idnits 2.17.1 draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 4) being 59 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 73 has weird spacing: '...drafted a re...' -- The document date (November 7, 2014) is 3457 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-bankoski-vp8-bitstream-02 -- Duplicate reference: RFC6386, mentioned in 'NOK1', was also mentioned in 'ERC1'. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group D. Benham 3 Internet Draft J. Rosenberg 4 Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems 5 Expires: May 7, 2015 6 November 7, 2014 8 VP8 Related Litigation Status Snapshot 9 draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation-01 11 Abstract 13 There remains a great deal of confusion in the industry about the 14 state of patent litigation and IPR disclosures around VP8. To 15 facilitate greater understanding, Duane Morris LLP drafted a 16 paper that summarizes the current state of disclosures and patent 17 litigation based on publically available materials, and has posted a 18 comprehensive report on the Internet. This Internet Draft provides a 19 high level summary of that report. Cisco Systems requested and funded 20 Duane Morris to prepare this report. 22 Status of this Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2015. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction...................................................2 57 2. VP8-related IPR Statement or Declarations......................3 58 2.1. IETF IPR Statements for RFC 6386..........................3 59 2.2. ISO/IEC IPR Declarations for Video Coding for Browsers (VCB) 60 ...............................................................4 61 3. VP8 Related Litigation.........................................4 62 4. IANA Considerations............................................5 63 5. Security Considerations........................................5 64 6. References.....................................................5 65 6.1. Normative References......................................5 66 6.2. Informative References....................................5 67 Authors' Addresses................................................6 69 1. Introduction 71 There remains a great deal of confusion in the industry about the 72 state of patent litigation and IPR disclosures around VP8. To 73 facilitate greater understanding, Duane Morris LLP drafted a report 74 that summarizes the current state of disclosures and litigation based 75 on publically available materials, and has posted the analysis on the 76 Internet [DM]. 78 The report is based on press releases, online reports, public court 79 dockets and patent registrars. Duane Morris was not involved in any 80 aspect of the litigation described in the report. 82 Cisco Systems requested and funded Duane Morris to prepare this 83 report. 85 The information contained in the Duane Morris paper [DM] is not 86 intended to address the merits of any party's position; it is meant 87 to provide an impartial summary of litigation known to relate to VP8. 89 For those that are intimidated by the length and legalese in the 90 Duane Morris report, this draft provides a high level summary. The 91 report covers two main areas - first, it documents the known patent 92 statements made against VP8 standards initiatives. The results are 93 summarized in Section 2. Secondly, it documents the current state of 94 patent litigation around VP8, summarized in Section 3. 96 2. VP8-related IPR Statement or Declarations 98 VP8 "standards initiatives" exist in two places. The first is IETF 99 RFC 6386, an informational RFC that documents the VP8 bitstream 100 format and decoder. The second is an ISO/IEC project called Video 101 Coding for Browsers (VCB). The VCB project is looking to produce a 102 formal standard around VP8. 104 Both IETF and ISO/IEC ask patent holders to submit patent statements 105 and/or licensing declarations relevant to their respective work. 106 Section 2.1 summarizes patent statements against the IETF RFC for 107 VP8, and Section 2.2 against ISO/IEC VCB. 109 2.1. IETF IPR Statements for RFC 6386 111 +----------------------+---------------+-----------+ 112 | IETF Statements | Type | Note/Ref | 113 +----------------------+---------------+-----------+ 114 | Nokia | No License | [NOK1] | 115 | Ericcson | ~RAND | [ERC1] | 116 | Google | ~RAND-Z | [GOOG1] | 117 +----------------------+---------------+-----------+ 119 Table 1 - IETF IPR Statements for VP8 121 IETF has received three IPR statements, enumerated in the table 122 above. RAND stands for "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" as an 123 umbrella for a broad range of licenses that may incur a cost but are 124 meant to enable practitioners to utilize the technology. RAND-Z 125 stands for "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory with Zero royalty," 126 which has the important addition of being free of royalty fees. "No 127 license" means that the patent holder is not willing to license the 128 technology for use in the related specification. 