Difference between revisions of "Microsoft v. ATT ruling by US Supreme Court on 30 April 2007"
(→External links: * [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1056.pdf The Supreme Court ruling]) |
(→Patently-o coverage: link titles) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
===Patently-o coverage=== | ===Patently-o coverage=== | ||
| − | * http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2005/11/bush_administra.html | + | * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2005/11/bush_administra.html Bush Administration Intercedes in BlackBerry Patent Case], Nov 2005 |
| − | * http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/10/supreme_court_l.html | + | * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/10/supreme_court_l.html Supreme Court Likely to Hear Transnational Patent Law Dispute], Oct 2006 |
| − | * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/12/microsoft_v_att.html Patently-o gives an overview of Microsoft v. AT&T] | + | * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/12/microsoft_v_att.html Patently-o gives an overview of Microsoft v. AT&T], Dec 2006 |
| − | * http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/02/microsoft_v_att.html | + | * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/02/microsoft_v_att.html Microsoft v. AT&T: Transnational patent Law], Feb 07, 2007 |
| − | * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/en-banc-export-of-components-of-process-claims-do-not-infringe-section-271f.html En Banc: Methods do not have Exportable Components and Therefore Method Claims Cannot be Infringed Under Section 271(f)] | + | * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/en-banc-export-of-components-of-process-claims-do-not-infringe-section-271f.html En Banc: Methods do not have Exportable Components and Therefore Method Claims Cannot be Infringed Under Section 271(f)], Aug 2009 |
Revision as of 12:05, 17 April 2010
Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007), posed the question of whether a company can be liable for patent violation for a product, in this case software, used in another country. So the topic was not necessarily related to software and patentable subject matter, but there was room to discuss these topics, which SFLC did in their brief.
The litigation began in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, and an appeal was heard in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and thereafter in the US Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court (AFAICT) ruled that no, the overseas infringement in that case didn't count as infringement in the USA.
Case summary
As described by opening of the Supreme Court's opinion:
It is the general rule under United States patent law that no infringe ment occurs when a patented product is made and sold in another country. There is an exception. Section 271(f) of the Patent Act, adopted in 1984, provides that infringement does occur when one “suppl[ies] . . . from the United States,” for “combination” abroad, a patented invention’s “components.” 35 U. S. C. §271(f)(1). This case concerns the applicability of §271(f) to computer software first sent from the United States to a foreign manufacturer on a master disk, or by electronic transmission, then copied by the foreign recipient for installation on computers made and sold abroad.
AT&T holds a patent on a computer used to digitally encode and compress recorded speech. Microsoft’s Windows operating system has the potential to infringe that patent[...]
Related pages on ESP Wiki
External links
- SFLC's amicus brief (discussed on the SFLC page)
- another patently-o article
- The CAFC ruling
- The Supreme Court ruling
Patently-o coverage
- Bush Administration Intercedes in BlackBerry Patent Case, Nov 2005
- Supreme Court Likely to Hear Transnational Patent Law Dispute, Oct 2006
- Patently-o gives an overview of Microsoft v. AT&T, Dec 2006
- Microsoft v. AT&T: Transnational patent Law, Feb 07, 2007
- En Banc: Methods do not have Exportable Components and Therefore Method Claims Cannot be Infringed Under Section 271(f), Aug 2009
