Interesting argument if it sticks:
Google said its workers made Android binary and source codes available for download to foreign manufacturers, and neither code is available in any physical medium. The manufacturers then downloaded the codes, which "necessarily involves copying it - otherwise the code would disappear from the website after the first download," according to the brief. "Thus, foreign device manufacturers have to copy Android code before loading it onto their devices."
Google stressed the similarities between its case and Microsoft v. AT&T. The Supreme Court had reasoned that, because Microsoft "does not export from the United States the copies actually installed, it does not 'suppl[y] ... from the United States' 'components' of the relevant computers, and therefore is not liable" for patent infringement, the brief states. Van Nest, a partner with Keker & Van Nest in San Francisco, further argued that Android software remains an "idea without physical embodiment" and not a "combinable" component of a device until it is "expressed as a computer-readable copy."