|
|
|
|
IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent
Committee (PatCom)
APPROVED Minutes
10 June 2008
1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
IEEE Operations Center, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rich Hulett
Karen Kenney, Non-voting
John Kulick
David Law
Steve Mills
Fran O'Brien
Don Wright, Chair
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
IEEE OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL
Claire Topp - Dorsey & Whitney
GUESTS
Radhakrishna Canchi
Clint Chaplin
Bob Grow
Jim Hughes
Hung Ling
Paul Nikolich
Ted Olsen
Glenn Parsons
Chuck Powers
Gary Robinson
Mike Seavey
Geoff Thompson
Jim Tomcik
George Willingmyre
STAFF
Kathryn Cush
Terry deCourcelle
Tricia Gerdon
Rona Gertz
Judy Gorman
Mike Kipness
Don Messina
Mary Lynne Nielsen
Moira Patterson
Dave Ringle, Administrator
Ana Sainvilus
Susan Tatiner
Jerry Walker
Lisa Yacone
Malia Zaman
1 CALL TO ORDER
Chair Wright called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.
2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the agenda:
5.3 Executive Session Discussion on 802.3/802.1AX LoAs
6.2 Summary of FTC N-Data Comments - Topp
There was a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was unanimously approved.
3 APPROVAL OF 25 MARCH 2008 PatCom MEETING MINUTES
There was a motion to approve the previous meeting minutes. The motion was unanimously
approved.
4 ADMINISTRATIVE STATISTICS
a) Number of LoAs Received and Posted
b) Number of Requests for LoAs
Dave Ringle reported that there were 27 LoAs received that were accepted and posted.
Dave reported that 7 requests (totaling 36 LoAs) were received and fulfilled since the March 2008 PatCom meeting.
5 OLD BUSINESS
5.1 Feedback Received on Replacement Slide Set - Wright
PatCom discussed the comments received.
Craig Wellman:
It would be helpful to have an issue date in the file name for the Patent Slides.
Adding 20080404 to the file name works well for some people.
- PatCom noted that we have a durable web site and that the date of slide set revision is included in the slide footer.
Tom Kurihara:
As an aside and as a WG chair, I see revised, not improved, with more detail.
Sorry don't agree with the modifier since the responsibility was explicit in
my being a member of a professional society and a volunteer chair. The viewing
of the words by others was useful even though attendees tune out. I think I
have attempted to internalize the principles and ethics of what is expected.
I find the direction somewhat counter-productive to assuring that the integrity
of the processes are determined by the program managers of their groups. An
observation and vent. No response required.
Geoff Thompson:
I suggest the slide set that you distributed be replaced with the attached slide
set. (Only difference is addition of last slide.) No further committee action
or approval required.
"This slide set is available at is available at:
http//standards.ieee.org/board/pat/
As:
pat-slideset.ppt
OR
pat-slideset.pdf"
- PatCom noted that the URL is included in a different slide in the set. Perhaps a larger font size is needed. This item will be held until the next slide set revision.
Mick Maytum:
The meaning of LOA, used in slide #3, isn't defined.
Assuming the first letter means "Letter" we have as recognized abbreviations:
LOA: Letter of Abandonment
LOA: Letter of Administration
LOA: Letter of Admonishment
LOA: Letter of Agency
LOA: Letter of Agreement/Acceptance
LOA: Letter of Apology
LOA: Letter of Appreciation
LOA: Letter of Approval
LOA: letter of assist (US DoD)
LOA: Letter of Authority
LOA: Letter of Authorization
LOA: letter of offer and acceptance (US DoD)
LOA: Letters of Assurance
Note that in this Web search "Letter of Assurance" is not listed only "Letters of Assurance". I recommend you replace "LOA" with its full text to remove any uncertainty.
Second, a letter of assurance is in two parts; a COVER SHEET and FORM. Are all instances referring to the two parts or are some just referring to the completed letter of acceptance FORM returned to the IEEE?
- PatCom noted that the first instance of 'Letter of Assurance' could be changed to 'Letter of Assurance (LoA)'. This item will be held until the next slide set revision.
- The Cover Letter and the LoA Form are distinct items.
AI - Don Wright to respond to those comments that require a response.
5.2 Clarifications to PatCom FAQs - Law
David Law stated that the FAQs may need to be updated, based on recent P&P changes in relationship to the timing for Calls for Patents; study groups are no longer subject to such a Call.
There was a motion to amend FAQs 4 and 5, as follows:
4. How often should a Working Group Chair issue a call for potential Essential Patent Claims?
A Working Group Chair or his or her designee shall issue the
call at every Working Group meeting. If the Working Group does not meet face
to face or telephonically, the Working Group should be issued a call via e-mail
or letter on a regular basis. It is strongly recommended that the IEEE Patent
Committee-developed slide set be used. Note that a call for patents shall be
made at every standards developing meeting. This includes, but is not limited
to, working group, and task force, and study group meetings.
5. Our group gathers for several days during a single week. Does the chair have to announce the policy every day?
The Working Group Chair or his or her designee shall issue the
call at every Working Group meeting. If a group is "meeting" for consecutive
days and the attendance is substantially the same for each day of the gathering,
the policy only needs to be read once. If the chair plans not to read or display
the policy each day, then the chair must either (a) ensure that the policy or
a URL for it has been sent out to all attendees prior to the meeting (and is
available in the registration packet for any on-site registrants), or (b) announce
each day that the meeting is subject to the patent policy as read or displayed
on the first day. Note, though, that this rule applies separately to each "group"
that is "meeting" during the week. For example, if a working group
holds a meeting during the same week as its task group, and/or task
force, and/or study group, the chair of each of those groups must read
or display the policy at the beginning of that group's first day of "meeting."
The motion was approved.
AI - Dave Ringle to update the online FAQs.
AI - David Law to propose a new FAQ explaining that there is no Call for Patents at study group meetings, but that the pre-PAR meeting slide should be shown.
5.3 Executive Session Discussion on 802.3/802.1AX LoAs
PatCom entered into attorney-client privileged Executive Session at 1:25 p.m. and concluded at 2:01 p.m.
It was reported out that PatCom had given further instructions to the 802.3 Chair in regards to P802.1AX Letters of Assurance.
6 NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Update on Latest Rambus Decision - Topp
Claire Topp provided an update.
6.2 Summary of FTC N-Data Comments - Topp
Claire Topp provided an update.
7 NEXT MEETING
The next PatCom meeting will be Wednesday, 24 September 2008, in Seoul, South Korea.
Fran O'Brien indicated that he was unsure if he would be able to attend.
8 ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:34 p.m.
 | |||
| |||
