Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Foreign-Made Copies of Software Do Not Infringe Patent for Software-Implemented Invention: The Supreme Court's Decision in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.
Can a company skirt infringement of a U.S. patent for a software-enabled computer by sending a master software disk from the United States to a non-U.S. country where computers are loaded with installation disks generated from the master disk, but are not loaded with the master disk itself? In Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. ____, 127 S.Ct. 1746 (2007), a highly anticipated decision with potentially significant ramifications for the enforcement of software-based patents, the Supreme Court answered 'yes.'
With Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing for a 7-1 majority, the Court reversed the Federal Circuit's ruling in favor of patentee AT&T. The statute at issue, 35 USC '271(f), extends, in limited circumstances, the reach of U.S. patent law to activities in non-US countries. Under this statute, a patent is infringed when one 'supplies … from the United States' a patented invention's 'components' for 'combination' abroad. The AT&T patent at issue, U.S. Reissue Patent No. 32,580, is for an invention with two components: a computer and its speech-processing software. According to the Court, Microsoft's Windows operating system 'has the potential to infringe AT&T's patent, because Windows incorporates software code that, when installed, enables a computer to process speech in the manner claimed by that patent.'
Although 'Microsoft stipulated that by installing Windows on its own computers [in the United States] during the software development process, it directly infringed the '580 patent,' Microsoft denied liability for the non-U.S. computers because all of them were loaded with copies made abroad from the master Windows copy, and not with the master copy itself.
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?