17 U.S.C. § 905

Exclusive rights in mask works

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 17 CasesGoogle Scholar

The owner of a mask work provided protection under this chapter has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:(1) to reproduce the mask work by optical, electronic, or any other means;(2) to import or distribute a semiconductor chip product in which the mask work is embodied; and(3) to induce or knowingly to cause another person to do any of the acts described in paragraphs (1) and (2).(Added Pub. L. 98–620, title III, § 302, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3350.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1988–2013 · leading case: Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013). · cites it 2× “consumers but would likely —————— 16 Congress hardly lacks capacity to provide for international exhaus tion when that is its intent.”

Brooktree Corp., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “17 U.S.C. § 905 . Mask works that are not “original”, or that consist of “designs that are staple, commonplace, or familiar in the semiconductor industry, or variations of such designs, combined in a way that, considered as a whole, is not original”, are excluded from protection.”

Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2005). “” 17 U.S.C. § 905 . The Act does not, however, extend protection “to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”

Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 705 F. Supp. 491 (S.D. Cal. 1988). “17 U.S.C. § 905 (1). Also, the Mask Work Act only protects the “series of related images” encoded in the chip.”

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013). “consumers but would likely —————— 16 Congress hardly lacks capacity to provide for international exhaus tion when that is its intent.”

Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc. (9th Cir. 2005). “” 17 U.S.C. § 905 . The Act does not, however, extend protection “to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regard- less of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.