IEEE DASC Report January, 2009 Yokohama Pacifico Victor Berman, IEEE DASC Chairman

DASC Recent Activities l P1800 completed technical work for update l Going to ballot soon - patent issues discussed at last meeting l Decision to go to ballot delayed until February 2009 (next P1800 meeting) l P1801 Completed Ballot Recirculation l Interoperability plan for CPF/UPF developed l P1481 will re-circulate shortly l PAR extension approved by NesCom

Industry Coordination l Recent events show lack of coordination for relevant standards l Multiple low power formats l Overlap in AMS standards l SystemC TLM updates l Can/Should DASC act as industry coordinator? l Would require much greater industry participation l Would require agreements with other bodies l Accellera is good example of working relationship with DASC

Industry Coordination/Feedback l Current mechanisms for Industry Feedback are not well coordinated. l IEEE Societies and Councils hold workshops and conferences but there is no clear path to Standards groups for the results and discussions. l CEDA was conceived with the idea of improving communication and planning between societies and standards groups l This has been slow to evolve l Need discussion of best mechanism both internal to IEEE and external to other industry groups. l SUGGESTED ACTION: DASC form ad hoc committee to recommend next steps l Must involve at least Accellera, OSCI, JEITA, DASC

IEEE Patent Issues l Recent claim to possibly essential patents related to P1800 has renewed interest in IEEE Patent Policy l Patent related information is available on IEEE PatCom web site at l This includes list of current standards related patents l FAQ l LOA Form l Note that many patents are on file - most have LOAs l LOA is not required by IEEE l LOA form has “will not license” check box

IEEE Patent Issues (cont.) l Basis of patent policy is early disclosure (MY OPINION, not legal) l IEEE takes no position on essentiality l Does not require LOA l Does not require specific form of licensing l DOES require timely disclosure l LOA Terms Summary l The Submitter may own, control, or have the ability to license Patent Claims that might be or become Essential Patent Claims. With respect to such Essential Patent Claims, the Submitter’s licensing position is as follows (must check a, b, c, or d and any applicable subordinate boxes): a. The Submitter will grant a license without compensation b. The Submitter will grant a license under reasonable rates c. The Submitter will not enforce d. The Submitter is unwilling or unable to grant licenses according to the provisions of either a or b above or to agree that it will not enforce its Essential Patent Claims as described in c above.

IEEE Patent Issues - from FAQ l 13. What obligation do individual participants have to notify the IEEE if they own or their employer owns potential Essential Patent Claims incorporated in a [Proposed] IEEE Standard? What if they are uncertain whether a Patent Claim they own or their employer owns is essential? l Individual participants of a call for patents are required to notify the IEEE of the identity of a holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims (but not the identity of the Essential Patent Claim) where l (1) the individual participant is personally aware that the holder may have a potential Essential Patent Claim; l (2) the holder is the participant or an entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents; and l (3) the potential Essential Patent Claim is not already the subject of any existing Letter of Assurance. l If such a participant is uncertain whether the patent is essential, the participant still shall notify the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be notified) of the possibility because they are personally aware of a claim that is a potential Essential Patent Claim l 50. During ballot resolution, what should be the response to a comment regarding the lack of an LOA? l If an LOA has not been requested from the indicated holder of a potential Essential Patent Claim, the process for requesting an LOA should be followed l Further, the comment response should state that the IEEE is not responsible: l For identifying Essential Patent Claims for which a license may be required l For conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of Patent Claims l No discussions or other communications regarding the - Essentiality of patent claims - Interpretation of patent claims - Validity of patent claims shall occur during IEEE-SA working group standards-development meetings or other duly authorized IEEE-SA standards-development technical activities.

IEEE Patent Issues - from FAQ l 19. Does the IEEE patent policy require participants or their employers to make an assurance or submit a Letter of Assurance? l No. Submission of a Letter of Assurance is not a precondition to participation. Participants do have a duty to inform the IEEE if they or an entity they are from, employed by, or otherwise represents holds potential Essential Patent Claims. See questions 13, 16, and 18 for more information. l 20. Is the IEEE patent policy a disclosure policy? l No. The IEEE ‟ s patent policy is a policy of assurance as further described in these frequently asked questions, not a policy of disclosure.