[cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Mon May 9 15:05:25 UTC 2016

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com> wrote:

> This might be moot due to the fact that the Symantec exclusion notice
> covered the same patents as its previously filed exclusion notice from
> severs years ago.


As you know, our IPR policy set up new elements as Essential Claims to
avoid confusion - namely, the options under a selection of items represent
Essential Claims, a more restrictive definition than under previous
versions of the IPR. Were these already Essential Claims, we would not have
need to form a PAG to encompass them. Given that such exclusion notices
cover Essential Claims, that seems a tenuous argument, at best (see Section
4.3 of the old IPR policy). But this highlights why it will remain a matter
of concern if there was an action brought.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160509/7951093c/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list