This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Microsoft Corporation, the case concerns whether making components of a patented invention in the United States and exporting them for assembly abroad infringes 35 U.S.C. §271(f).
Background and question before the Court
According to Microsoft Corporation, u.S. patent law grants a limited monopoly that protects against making, using, or selling a patented invention within the United States, and §271(f) extends infringement to making components in the U.S. and shipping them abroad for assembly.
According to Microsoft Corporation, the central question is whether exporting components that were made in the United States infringes the patent holder’s rights under §271(f).
What each side argues
Microsoft Corporation
According to Microsoft Corporation, the limited monopoly granted by U.S. patent laws protects against making, using or selling a patented invention within the United States, and §271(f) makes it infringement to make components in the United States and ship them abroad for reassembly.
According to Waxman (Petitioner), according to Waxman (Petitioner), it makes liable as an infringer anyone who supplies from the United States a component with the express intent that the component be combined to create a device that would practice a U.S. patent.
According to Waxman (Petitioner), according to Waxman (Petitioner), the software at issue is modular, can be bought, sold, removed, or updated independently of hardware, and is dynamic unlike designs or molds.
According to Mr. JoSEFFER, the component is the actual machine‑readable copy of software that is inserted in a device.
According to Mr. JoSEFFER, a blank disk is not a component of the invention because it is not needed to practice the invention.
AT&T Corp.
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Stevens asked for clarification of what the “component” is in this case.
Justice Breyer asked whether the Court is operating under the assumption that software is patentable.
According to Justice Scalia, the code in question is not patentable.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
- component
- The component is the actual machine readable copy of software that is inserted in a device.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- aed4e0667f9a95a040cc-r1-c58ebfde40f8738c.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.