## Facts

- Husky owned a reissue patent covering an injection molding apparatus that included, among other elements, a carrier plate with multiple sets of cavities for cooling molded plastic preforms.
- Husky sold X-series injection molding machines embodying the patented combination.
- The molds and carrier plates used with the machines were unpatented components and were designed to be replaced periodically due to wear or to change preform design.
- Husky sold replacement molds and carrier plates to its customers; replacements were typically needed every few years.
- R & D manufactured and sold replacement molds and carrier plates compatible with Husky machines, including customized versions.
- Husky sued R & D for contributory infringement and inducement, asserting that customers’ replacement of both the mold and carrier plate amounted to impermissible reconstruction of the patented apparatus.
- The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement to R & D on the ground that the challenged activity was permissible repair, not reconstruction.

## Issues

1. Whether replacement of unpatented molds and carrier plates in a patented injection molding system constitutes impermissible reconstruction (direct infringement) or permissible repair.
2. If the customers’ conduct is permissible repair, whether R & D can be liable for contributory infringement or inducement based on selling the replacement parts.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for R & D.
- Replacing the molds and carrier plates was more akin to repair than reconstruction of the patented combination.
- Because customers did not directly infringe by performing permissible repair, Husky’s contributory infringement and inducement claims failed for lack of underlying direct infringement.

## Legal Principles

- A lawful purchaser of a patented combination may maintain the article in working order; replacing worn, obsolete, or routinely changeable unpatented components is generally permissible repair.
- Repair may include replacement of components that are essential to the system’s operation when the device’s design and expected use contemplate periodic replacement of those components.
- Reconstruction requires activity that effectively creates a new instance of the patented article; ordinary replacement of readily replaceable parts does not meet that standard.
- Contributory infringement and inducement require direct infringement by another; when the end user’s conduct is permissible repair, there is no direct infringement to support secondary liability.

## Conclusion

The court held that the owner’s periodic replacement of unpatented molds and carrier plates in an injection molding system was permissible repair, not reconstruction, so suppliers of those replacement parts were not liable for contributory infringement or inducement.


Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. R & D Tool & Eng'g Co., 291 F.3d 780 (Fed. Cir. 2002)