| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear Scott, dear John, dear PP-Dialog members, thank you Scott for your proposal concerning two new FAQs (13B and 84A). And thank you John for the revised proposal of 13B. Please let me send our comments on those. FAQ 84A: Though we do not see this covered by any current document, Panasonic would be willing to support such an amendment of the *Patent Policy*. An FAQ should not alter any "official" document of the IEEE-SA. It would be suitable for the meeting in Berlin to discuss about where to put this addition in the Policy or in any other "guideline" of IEEE-SA. FAQ 13B: We do support the proposal made in the email from John Kolakowski (Nokia) sent on 20.06.2016 (included below). For ease of reference, please find his proposal here again: "13B: Will the Standards Board reject a draft specification if LOAs are submitted in which option 1(d) has been selected for the licensing assurance? Answer: The existence of such LOAs will not necessarily result in rejection of a draft standard." If the IEEE-SA would decide to add any specific "factors", we would suggest to keep only the original point (e): "the amount of 'life' left in the relevant patents;" and add e.g. the following factor: "the risk of any adverse impact on the diffusion of the standard;" More factors could be added during discussion, but we think the original ones are not suitable (for different reasons, depending on the factor), except (e). Thank you for your consideration. I'm looking forward to meeting you tomorrow in Berlin! Best regards and have a nice day, Georg Mr. Georg NOLTE Patent Representative Panasonic R&D Center Germany GmbH Monzastr. 4c 63225 Langen Germany Office: +49.6103.766.131 Mobile: +49.172.79.72.744 From:
Kolakowski, John (Nokia - US/Herndon) [mailto:john.kolakowski@xxxxxxxxx] All, With reference to Scott’s proposal below:
Nokia is still considering Intel’s new, proposed FAQ 84A, and we have no comment on it at this time. With respect to Intel’s new, proposed FAQ 13B, we think it could and should be simpler as it is unclear how the various factors would be weighted, and whether some would or
should have relevance. We also note (as has George Willingmyre in one of his recent submissions to this listserv) that “negative LOA” does not appear to be defined elsewhere such that it would have a commonly understood or referenceable meaning. Nokia therefore
would offer the following reformulation of FAQ 13B (new language in red font; language to be deleted is struck through): 13B: Will the Standards Board reject a draft specification if
Answer:
Respectfully submitted, John Kolakowski Senior IPR Licensing/Litigation Counsel Nokia From: Gilfillan, Scott L [mailto:scott.l.gilfillan@xxxxxxxxx]
All, From conversations I’ve had with several folks that regularly work on standards-setting at the IEEE, as well as other of my colleagues, there seems to continue to be ambiguity about application
of the March 2015 patent policy to pre-existing standards development. I have also heard questions about the impact of so-called “negative” LOAs – submitted LOAs which select the “no license” option – and requested-but-unsubmitted LOAs on IEEE standardization
efforts, e.g. Will the IEEE approve a standard if a patent holder files a negative LOA? I’d like to offer the following 2
new FAQs for consideration to address these 2 points of confusion. I welcome your thoughts. Thanks, Scott Proposed new FAQs: 84A. With respect to projects that were started before 15 March 2015, but have not yet been approved,
will there be a transition period for applying the updated IEEE-SA Patent Policy? Answer: Yes. For an LOA that references a specific amendment of a standard (e.g. 802.3nnn) which was
initiated prior to March 15, 2015, but for which the patent holder is submitting the LOA after March 15, 2015, if the Submitter selects option 1(d), the Submitter may attach a statement of commitment to license in compliance with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy
that came into effect on May 1, 2007. A form LOA with the associated statement of commitment is provided here [link].
13B: Will the Standards Board reject a draft specification if “negative” LOAs are submitted? Answer: Not necessarily. The existence of a negative LOA will not necessarily result in rejection of a draft standard.
The Standards Board may, but is not required to, consider a number of factors in its evaluation, including for example:
(a) has the patent holder provided LOAs for other IEEE standards, or other amendments to the same IEEE standard;
(b) the amount and state of patent litigation for the relevant technology;
(c) the general stance of the relevant patent holders in relation to (a) and (b);
(d) upon advice and consultation from the WG chair and/or Sponsor, the relative “importance” of the technology related
to the non- or negative-LOA patents to the overall draft standard; (e) the amount of “life” left in the relevant patents;
(f) if a negative LOA has been filed, at what point of the TG/WG process was it filed; (g) do the patents pertain to a technical contribution made by the Patent Holder (including the Patent Holder’s representative/employee
participating in the TG/WG) ____________________________________________
Sr. Standards Counsel Our Mission: Promote technological leadership, IP value and product sales by delivering world-class
standards strategies, processes and legal advice. Panasonic R&D Center Germany GmbH 63225 Langen, Hessen, Germany Reg: AG Offenbach (Hessen) HRB 33974 Managing Director: Paul James |