Court to hear Microsoft appeal, three other cases
on Oct 27, 2006 at 3:55 pm
UPDATED 3:25 p.m.
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to clarify how U.S. patent laws apply to computer software code that is shipped abroad for installation in foreign-made computers. The issue arises in a major legal dispute between Microsoft Corp. and AT&T Corp. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., took no part in the order in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T (05-1056, some briefs available here). This was one of four cases the Court agreed on Friday to hear during the current Term (the complete Order List is here). The Court also agreed to rule on the legal rights of parents of disabled children in disputes over their education, on police legal risks in carrying out high-speed vehicle chases, and on the right to sue for a federal tax refund when taxes were wrongly levied.
No date for argument was set, but presumably the cases will be heard in the February sitting.
The Microsoft case involves a patent that AT&T has on technology for making synthetic speech — digitally simulated speech — sound more natural. AT&T has won a claim that Microsoft infringed on that patent by including the code in its Windows operating system installed in computers built, sold and used in the U.S. The dispute that continues tests whether Microsoft also infringes when it sends Windows overseas for installation in foreign-made computers, when the system includes the AT&T voice technology. The case raises two issues: whether software code can be treated legally as a component of a patented invention, and whether creation of copies of software overseas from a master version amounts to having supplied the component from the U.S. In its appeal, Microsoft contended that the Federal Circuit Court has embarked on a campaign to stretch U.S. patent laws to reach international dealings in software.
In the disabled student case, the Court said it would decide whether parents who are not lawyers have a right to represent a disabled child or themselves in a federal court lawsuit over public education opportunities for their child (Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 05-983, briefs here). Parents have been threatened with accusations of unauthorized practice of law if they sue, “pro se,” over their disabled child’s access to an equal public education under federal law. In this case, the parents’ lawsuit was dismissed because they did not have a lawyer.
The U.S. Solicitor General had urged the Court to hear both the Microsoft and Winkelman cases.
In another case, the Court agreed to decide whether the Fourth Amendment puts limits on police officers who use deadly force in an attempt to stop a suspect fleeing at high speed in a vehicle. The Georgia case is Scott v. Harris, 05-1631 (cert. petition here). The case tests whether pursuing police engage in an unconstitutional seizure if they bump the fleeing suspect’s vehicle from the rear, causing the suspect’s vehicle to crash and resulting in serious injuries to him. The case grew out of a nighttime high-speed chase in Peachtree City, Ga., in 2001. A lower court ruled that the officer involved in the pursuit did not have qualified immunity to the Fourth Amendment claim.
Finally, the Court said it will spell out whether a person who is not a taxpayer facing an assessment may seek a refund when its funds were wrongly seized, if that individual had not filed a proper challenge to the wrongful levy The Fifth Circuit Court ruled that failure to pursue a timely claim of wrongful levy bars a later separate lawsuit for a refund. The Solicitor General had urged the Court to hear the case of EC Term of Trust v. U.S. (05-1541, SG’s brief here), saying that lower courts were split on the question and that the issue is important and recurring.
