In the 1963 case of ARO Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether or not a company that repairs patented items is guilty of patent infringement. The plaintiff, Convertible Top Replacement Company, held a patent for an automobile convertible top structure and claimed that ARO Manufacturing infringed on this patent by selling replacement parts used to repair these structures without their permission. The court ruled in favor of ARO Manufacturing, stating that repairing a patented item does not constitute making it anew (which would be infringing upon the original manufacturer's rights). Therefore, selling replacement parts for such repairs also doesn't count as infringement under U.S Patent Law. This decision clarified how far-reaching patents can be when it comes to aftermarket sales and services related to patented products; essentially limiting them from controlling all aspects beyond initial sale.

In the dissenting opinion for Aro Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc., Justice Black disagreed with the majority's interpretation of patent law, arguing that it was overly broad and could stifle competition and innovation in the marketplace. He contended that a company should not be held liable for patent infringement simply because they repaired or replaced parts of a patented product, as long as they did not recreate the entire product itself. In his view, this would allow companies to maintain their products without fear of litigation while still respecting the rights of patent holders. Furthermore, he argued against awarding damages based on lost profits from potential sales, stating that such calculations were speculative at best.