Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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 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.
Case History
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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 a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?