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
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

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.

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.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.