functional features.
- A patentee cannot treat a repair technique as infringing unless the technique itself is claimed; use of an unclaimed method to restore functionality remains repair.
- When the patent’s disclosure contemplates refurbishment of the patented article, that context supports characterization of such refurbishment as repair.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that refurbishing used patented platens by replacing the worn Teflon coating and repairing or replacing damaged studs merely preserved the useful life of the original platens, so the conduct was permissible repair and did not infringe.


Bottom Line Mgmt., Inc. v. Pan Man, Inc., 228 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000)