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

Re: [PP-DIALOG] PatCom: Report Out from the 27 November 2018 Executive Session meeting

Dear Michael, deal all,

 

 

I think the edits Michael is suggesting in #2 are very helpful and capture the intent of the policy.

 

As you point out, the policy is very clear as to the procedure that a Submitter shall follow to identify Patent Claims and submit a Letter of Assurance. Citing from the Bylaws, Section 6.2: “The IEEE shall request this assurance without coercion” and “Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted as giving rise to a duty to conduct a patent search.”

 

Therefore, I support the edits, and I trust they should be acceptable to staff and to this group.

 

 

With respect to the proposed changes to the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual:

 

6.3.4 Multiple Letters of Assurance and Blanket Letters of Assurance

A Submitter may provide the IEEE with a Blanket Letter of Assurance only when the LOA indicates licensing assurance for a specific [Proposed] IEEE Standard that covers all Essential Patent Claims the Submitter may currently or in the future have the ability to license. A Submitter may submit separate Letters of Assurance providing different licensing positions for different potential Essential Patent Claims.

 

I have one minor comment and one question.

 

  • First: The acronym LOA is never used in the Operations Manual, but rather always spelled out (and hyperlinked) as Letter of Assurance. I suggest we remain consistent and change to “only when the LOA Letter of Assurance indicates licensing assurance”

 

  • Second: I do not understand the rationale behind the proposal to delete the highlighted text “for a specific [Proposed] IEEE Standard that covers all Essential Patent Claims the Submitter may currently or in the future have the ability to license”. That statement is still true for a Blanket Letter of Assurance that indicates licensing assurance. Therefore, shouldn’t we keep that sentence?

 

Hence, I propose:

 

A Submitter may provide the IEEE with a Blanket Letter of Assurance only when the Letter of Assurance indicates licensing assurance. A Submitter may provide the IEEE with a Blanket Letter of Assurance for a specific [Proposed] IEEE Standard that covers all Essential Patent Claims the Submitter may currently or in the future have the ability to license. A Submitter may submit separate Letters of Assurance providing different licensing positions for different potential Essential Patent Claims.

 

Best regards,

-Matteo

 

 

 

From: Michael Atlass <matlass@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 4:11 PM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] PatCom: Report Out from the 27 November 2018 Executive Session meeting

 

Dear David,

 

Thanks for sending this agenda and minutes of the June meeting. It does give me some questions to address on the reflector, so thank you for this opportunity.

 

 

  1. Regarding the item in the December meeting agenda 6.1:
    1. It may be valuable to know how the issues raised in 6.1 of the June meeting (reported as no action) taken in the are related to the agenda item 6.1 in the December PatCom meeting agenda.
    2. For example, were both initiatives intended to resolve a similar issue such as limiting the potential for negative LOAs? It seems to me more likely that approach of 6.1 in the agenda rather than the earlier offer to declare under the old policy approach broached in the June meeting is actually likely to generate more negative LOAs. If that’s not the reason for the suggestion, would like to understand what it is, in order to make more useful commentary if possible. Perhaps this can be addressed by PatCom at the meeting.

 

  1. With respect to the specifics of the proposal D.1 on the December PatCom meeting agenda, the form language recommended for D.1.d might be beneficially modified as below, in order to maintain the avoidance of an obligation to do a patent search, recognized in the policy:

 

D.1.d: The Submitter is unwilling or unable to grant licenses according to the provisions of either

a or b above or to agree that it will not enforce its Essential Patent Claims as described in c

above. This statement applies only to the Patent Claims of which the Submitter is aware, identified in E.1 below.

 

 

  1. Regarding the meeting minutes from June: Why in the meeting minutes are the speeches by Delrahim are not reported as US Government or at least DoJ positions? There was discussion at the meeting on this very question. Those speeches were not personal opinions, and I thought that was understood by the members of PatCom, and yet the record reflects the potential misimpression.

 

Thank you for your attention.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael.

 

 

 

From: Dave Ringle <d.ringle@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:02 PM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [PP-DIALOG] PatCom: Report Out from the 27 November 2018 Executive Session meeting

 

PatCom further discussed the proposal from agenda item 6.1 of the June PatCom meeting and took no action on the proposal. 

 

The 03 December 2018 PatCom meeting agenda remains unchanged. (See https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/governance/patcom/agenda.pdf)

 

Regards,

******************************************************************
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

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

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