[cabfpub] Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) for Ballot 182

[Stephen Cannavale]

Stephen Cannavale and Patricia Forsyth of Comodo Volunteer for the PAG for
Ballot 182

 

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via
Public
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 4:49 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
Cc: Kirk Hall
Subject: [cabfpub] Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group
(PAG) for Ballot 182

 

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.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170111/2e69c427/attachment-0003.html>