U.S. Code » Title 17 » Chapter CHAPTER 9— PROTECTION OF SEMICONDUCTOR CHIP PRODUCTS

17 U.S.C. § 906

Limitation on exclusive rights: reverse engineering; first sale

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 17 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 905, it is not an infringement of the exclusive rights of the owner of a mask work for—(1) a person to reproduce the mask work solely for the purpose of teaching, analyzing, or evaluating the concepts or techniques embodied in the mask work or the circuitry, logic flow, or organization of components used in the mask work; or(2) a person who performs the analysis or evaluation described in paragraph (1) to incorporate the results of such conduct in an original mask work which is made to be distributed.(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 905(2), the owner of a particular semiconductor chip product made by the owner of the mask work, or by any person authorized by the owner of the mask work, may import, distribute, or otherwise dispose of or use, but not reproduce, that particular semiconductor chip product without the authority of the owner of the mask work.(Added Pub. L. 98–620, title III, § 302, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3350.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1988–2005 · leading case: Brooktree Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brooktree Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (1993) cafc · cites it 2× “17 U.S.C. § 906 (a). The statute thus provides that one engaged in reverse engineering shall not be liable for infringement when the end product is itself original.”
Sega Enterprises Ltd., a Japanese Corporation v. Accolade, Inc., a California Corporation (1993) ca9 · cites it 2× “17 U.S.C. § 906 . The mask work in a standard ROM chip, such as those used in the Genesis console and in Genesis-compatible cartridges, is a physical representation of the computer program that is embedded in the chip.”
Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc. (2005) ca9 “17 U.S.C. § 906 . This reverse engineering provision explicitly protects industry practices and encourages innovation.”
Harold L. Bowers (Doing Business as Hlb Technology), Plaintiff-Cross v. Baystate Technologies, Inc. (2003) cafc “§ 1201 (f) (section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and 17 U.S.C. § 906 (section directed to mask works).”
Atari Games Corp. And Tengen, Inc. v. Nintendo of America Inc. And Nintendo Co., Ltd. (1992) cafc “Atari did not reproduce or copy Nintendo’s chip or mask work. In fact, Atari used an entirely different chip.”
Anadigics, Inc. v. Raytheon Co. (1995) nysd “17 U.S.C. § 906 (a). This process is known as reverse engineering.”
Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (1988) casd “17 U.S.C. § 906 (a). DISCUSSION In the instant action, Brooktree alleges that AMD misappropriated two mask works from its Bt451 and Bt458 chips.”
Altera Corporation v. Clear Logic, Inc. (2005) ca9 “17 U.S.C. § 906 . This reverse engineering provision explicitly protects industry practices and encourages innovation.”
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.