< draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation-00.txt   draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation-01.txt >
Network Working Group D. Benham Network Working Group D. Benham
Internet Draft J. Rosenberg Internet Draft J. Rosenberg
Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems
Expires: April 27, 2015 Expires: May 7, 2015
October 27, 2014 November 7, 2014
VP8 Related Litigation Status Snapshot VP8 Related Litigation Status Snapshot
draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation-00 draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation-01
Abstract Abstract
There remains a great deal of confusion in the industry about the There remains a great deal of confusion in the industry about the
state of patent litigation and IPR disclosures around VP8. To state of patent litigation and IPR disclosures around VP8. To
facilitate greater understanding, Duane Morris LLP drafted a paper facilitate greater understanding, Duane Morris LLP drafted a
that summarizes the current state of disclosures and patent paper that summarizes the current state of disclosures and patent
litigation based on publically available materials and posted this litigation based on publically available materials, and has posted a
comprehensive report on the Internet. This Internet Draft provides a comprehensive report on the Internet. This Internet Draft provides a
high level summary of that report. Cisco Systems requested and funded high level summary of that report. Cisco Systems requested and funded
Duane Morris to prepare this report. Duane Morris to prepare this report.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 13 skipping to change at page 2, line 13
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2 1. Introduction...................................................2
2. VP8-related IPR Statement or Declarations......................3 2. VP8-related IPR Statement or Declarations......................3
2.1. IETF IPR Statements for RFC 6386..........................3 2.1. IETF IPR Statements for RFC 6386..........................3
2.2. ISO/IEC IPR Declarations for Video Coding for Browsers (VCB) 2.2. ISO/IEC IPR Declarations for Video Coding for Browsers (VCB)
...............................................................3 ...............................................................4
3. VP8 Related Litigation.........................................4 3. VP8 Related Litigation.........................................4
4. IANA Considerations............................................5 4. IANA Considerations............................................5
5. Security Considerations........................................5 5. Security Considerations........................................5
6. References.....................................................5 6. References.....................................................5
6.1. Normative References......................................5 6.1. Normative References......................................5
6.2. Informative References....................................5 6.2. Informative References....................................5
Authors' Addresses................................................6 Authors' Addresses................................................6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
There remains a great deal of confusion in the industry about the There remains a great deal of confusion in the industry about the
state of patent litigation and IPR disclosures around VP8. To state of patent litigation and IPR disclosures around VP8. To
facilitate greater understanding, Duane Morris LLP drafted a report facilitate greater understanding, Duane Morris LLP drafted a report
that summarizes the current state of disclosures and litigation based that summarizes the current state of disclosures and litigation based
on publically available materials, and has posted the report on the on publically available materials, and has posted the analysis on the
Internet [DM]. Internet [DM].
The report is based on press releases, online reports, public court The report is based on press releases, online reports, public court
dockets and patent registrars. Duane Morris was not involved in any dockets and patent registrars. Duane Morris was not involved in any
aspect of the litigation described in the report. aspect of the litigation described in the report.
Cisco Systems requested and funded Duane Morris to prepare this Cisco Systems requested and funded Duane Morris to prepare this
report. report.
The information contained in the Duane Morris report [DM] is not The information contained in the Duane Morris paper [DM] is not
intended to address the merits of any party's position; it is meant intended to address the merits of any party's position; it is meant
to provide an impartial summary of litigation known to relate to VP8. to provide an impartial summary of litigation known to relate to VP8.
For those that are intimidated by the length and legalese in the For those that are intimidated by the length and legalese in the
Duane Morris report, this draft provides a high level summary. The Duane Morris report, this draft provides a high level summary. The
report covers two main areas - first, it documents the known patent report covers two main areas - first, it documents the known patent
statements made against VP8 standards initiatives. The results are statements made against VP8 standards initiatives. The results are
summarized in Section 2. Secondly, it documents the current state of summarized in Section 2. Secondly, it documents the current state of
patent litigation around VP8, summarized in Section 3. patent litigation around VP8, summarized in Section 3.
