Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

Register

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 readNovember 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 inMicrosoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (No. 05-1056), preparing to elucidate the contours of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. '271(f) as

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

Businesses subject to the CCPA now must conduct risk assessments for certain types of processing activities and, starting in 2028, must certify to California regulators that they completed the assessments.

February 01, 2026

The firms that will thrive when it comes to the adoption of AI will not be those with the most tools or the most prompts. They will be the ones with clear standards, defined human ownership and a dedicated AI partner able to turn raw generation into reliable, high‑value content.

February 01, 2026

Artificial intelligence is changing how legal work is performed. What’s needed is problem-solving optimism, a clinical appraisal of the firm’s capabilities and economic position, and earnest resolve to change before market pressure forces change under duress.

February 01, 2026

The ethical use of AI should be a prerequisite for the integration of AI into a legal practice. Failure to learn and implement transparency, accountability, and best practices for responsible AI usage prior to employing AI will likely result in ethical and malpractice difficulties.

February 01, 2026