Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

["Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[e-mail]>]

fair enough - I did not look at any of the file wrapper information 


On Nov 27, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Cullen,
> You missed the patent term adjustment of 487 days in this case--a very
> short adjustment period for a video coding patent (see note on over page
> right below the assignees).  Note that this PTA is occasionally adjusted
> upwards after printing of the cover page (quite often actually for
> standards essential cases), which is recorded in the file wrapper and
> usually (but not always) in a certificate of correction.
> The patent in question is currently being litigated in an MPEG-2 context,
> and I have heard that the question of PTA has come up (though I do not
> know any details).
> Stephan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11.27.2013, 06:53 , "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Adam, thought I agree with your meta point about submarine patents
>> existed in the past, I don' think you have this quite right on the
>> details on this one.
>> 
>> For US patents applications filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term is
>> either 17 years from date of issue or 20 years from earliest priority
>> date, whichever is later. For applications filed after June 8, 1995, the
>> term is 20 years from the earliest priority date.
>> 
>> Given this was filed after 1995, it expires 20 years after the priority
>> date so it expired in 2012.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 22, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/22/13 15:19, Maik Merten wrote:
>>>> It is hard to come up with a scenario where patents covering the
>>>> original standard and original reference implementation would still be
>>>> enforceable. 
>>> 
>>> As a specific example of such a scenario -- one that is tantalizingly
>>> close to the subject at hand -- look here:
>>> 
>>> http://www.google.com/patents/US7376184
>>> 
>>> Read the first paragraph of the description. In layman's terms, it says
>>> "even though this patent is being issued in 2008, we claim that it was
>>> invented in January of 1992." And with a priority date prior to 1995,
>>> this means that they have protection for seventeen years from the date
>>> of issuance (i.e., until 2025).
>>> 
>>> Yes, this means that they have patent protection on this specific
>>> technique for 33 years after its invention.
>>> 
>>> In US courts, this is 100% legal and fully enforceable, since they
>>> started the process prior to 1995. And "prior to 1995" is exactly when
>>> we're talking about.
>>> 
>>> /a
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb