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 LJN Newsletters 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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

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.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.