Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Microsoft v. AT&T: The Supreme Court Grapples with How to Treat Software under '271(f) of the Patent Act

By Mark A. Chapman and Matthew E.M. Moersfelder
June 28, 2007

On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., No. 05-1056, 127 S. Ct. 1746 (2007). The Microsoft decision addressed the scope of '271(f) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. '271(f), which provides that it is an act of infringement to 'supply' the 'components' of a patented invention from the United States for combination outside the United States.

The Federal Circuit had held that Microsoft infringed an AT&T U.S. patent under '271(f) when it sent software from the United States to a foreign country (by shipping a master disk or by electronic transmission), where the software was then copied onto disks and installed onto foreign computers. The Supreme Court reversed in a 7-1 decision, holding that Microsoft did not infringe under '271(f). The four justices in the majority held that only the actual physical copies of the software stored on the disks and installed onto the foreign computers ' not the software code in the abstract ' qualified as 'components,' and thus that there was no liability because these copies had not been 'supplied' from the United States. The three justices who concurred went even further, holding that a 'component' must be something physical, and that because no physical thing originating in the United States was 'combined' with the foreign computers, there was no infringement.

The Microsoft decision is interesting for a number of reasons. First, the various opinions reveal that the members of the Supreme Court have different views about how to apply the tangible concepts of 'supplying' a 'component' in '271(f) to the intangible nature of software. Second, the Court made clear that it is up to Congress, not the courts, to consider whether this creates a loophole that needs to be remedied. Finally, although the decision clarifies certain aspects of the scope of '271(f), it does not provide much guidance about how to treat other methods of exporting software for installation on foreign computers, such as downloading software via the Internet. Unless and until Congress steps in, lower courts likely will interpret '271(f) narrowly in view of the Supreme Court's reluctance to interpret the section broadly.

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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.