Subject: Is "Patent Holder" the right term? (re: draft-ietf-ipr-template-00.txt)

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 18:43:06 -0400

The phrase "Patent Holder" and its use in draft-ietf-ipr-template-00.txt
has received some discussion elsewhere so I thought I would dig around
and see if I could find a formal definition of the term. It turns out
that it is not nearly as common a term as one would expect...

The term "Patent Holder" appears to be rarely used in US patent law. The
only place it appears seems to be in two sentences of 35 USC 287
(b)(5)(B) where the form and content of a written notification of
infringement is described. Given that the ipr-template similarly defines
the form and content of a notice of actual or potential infringement, it
may be that using the phase "Patent Holder" is precisely the correct
thing to do...

If 35 USC 287 is used to provide an implied definition "Patent Holder"
as "the one who issues notices of infringement" and if the ipr-template
draft only applies to this very constrained set of folk, then I am
curious if we will find it necessary to create a different template that
can or should be used by inventors, their agents, associates, lawyers,
employees of patent holders, and others who have knowledge of a relevant
patent. It is usually the case that these folk aren't "patent holders".
I think it was said in earlier mail that there would be a template
produced for third-party disclosures. Would that template, once
produced, also be used by inventors, etc. who are not actually patent
holders?

		bob wyman

For US Patent Law text, see:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/35amend2.pdf 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg