[cabfpub] Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) for Ballot 182
Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Tue Jan 3 15:32:00 MST 2017
I don’t know the answer to all your questions – the only thing we have to go on is Sec. 7.1 and 7.3 of the IPR Policy, which I included in my call for volunteers. We can discuss on the first PAG call.
I do believe the filing of Exclusion Notices stops a ballot under consideration from proceeding to a vote – instead, the proposed ballot is submitted to the PAG for its conclusions on how to “resolve the conflict” where an Exclusion Notice was filed without offer of a royalty free license.
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:59 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) for Ballot 182
From a process standpoint, it would be helpful if you can clarify your view on these matters:
1) Does the formation of a PAG affect the stated ballot date of Jan 7?
2) Does the formation of a PAG begin independent of any ballot results?
3) Does the formation of a PAG prevent members from submitting text identical to Ballot 182, should it fail?
4) Does the formation of a PAG otherwise obligate any other Ballot (including an identical one) from going forward?
As the Forum continues to discuss the best way forward regarding exclusion notices and voting, it's useful to understand how such practical considerations play out.
For example, two 'bugs' that I can see with possible applications of this process:
A) We form a PAG, but members don't go forward with reintroducing the Ballot, regardless of what the PAG suggests.
B) We form a PAG, and any further ballots related to this are 'held up' waiting for the PAG to resolve
As much as possible, I want to avoid B, and it would seem that if A is a possibility, it would imply that members that did not sponsor Ballot 182 should not otherwise be inclined to participate in the PAG unless either they are willing to co-sponsor a ballot that reintroduces the text (with the corrections of the Ballot) or unless/until the original co-sponsors of the Ballot make an equivalent committment. In the absence of that, there seems nothing productive that could result from the PAG.
These are important considerations when considering future process proposals for future ballots, if they're not desirable for the current ballots.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
Because there were Exclusion Notices filed for Ballot 182 during the Review Period, we must now form a Patent Advisory Group to review the Exclusion Notices. Once convened, the PAG will elect its own Chair, who can’t be affiliated with a company that filed an Essential Claim.
Who will volunteer to serve on the PAG?
Our IPR Policy provides as follows:
7. Exception Handling
7.1. PAG Formation
In the event a patent has been disclosed that may contain an Essential Claim, but such Essential Claim is not available under CAB Forum RF Licensing, a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be launched to resolve the conflict. The PAG is an ad-hoc group constituted specifically in relation to the Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline containing the conflict. A PAG may also be formed without such a disclosure if a PAG could help avoid anticipated patent problems.
7.3. PAG Procedures
7.3.1. PAG Formation Timing
The PAG will be convened by a Chair who shall be elected by the PAG and who must not be affiliated with the company owning the Essential Claim that is the subject of the PAG. The timing for convening the PAG is at the discretion of the Chair. In some cases, convening a PAG before a specific patent disclosure is made may be useful. In other cases, it may be that the PAG can better resolve the licensing problems when the specification is at the Review Period level.
7.3.2. Possible PAG Conclusions
After appropriate consultation, the PAG may conclude:
a. The initial concern has been resolved, enabling the work on the Guideline to continue.
b. The CAB Forum should be instructed to consider designing around the identified claims.
c. The PAG should seek further information and evaluation, including and not limited to evaluation of the patents in question or the terms under which CAB Forum RF licensing requirements may be met.
d. The project relating to the Draft Guideline in question should be terminated.
e. The Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline should be rescinded.
f. Alternative licensing terms should be considered.
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public