2. VP8-related IPR Statement or Declarations 2. VP8-related IPR Statement or Declarations
VP8 "standard" initiatives exist in two places. The first is IETF RFC VP8 "standards initiatives" exist in two places. The first is IETF
6386, and informational RFC that documents the VP8 bitstream format RFC 6386, an informational RFC that documents the VP8 bitstream
and decoder. The second is an ISO/IEC project called Video Coding for format and decoder. The second is an ISO/IEC project called Video
Browsers (VCB). The VCB project is looking to produce a formal Coding for Browsers (VCB). The VCB project is looking to produce a
standard around VP8. formal standard around VP8.
Both IETF and ISO/IEC ask patent holders to submit patent statements Both IETF and ISO/IEC ask patent holders to submit patent statements
and/or licensing declarations relevant to their respective work. and/or licensing declarations relevant to their respective work.
Section 2.1 summarizes patent statements against the IETF RFC for Section 2.1 summarizes patent statements against the IETF RFC for
VP8, and Section 2.2 against ISO/IEC VCB. VP8, and Section 2.2 against ISO/IEC VCB.
2.1. IETF IPR Statements for RFC 6386 2.1. IETF IPR Statements for RFC 6386
+----------------------+---------------+-----------+ +----------------------+---------------+-----------+
| IETF Statements | Type | Note/Ref | | IETF Statements | Type | Note/Ref |
+----------------------+---------------+-----------+ +----------------------+---------------+-----------+
| Nokia | No License | [NOK1] | | Nokia | No License | [NOK1] |
| Ericcson | ~RAND | [ERC1] | | Ericcson | ~RAND | [ERC1] |
| Google | ~FRAND | [GOOG1] | | Google | ~RAND-Z | [GOOG1] |
+----------------------+---------------+-----------+ +----------------------+---------------+-----------+
Table 1 - IETF IPR Statements for VP8 Table 1 - IETF IPR Statements for VP8
IETF has received three IPR statements, enumerated in the table IETF has received three IPR statements, enumerated in the table
above. RAND stands for "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" as an above. RAND stands for "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" as an
umbrella for a broad range of licenses that may incur a cost but are umbrella for a broad range of licenses that may incur a cost but are
meant to enable practitioners to utilize the technology. FRAND stands meant to enable practitioners to utilize the technology. RAND-Z
for "Free under Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory," which is similar stands for "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory with Zero royalty,"
to RAND but with the important addition of being royalty free. "No which has the important addition of being free of royalty fees. "No
license" means that the patent holder is not willing to license the license" means that the patent holder is not willing to license the
technology for use in the related specification. technology for use in the related specification.
2.2. ISO/IEC IPR Declarations for Video Coding for Browsers (VCB) 2.2. ISO/IEC IPR Declarations for Video Coding for Browsers (VCB)
+----------------------+---------------+-----------+ +----------------------+-----------------+-----------+
| ISO/IEC Declarations | Type | Note/Ref | | ISO/IEC Declarations | Type | Note/Ref |
+----------------------+---------------+-----------+ +----------------------+-----------------+-----------+
| Google | 1 (~FRAND) | [GOOG2] | | Google | 1 (~RAND-Z) | [GOOG2] |
| Microsoft | 2 (~RAND) | [MSFT1] | | Microsoft | 2 (~RAND) | [MSFT1] |
| Nokia | 3 (no license)| Note 1 | | Nokia | 3 (no license) | |
+----------------------+---------------+-----------+ | Panasonic | 2 (~RAND) | Note 1 |
| Mitsubishi Electric | 2 (~RAND) | Note 1 |
| Dolby Labs | 2 (~RAND) | |
+----------------------+-----------------+-----------+
Table 2 - ISO/IEC IPR Declarations for VP8 Table 2 - ISO/IEC IPR Declarations for VP8
Table 2 summarizes the state of IPR declarations against the ISO/IEC Table 2 summarizes the state of IPR declarations against the ISO/IEC
draft standard for VCB. draft standard for VCB.
