Microsoft Corporation v. AT&T Corp.
550 U.S. 437 · Decided April 30, 2007 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Microsoft Corporation v. AT&T Corp. was decided on April 30, 2007 by a vote of 7–1. The Court reversed the lower court's decision. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Patentability of computer processes” in the Economic Activity area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 550 U.S. 437 · 127 S. Ct. 1746 · 167 L. Ed. 2d 737 · 2007 U.S. LEXIS 4744
- Docket number
- 05-1056
- Decided
- April 30, 2007
- Argued
- February 21, 2007
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 7–1
- Majority opinion
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- Opinion assigned by
- Antonin Scalia
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Patentability of computer processes
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Legal provision
- 35 U.S.C. § 271
- Type of law
- Infrequently litigated statute
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | |
| Justice David H. Souter | Majority | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Concurrence | |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Concurrence | |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
Did not participate: John G. Roberts Jr..
Full case caption
Microsoft Corporation v. AT&T Corp.
SCDB identifiers: case 2006-040, docket 2006-040-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Patentability of computer processes”
- Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.
- Quanta Computer, Inc. v. Lg Electronics, Inc.
- Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw v. David J. Kappos
- Microsoft Corporation v. I4I Limited Partnership
- Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l
- Diamond v. Bradley
Cases on the same legal provision: 35 U.S.C. § 271
- Merck Kgaa v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd.
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank and United StatesLaw held unconstitutional
- Eli Lilly and Company v. Medtronic, Inc.
- Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.
- Deepsouth Packing Co., Inc. v. Laitram Corp.
- Aro Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc.
Same Term, same area (Economic Activity)
- Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Timothy Sorrell
- Weyerhaeuser Company v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Company, Inc.
- Philip Morris USA v. Mayola Williams
- Robert Louis Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts
- Rockwell International Corp. v. United States
- Alicia G. Limtiaco v. Felix P. Camacho
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error