Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerFeaturesTopicsTechnology Media and TelecomSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Is Software a Section 271(f) 'Component' of a Patented Invention?

By Sean Chao
November 30, 2006

On Oct. 27, 2006, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (No. 05-1056), preparing to elucidate the contours of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. '271(f) as applied to the exportation of software code. This case marks the first time in the 22 years since Congress enacted the provision that the Court will venture into this area. The outcome may have significant ramifications for the software industry because '271(f) was widely assumed to apply only to the tangible components of a physical machine. If '271(f) applies equally to software, then software companies will need to rethink their exposure to liability when exporting software abroad. Liability under '271(f) may extend beyond the initial act of exporting and further include downstream activities, such as copying and installing that are done entirely outside of the United States.

Congress enacted '271(f) in 1984 in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972), which exposed a loophole in '271 that allowed potential infringers to escape liability by manufacturing the components of a patented invention in the United States and then shipping them abroad for assembly. In Deepsouth, the manufacturer attempted to avoid an injunction by manufacturing the parts of a patented machine in the United States and then shipping the parts in three separate boxes to its overseas customers for easy assembly. Because only the components were 'made' in the United States, there was no direct infringement under '271(a), which prohibits only the making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing of a patented invention within the United States. Furthermore, as there was no direct infringer in the United States, indirect infringement under ”271(b) or (c) did not apply.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Law Firms are Reducing Redundant Real Estate by Bringing Support Services Back to the Office Image

A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Bit Parts Image

Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights

Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes Image

“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.

Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel Image

'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.