[nwcrg] Recent IPR disclosure against RFC 8681

[[e-mail]]

Dear All,

Following the email (here enclosed) of Marie-José Montpetit, co-chair of the NWCRG, we would like to point out the following:

1.	Code On Network Coding (“Code On”) is a small start-up having to promote a technology / ecosystem and manage a portfolio of over 100 patents (many of them licensed from over 10 Universities) with limited resources. 
2.	Despite not having in-house IP capabilities, Code On takes IPR activity very seriously and adheres to IETF policies to the best of its ability.  

3.	Code On understands that RFC 8179 provides that participants must disclose the existence of any IPR that they believe might cover the technology under discussion.  And it is in this spirit that Code On has consistently made IPR disclosures to the IETF since 2013, as per the links hereafter [https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?draft= <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?draft=&rfc=&doctitle=&group=&holder=code+on&submit=holder&iprtitle=&patent=> &rfc=&doctitle=&group=&holder=code+on&submit=holder&iprtitle=&patent= ];[ https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6651777131674238976 ] 

4.	We strongly reject the statement of the Co-Chair that our disclosure was done against the rules:   

*	In general, all of our disclosures have followed the rules of RFC 8681;
*	In particular, this disclosure, relevant for a contribution made by somebody else, is a “timely disclosure” because it was made by us promptly once we reached a belief of the relevancy of this specific patent. 

5.	We reject the notion that we should have discussed the relevance of our disclosure either at a general meeting or in private emails, since the duty to disclose is personal to each participant.

 

6.	We will not comment on the Co-Chair’s statement that she did not disclose this IPR because she did not feel that there was a direct relationship between the patent and RLC from its initial ID to the RFC, but are surprised that a Co-Chair would comment on the relevance of a disclosure of one of the contributors in light of the fact that RFC 8179 specifically states that the IETF will make no determination about the validity of any particular IPR claim. 

Best

Kavim Shroff

M: [phone] | Skype: kavimds

 <http://www.codeontechnologies.com/> 

Information transmitted in or attached to this e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If this email has been sent to you by mistake and you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender immediately and delete it from your system; do not read, copy or disclose its contents to anyone. No responsibility is accepted by Code On for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use of this e-mail or its attachments. Please note that all e-mail messages are subject to interception for lawful business purposes.

 <https://www.linkedin.com/company/code-on-technologies>  <https://twitter.com/codeontech?lang=en-gb> 

 

 

--- Begin Message ---

Dear NWCRG list members:

There was a recent IPR disclosure related to RFC 8681 - Sliding Window Random Linear Code (RLC) Forward Erasure Correction (FEC) Schemes for FECFRAME -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4069/ 
This refers to a patent that has me as co-inventor.  This disclosure puts me in a delicate position as the patent co-inventor hence someone who should have disclosed the IPR and at the same time as the NWCRG chair who has been following the RLC development since 2015 and should be impartial.


(w/o chair hat on) 
1. This patent was submitted following some work I did as an MIT researcher in Muriel Médard’s laboratory and as such all my IPR is now owned by MIT for them to license at will. It is the licensee that made the disclosure, not MIT, not me or any of the patent co-inventors most of which have been or are still involved in the NWCRG. I was not made aware of the disclosure and have no relationship with the discloser but it puts me like I said in a delicate position.

According to RFC 8179 I should have disclosed this IPR at the time of the first ID in 2015 or throughout its evolution in the TSVWG from 2017-2019 and its presentations in the NWCRG meetings during that time if I felt that it was related to the work of RFC 8681. I understand the rules of 8179 for the need for timely disclosure. I did not disclose any IPR, as I did not feel that there was a direct relationship between the patent and RLC from its initial ID to the RFC. I also understand that the entity disclosing the IPR does not agree with me.

As far as I am concerned, the work that lead to the patent, where I was co-PI, was a master student thesis on using network coding (the MIT/Caltech RLNC) as an alternative to some of the layer 2 reliability mechanisms in WIMAX-2 networks with wider applicability to other wireless networks. The patent in thus on a novel implementation of coding not a code development. 

Since RFC 8681 is about developing a code with sliding windows and one that compared to the RLNC used in the patent does not allow for re-encoding. I believe our patent to be not directly related hence the reason I never pointed to the IPR. Of course the field of applicability of RFC 8681 includes wireless networks but also many others; applications are not crux of the RFC 8681. As a co-inventor I would have welcomed the discussion at our meetings or in private emails before the disclosures.


(with co-chair hat one) 
2. Other co-inventors from MIT and now Harvard and the disclosing entity, via one of their representatives, were present at almost every NWCRG meetings throughout the development of the RLC since 2015 and are part of our mailing list. Our patent or any other that are now disclosed against RFC 8681 was pointed out as being related. Some of the concerned participants even supported the RLC work. There is a rule in IETF that is followed by the IRTF about "timely disclosures" of related IPR. I am surprised that the disclosing entity took so long against the rule. And at every meeting we emphasized the IPR rules. 


Vincent and I welcome comments on this as we are strategizing for the future of the group.


mjm

Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 

--- End Message ---