Aro Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc.
365 U.S. 336 · Decided February 27, 1961 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Aro Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc. was decided on February 27, 1961 by a vote of 6–3. The Court reversed the lower court's decision. Justice Charles E. Whittaker wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Patents” in the Economic Activity area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 365 U.S. 336 · 81 S. Ct. 599 · 5 L. Ed. 2d 592 · 1961 U.S. LEXIS 1944
- Docket number
- 21
- Decided
- February 27, 1961
- Argued
- October 13, 1960
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority opinion
- Charles E. Whittaker
- Opinion assigned by
- Earl Warren
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Patents
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Legal provision
- 35 U.S.C. § 271
- Type of law
- Infrequently litigated statute
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Dissent | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Majority | |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Charles E. Whittaker | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Dissent |
Full case caption
Aro Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc.
SCDB identifiers: case 1960-049, docket 1960-049-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Patents”
- Sears v. Stiffel CompanyLaw held unconstitutional
- Compco Corporation v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.
- Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther
- Aro Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc.
- Brulotte v. Thys Co.
- Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Brenner
Cases on the same legal provision: 35 U.S.C. § 271
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank and United StatesLaw held unconstitutional
- Microsoft Corporation v. AT&T Corp.
Same Term, same area (Economic Activity)
- Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc.
- Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Dugan & McNamara, Inc.
- New York v. Henagan
- Thomas v. Virginia
- United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co.
- Lewis v. Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error