Aro Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc.
377 U.S. 476 · Decided June 8, 1964 · Supreme Court of the United States
At a glance
Aro Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc. was decided on June 8, 1964 by a vote of 5–4. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision in part, reversed or vacated it in part, and remanded the case. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Patents” in the Economic Activity area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 377 U.S. 476 · 84 S. Ct. 1526 · 12 L. Ed. 2d 457 · 1964 U.S. LEXIS 2381
- Docket number
- 75
- Decided
- June 8, 1964
- Argued
- February 17, 1964
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- William J. Brennan Jr.
- Opinion assigned by
- John M. Harlan II
- 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)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Dissent | |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Dissent | |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Dissent | |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Majority | |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Arthur J. Goldberg | Majority |
Full case caption
Aro Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc.
SCDB identifiers: case 1963-138, docket 1963-138-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Patents”
- Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther
- Sears v. Stiffel CompanyLaw held unconstitutional
- Compco Corporation v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.
- Brulotte v. Thys Co.
- Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Brenner
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City
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)
- Tipton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc.
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc.
- Dennis v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
- Eichel v. New York Central Railroad Co.
- Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. AndrewsLaw held unconstitutional
- United States v. Wiesenfeld Warehouse Co.
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