Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.

The Supreme Court's recent interest in patent matters continued with its decision in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. In a 7-1 decision, the Court held that Section 271(f) of the Patent Act does not extend to cover foreign duplication of software from a master copy supplied from the U.S. Because patent law is territorial—there is no such thing as a world-wide patent—a U.S. patent covers infringing acts occurring within the United States, but generally disregards allegedly-infringing acts occurring elsewhere in the world. The single exception to this principle is Section 271(f) of the Patent Act, which calls for infringement liability for the unauthorized supply of "components" of a patented invention for "combination" abroad.

In the present case, AT&T is the assignee of a patent on a computer to digitally encode and compress recorded speech. In the U.S., a computer installed with Microsoft WINDOWS infringes AT&T's patent—WINDOWS incorporates software code that, when installed, enables a computer to process speech in the manner claimed by the patent. For foreign-made computers sold abroad, Microsoft sends each manufacturer a master version of WINDOWS, either on a disk or via encrypted electronic transmission, which the foreign manufacturer uses to generate copies. The copies are then installed on the individual machines.

The Court framed the issue before it as: Does Microsoft's liability for patent infringement extend to computers made in another country when loaded with WINDOWS software copied abroad from a master disk or electronic transmission dispatched by Microsoft from the United States? To this, the Court answered "No."

The underlying questions the Court ultimately attempted answer in this decision concern: (1) defining and treatment of "abstract software," and (2) issues with the supply of software copies. Regarding abstract software, the Court stated: "Until it is expressed as a computer-readable "copy," e.g., on a CD-ROM, WINDOWS software, indeed any software, detached from an activating medium remains uncombinable…Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment, and as such, it does not match Section 271(f)'s categorization: "components" amenable to "combination." Concerning the supply of copies, the Court stated: "[T]he very components supplied from the United States, and not copies thereof, trigger Section 271(f) liability when combined abroad to form the patented invention at issue. Here, as we have repeatedly noted, the copies of WINDOWS actually installed on the foreign computers were not themselves supplied from the United States." Justice Stevens, in the lone dissenting opinion, stated that: "[I]f a disk with software inscribed on it is a "component," I find it difficult to understand why the most important ingredient of that component is not also a component."