Note 1: The Nokia declaration to ISO/IEC, document M34971, was Note 1: Panasonic and Mitsubishi Electric are also listed as "Primary
announced on the IETF RTCweb mail list and is included in this Licensors" under the VP8 Cross-License agreement as reported in
summary for completeness sake. This Nokia declaration has not been section B of the Duane Morris paper [DM].
posted to the public IEC web site (patents.iec.ch) as of this draft's
date and does not appear in the Duane Morris paper [DM].
3. VP8 Related Litigation 3. VP8 Related Litigation
+-------------------------------+----------------+-----------+ +------------------------------+-----------------+--------------+
| VP8 Related Litigation | Status | Note/Ref | | VP8 Related Litigation | Status | Note/Ref |
+-------------------------------+----------------+-----------+ +------------------------------+-----------------+--------------+
| Nokia v HTC - Germany | Settlement $$ | Note 2 | | Nokia v HTC - Germany | Settlement $$ | Note 2 |
| Nokia v HTC - US-ITC | Settlement $$ | Note 3 | | Nokia v HTC - US-ITC | Settlement $$ | Note 3 |
| VSL/Max Sound v Google - US | Recently Filed | Note 4 | | VSL/Max Sound v Google - US | Recently Filed | Note 4 |
+-------------------------------+----------------+-----------+ | Nullify '881 - Germany | Active | by Google |
| Nullify '177 - Germany | Active | by Google |
+------------------------------+-----------------+--------------+
Table 3 - VP8 Related Litigation Table 3 - VP8 Related Litigation
Table 3 summarizes the publically available cases of litigation Table 3 summarizes the publically available cases of litigation
against VP8. There are three cases, two of which have settled for an against VP8. There are five cases, two of which have settled for an
undisclosed monetary amount. A third case was recently filed. undisclosed monetary amount. A third case was recently filed. Two
Nokia patent nullification cases brought by Google are active.
Note 2: The German court suspended the '881 Patent infringement case Note 2: The German court suspended the '881 Patent infringement case
to allow the invalidity case to proceed first, which happens in a to allow the invalidity case to proceed first, which happens in a
separate court. The German court dismissed the '177 Patent separate court. The German court dismissed the '177 Patent
infringement case. Before any decisions on the '881 Patent, Nokia infringement case. Before any decisions on the '881 Patent, Nokia
and HTC submitted a joint motion to terminate the infringement and and HTC submitted a joint motion to terminate the infringement and
invalidity cases based upon their reaching a global "settlement" on invalidity cases based upon their reaching a global "settlement" on
all then-pending patent litigation, which included HTC payments of an all then-pending patent litigation, which included HTC payments of an
undisclosed amount to Nokia. This motion was granted. undisclosed amount to Nokia. This motion was granted.
Note 3: The US-ITC did not issue a ruling on the alleged infringement Note 3: The US-ITC did not issue a ruling on the alleged infringement
or invalidity of the '211 Patent. Instead, Nokia and HTC submitted a or invalidity of the '211 Patent. Instead, Nokia and HTC submitted a
joint motion to terminate the investigation based upon their reaching joint motion to terminate the investigation based upon their reaching
a global "settlement" on all then-pending patent litigation, which a global "settlement" on all then-pending patent litigation, which
included HTC payments of an undisclosed amount to Nokia. This motion included HTC payments of an undisclosed amount to Nokia. This motion
was granted, concluding the US-ITC's investigation. was granted, concluding the US-ITC's investigation. No active
litigation was found trying to separately nullify the '211 Patent.
Note 4: This lawsuit was recently bought against Google for the Note 4: This lawsuit was recently bought against Google for the
infringement of VSL's '339 Patent in its products such as VP8, VP9, infringement of VSL's '339 Patent in its products such as VP8, VP9,
WebM, YouTube.com, etc. WebM, YouTube.com, etc.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations for this document. There are no IANA considerations for this document.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
43 lines changed or deleted 48 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/