Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

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

On Oct. 27, 2006, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in <i>Microsoft Corp. v. AT&amp;T Corp.</i> (No. 05-1056), preparing to elucidate the contours of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. &sect;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 &sect;271(f) was widely assumed to apply only to the tangible components of a physical machine. If &sect;271(f) applies equally to software, then software companies will need to rethink their exposure to liability when exporting software abroad. Liability under &sect;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.

26 minute read November 30, 2006 at 01:18 PM
By
Sean Chao
Is Software a Section 271(f) 'Component' of a Patented Invention?

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 premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist

  • 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

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

Adverse Possessor Provided Insufficient Evidence to Support TackingTown’s Installation of Guardrails Did Not Constitute a TakingMortgagee Entitled to Deficiency JudgmentLandowner Adequately Alleged Trespass During Renovation

August 13, 2026

Agentic AI introduces risks that are novel and complex, but the most effective response is a familiar one. Zero Trust answers the problem of when an AI agent misfires on its own by constraining what an agent can do rather than betting on how it will behave.

August 01, 2026