See also https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/issues/4510
On 4/18/23 7:08 PM, Scott Bradner wrote:
On Apr 18, 2023, at 7:01 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
(Copying tools-discuss for obvious reasons)
Scott,
Do I correctly understand from the combination of your note and
Samir's question that a third-party disclosure without an
application number is often appropriate and that it it not
obvious how such a disclosure can be made through the web
interface?
yes
Looking at <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-third-party/>,
it seems to me that a little work is in order because:
(1) At least with the way that page renders in Firefox, while
the major (Roman numeral) section title are in large type, the
(alphabetic) subsection titles are easy to miss and, in
particular, it is easy to not notice IV(B) in context.
(2) Even for that IV(B) case, we would like to capture as much
of the application number, Inventor, and Title information and
whatever relevant notes the submitter might be able to provide.
The current form prevents supplying that information except as
"Additional notes" in Section VI. If the intent is that such
information should be supplied there rather than in a more
structured way, a sentence of two of advice in IV(B) to that
effect would seem useful.
sounds right to me
(3) It seems to me that, as Section IV is structured, there are
actually three cases, not two:
A. Granted patents or published pending patent
applications for which the discloser has either a
copy of the patent or full information in hand
B. an unpublished pending patent application
C. A known (or claimed) patent for which the discloser
has less information than we might like but for
which the disclosure is still relevant.
agree
As I read Section 5.1.3 of RFC 8179 and remember discussions
leading to it, the intent is to encourage disclosures in all
three cases and expect the discloser to supply as much
information as they have and no more.
agree
The current structure of
the submission page would seem to discourage that, at least
without additional instructions.
that seems top be a problem that should get fixed
Scott
john
--On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 06:46 -0400 Scott Bradner
<sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
RFC 8179 section 5.4.1 covers this -
1/ the application number should not be mandatory since the
RFC says "to the extent reasonably available to the discloser"
2/ but if the application number is known it should be
disclosed even if the application itself is unpublished
Scott
On Apr 18, 2023, at 6:25 AM, Samir Srivastava
<srivastava_samir@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
To submit IPR disclosure, we have HTTPS interface. It
doesn't provide a way to declare UNPUBLISHED application.
As application number is mandatory.
I requested long time back for this to ietf-ipr@xxxxxxxx.
But it is still there.
Is there any other way to do the above?
With Best Regards
Samir Srivastava,
Fatehgarh, Distt, Farrukhabad (UP)
INDIA
___________________________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@xxxxxxxx - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
