| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi - Thank you for the opportunity to provide
comments on the draft Letter of Assurance. We recognize that many of the
related issues are very complicated, and we appreciate the IEEE’s
recognition of the need to conduct a thorough review of them and to involve a
broader sample of IEEE company members who will be significantly impacted by
them. We have the following comments to offer
on the latest draft of the Letter of Assurance: 1.
With regard to definition of “Essential Patent Claims”, the
definition in the LoA says that it is any claim that “may be essential to
create a compliant implementation….” First, we agree with the
previous comments submitted by Mike Sirtori and attached hereto. We also
would note that this definition uses the word “essential” to define
essentiality, and we are not sure that that is helpful; alternate language such
as “claims which would necessarily be infringed by an
implementation of an IEEE Standard” might be better. The issue is
further complicated by the fact that the definition pulls in both the mandatory
and optional portions of the proposed standard.
2.
The definition of “Organizational Knowledge” is very confusing.
I cannot tell from this definition who would be the person or people at
my company who are responsible for “oversight and management” of
the IP portfolio in the area related to the standard. I also do not
understand what would constitute “knowledge”, as any patent manager
usually would not be someone who would be reviewing proposed standards.
Is this language meant to impose a duty on IP executives to read multiple draft
standards? And further to assert that they can attest to the “individual
knowledge” held by a number of employees participating in the standards
work? It seems to me that the people most likely to be able to identify a
link between the text of the draft standard and possible essential patents that
we may have would be only those people actually and directly participating in
the technical development of the standard at IEEE. We would propose that
the participants’ knowledge be the operative trigger for 3.
With regard to the notice of assignment/transfer provision in the signature
section, I am concerned that this would be difficult, if not impossible to
comply with, especially in the context of a blanket LoA. It does not
really map to the reality of how complex patent transactions take place.
Is it not the case that, given the perpetual nature of the patent assurance,
any subsequent transfer would be subject to any legally binding commitments
already made? Many thanks, Amy
|
Re PP-DIALOG LOA Essential Patent Claims.msg