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
The dispute centers on the extraterritorial reach of § 271(f) when a U.S. component is supplied domestically and combined overseas to infringe a U.S. patent.
Background and question before the Court
The central legal question is whether § 271(f) reaches conduct that occurs abroad when a U.S. component is supplied domestically and combined overseas.
What each side argues
WesternGeco LLC (Petitioner)
According to WesternGeco LLC, congress enacted § 271(f) to prohibit the domestic supply of components that are combined abroad in a way that would constitute infringement if performed in the United States.
The petitioner argues that the rule applied to § 271(a) should also apply to § 271(f).
ION Geophysical Corporation (Respondent)
According to ION Geophysical Corporation, the foreign combination of the components does not constitute infringement of a U.S. patent, making the presumption against extraterritoriality a better fit for this case.
United States (Amicus Curiae)
According to Mr. Tripp, section 271(f) should be read more narrowly than the petitioner’s description.
Professor Yelderman (Amicus)
According to Professor Yelderman, the doctrine of causation‑in‑fact and proximate cause in the Federal Circuit is relevant to cases analogous to this one.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Runaway jury awards in cases involving extraterritorial patent claims could create substantial comity concerns.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 724674649b2369ceb998-r1-84523d702c697130.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.