Section 271(f). Id. at 1372-74. Our opinion on that issue did not elaborate further. We more fully addressed Section 271(f) in Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed.Cir.2005). In that case, we held that Microsoft could not avoid Section 271(f) liability by exporting golden master disks containing software code that were subsequently copied onto computer hard drives and sold outside of the United States. Id. at 1331, 1341. Eolas involved both a product and a method claim. In holding that Microsoft was liable under Section 271(f), we held that the software code included on Microsoft’s master disks was a “component” of a patented invention under Section 271(f), id. at 1339, and that the relevant “component” referred to a part of the product claim. See id. at 1339 (<HOLDING>). We rejected Microsoft’s argument that the
holding that the one challenging the patent must in part show that the subject matter of the sale or offer to sell fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious by its addition to the prior art holding in an ordinary patent infringement suit the claim both arises out of and relates to the defendants alleged manufacturing using or selling of the claimed invention recognizing that courts must be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention holding that the proponent must offer proof that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention  holding that the computer readable code claimed in claim 6 the product claim was a part or component of that invention