ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Microsoft v. ATT ruling by US Supreme Court on 30 April 2007"

(The US legislation at issue in this case was USC 271(f).)
(The majority opinion was written by Justice Stevens.)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
'''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.
 
'''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 [[US Supreme Court]] ruled that no, the overseas infringement in that case didn't count as infringement in the USA.
+
The [[US Supreme Court]] ruled that no, the overseas infringement in that case didn't count as infringement in the USA.  The majority opinion was written by [[Justice Stevens]].
  
 
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 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]].

Revision as of 06:48, 26 June 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 US Supreme Court ruled that no, the overseas infringement in that case didn't count as infringement in the USA. The majority opinion was written by Justice Stevens.

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 US legislation at issue in this case was USC 271(f).

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

Patently-o coverage