Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [PP-DIALOG] Notice of PatCom D.1.d LOA proposal for consideration in December 2018

Dear Elisabeth,

Thank you for your review and comments.

Here are my replies:

1. PatCom will be discussing the 12 October proposal at the December PatCom meeting.

2. The rationale that was approved by PatCom for distribution is the one that is included on page one of the proposal.

3. Many of the patent policy FAQs contain text that already exists within the SASB Bylaws and/or SASB OpMan. The intent of the FAQs is to present information in a manner that may be helpful to people who are trying to understand the patent policy but have questions after reading the Bylaws and OpMan. In addition, proposed FAQ 28A is referenced by proposed FAQ 81A.

4. I confirm that your understanding matches my understanding.

Regards,
Dave

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 5:19 AM, Elisabeth Opie <office@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Dave,

 

Following on from Cindy’s query, I have a few questions for clarification regarding agenda item 6.1 of the 3 December PatCom meeting (D.1.d LOA Proposal – Wennblom) [https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/governance/patcom/agenda.pdf].

 

i.          The item above is the one dated 12 October [http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/pp-dialog/email/msg00493.html]. Does that mean that the agenda item 6.1 (https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/governance/patcom/618patmins.pdf) discussed during the PatCom Meeting of June 12 and at the PatCom executive session (oct 1-2) has been discussed and dismissed by the Board?  

 

ii.         Could you please give a bit more background on the rationale behind the new proposal? This will assist in giving substantive consideration to the proposal.

iii.         From your answer to Gaelle Martin Cocher´s query, the proposed amendment to section 6.3.4 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual is described as a purely editorial clean-up of redundant text. However, I note that also the new proposed FAQ 28 A is redundant, since it includes some text which is already in the IEEE bylaws, section 2. Could you please explain the rationale for introducing this new FAQ?

 

iv.        The bylaws and now the new proposed FAQ 28 A (b) reads as follows: “An Accepted LOA that contains such a statement signifies that reasonable terms and conditions, including without compensation or under Reasonable Rates, are sufficient compensation for a license to use those Essential Patent Claims and precludes seeking, or seeking to enforce, a Prohibitive Order except as provided in this policy”. We take this reference to a subset of Accepted LoAs as being exclusive of negative LoAs. Negative LOAs submitted to, and accepted by, IEEE do not contain such a statement. Could you please confirm our understanding.

 

Thank you for your assistance.

 

Kind regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Elisabeth Opie
BA LLB(Hons) LLM GAICD
International Technology Lawyer

+49 89 2155 8098 (office)

+49 89 7407 6475 (direct)
+49 178 1855 227 (mobile)

Barer Strasse 1

80333 Munich
Germany

http://www.elisabethopie.com

From: "Bianlixin (Cindy)" <bianlixin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "Bianlixin (Cindy)" <bianlixin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, 1 November 2018 at 02:45
To: "PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] Notice of PatCom D.1.d LOA proposal for consideration in December 2018

 

Thanks Dave for your reply to my question.

 

Per definition of 'Accepted LOA' in Clause 6.1 of the IEEE-SASB Bylaws, "Accepted Letter of Assurance" and "Accepted LOA" shall mean a Letter of Assurance that the IEEE-SA has determined is complete in all material respects and has been posted to the IEEE-SA web site.

Since all negative LOA’s has been posted to the IEEE-SA web site which is administrated by SA, this is prima facie known publicly that they are “accepted LOA”. No matter they are negative blanket LOA or negative LOA that has specified patent numbers.

 

I raised up the question of “accepted LOA” because a negative LOA though checked the D1d box (“not willing to license”) would be included as “exclusion of injunctive relief” by the new proposed FAQ 28A into the bucket of “accepted LOA” as such.

An Accepted LOA that contains such a statement signifies that reasonable terms and conditions, including without compensation or under Reasonable Rates, are sufficient compensation for a license to use those Essential Patent Claims and precludes seeking, or seeking to enforce, a Prohibitive Order except as provided in this policy.

Making declaration of assurance is with the purpose that both patent holders and implementers can understand clearly what the declaration is thus can make reasonable relevant business decision.

I hope to see such purpose can be achieved with so many efforts.

 

Best regards,

Cindy

 

 

From: Dave Ringle [mailto:d.ringle@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 2018年10月31日 10:00
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] Notice of PatCom D.1.d LOA proposal for consideration in December 2018

 

Dear Cindy,

 

Please see the definition of 'Accepted LOA' in Clause 6.1 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws at https://standards.ieee.org/about/policies/bylaws/sect6-7.html

 

Regards,

Dave

 

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:42 PM, Bianlixin (Cindy) <bianlixin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello all,

 

A question here regarding “an accepted LOA”, reading the D1d Proposal, new FAQ 28A.b), also highlighted below.

What is considered as “an accepted LOA”? Does that cover all LOA’s that have been listed or published in IEEE website including Negative blanket LOAs?

 

Refer to D1d proposal, New FAQ (maybe 28A)

What type of licensing assurance does IEEE request?

b) A statement that the Submitter will make available a license for Essential Patent Claims to an unrestricted number of Applicants on a worldwide basis without compensation or under Reasonable Rates, with other reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, or import any Compliant Implementation that practices the Essential Patent Claims for use in conforming with the IEEE Standard. An Accepted LOA that contains such a statement signifies that reasonable terms and conditions, including without compensation or under Reasonable Rates, are sufficient compensation for a license to use those Essential Patent Claims and precludes seeking, or seeking to enforce, a Prohibitive Order except as provided in this policy.

 

Best Regards

 

Cindy/Bian Lixin/卞丽鑫

Senior IP Counsel

Work:  +86-755-287 86092

Mobile:+86-186-6629-1226

Email: bianlixin@xxxxxxxxxx

 

 

From: Dave Ringle [mailto:d.ringle@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 2018年10月13日 1:45
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [PP-DIALOG] Notice of PatCom D.1.d LOA proposal for consideration in December 2018

 

Dear PP-Dialog participants,

 

 

 

The current SASB OpMan is located at https://standards.ieee.org/about/policies/opman/index.html

 

Please see the attached proposal that will be included for discussion/action at the 03 December 2018 PatCom meeting.

 

As always, please feel free to share your thoughts on PP-dialog@xxxxxxxx

 

Regards,

Dave 

******************************************************************
David L. Ringle
Director, IEEE-SA Governance
IEEE Standards Association
445 Hoes Lane                              
Piscataway, NJ  08854-4141 USA
TEL: +1 732 562 3806
FAX: +1 732 875 0524               
EMAIL: d.ringle@xxxxxxxx
******************************************************************

 

 


To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1