Hi, Some thoughts here: - I believe the most recent changes to the form, which firmed up validation of several fields, happened before RFC 8179 was published. If I look at RFC 3979, the text is stricter. (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#section-6.4.1) - Given the text in RFC 8179, it seems reasonable to make the form more lenient for third party disclosured. - However, it seems prudent to point out that the person doing the disclosure may well be the best person on the planet to actually be able to ferret out which patent is the applicable one; anybody else trying to use incomplete form information to identify the right patent could find it impossible. In order to be in line with RFC 8179, I'll add an action to remove the patent number field validation for third party disclosures. Best regards, Henrik On 2019-07-22 16:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi, > > The rules say "An IPR disclosure must include the following information to the extent reasonably available to the discloser...". (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8179#section-5.4.1 ). > > So the form should allow empty fields for the case that the information is *not* reasonably available to the discloser. (Did you try entering "unknown" in the form?) > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 23-Jul-19 01:55, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> >> I need to file a third partly IPR disclosure on work that I did with a >> previous employer. >> >> I went to the third party disclosure page and input the information that >> I knew. I only know the Company, two of the inventors and the subject. I >> do not know the patent number or date. The form used to accept best >> effort disclosures like this, but now will not permit submission without >> the patent number and filing date. >> >> The form implies that failure to provide the patent number and date >> result in a non-conformant submission. >> >> What is the correct method of disclosing IPR when you only have partial >> information? >> >> - Stewart >> >> > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