130 2.2. ISO/IEC IPR Declarations for Video Coding for Browsers (VCB) 132 +----------------------+-----------------+-----------+ 133 | ISO/IEC Declarations | Type | Note/Ref | 134 +----------------------+-----------------+-----------+ 135 | Google | 1 (~RAND-Z) | [GOOG2] | 136 | Microsoft | 2 (~RAND) | [MSFT1] | 137 | Nokia | 3 (no license) | | 138 | Panasonic | 2 (~RAND) | Note 1 | 139 | Mitsubishi Electric | 2 (~RAND) | Note 1 | 140 | Dolby Labs | 2 (~RAND) | | 141 +----------------------+-----------------+-----------+ 143 Table 2 - ISO/IEC IPR Declarations for VP8 145 Table 2 summarizes the state of IPR declarations against the ISO/IEC 146 draft standard for VCB. 148 Note 1: Panasonic and Mitsubishi Electric are also listed as "Primary 149 Licensors" under the VP8 Cross-License agreement as reported in 150 section B of the Duane Morris paper [DM]. 152 3. VP8 Related Litigation 154 +------------------------------+-----------------+--------------+ 155 | VP8 Related Litigation | Status | Note/Ref | 156 +------------------------------+-----------------+--------------+ 157 | Nokia v HTC - Germany | Settlement $$ | Note 2 | 158 | Nokia v HTC - US-ITC | Settlement $$ | Note 3 | 159 | VSL/Max Sound v Google - US | Recently Filed | Note 4 | 160 | Nullify '881 - Germany | Active | by Google | 161 | Nullify '177 - Germany | Active | by Google | 162 +------------------------------+-----------------+--------------+ 164 Table 3 - VP8 Related Litigation 166 Table 3 summarizes the publically available cases of litigation 167 against VP8. There are five cases, two of which have settled for an 168 undisclosed monetary amount. A third case was recently filed. Two 169 Nokia patent nullification cases brought by Google are active. 171 Note 2: The German court suspended the '881 Patent infringement case 172 to allow the invalidity case to proceed first, which happens in a 173 separate court. The German court dismissed the '177 Patent 174 infringement case. Before any decisions on the '881 Patent, Nokia 175 and HTC submitted a joint motion to terminate the infringement and 176 invalidity cases based upon their reaching a global "settlement" on 177 all then-pending patent litigation, which included HTC payments of an 178 undisclosed amount to Nokia. This motion was granted. 180 Note 3: The US-ITC did not issue a ruling on the alleged infringement 181 or invalidity of the '211 Patent. Instead, Nokia and HTC submitted a 182 joint motion to terminate the investigation based upon their reaching 183 a global "settlement" on all then-pending patent litigation, which 184 included HTC payments of an undisclosed amount to Nokia. This motion 185 was granted, concluding the US-ITC's investigation. No active 186 litigation was found trying to separately nullify the '211 Patent. 188 Note 4: This lawsuit was recently bought against Google for the 189 infringement of VSL's '339 Patent in its products such as VP8, VP9, 190 WebM, YouTube.com, etc. 192 4. IANA Considerations 194 There are no IANA considerations for this document. 196 5. Security Considerations 198 There are no Security considerations for this document. 200 6. References 202 6.1. Normative References 204 6.2. Informative References 206 [DM] Duane Morris, LLP., "Summary of Known Patent Litigation 207 Related to VP8," October 27, 2014, 208 . 210 [ERC1] LM Ericsson, "Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s 211 Statement about IPR related to RFC 6386," May 14, 2014, 212 214 [GOOG1] Google Inc., "Google Inc's Statement of IPR Related to 215 draft-bankoski-vp8-bitstream-02.," May 18, 2011, 216 218 [GOOG2] Google Inc., "Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration 219 for ISO/IEC 14496-31," June 30, 2014, 220 223 [MSFT1] Microsoft Corporation, "Patent Statement and Licensing 224 Declaration for ISO/IEC 14496-31," July 9, 2014, 225 228 [NOK1] Nokia Corporation, "Nokia Corporation's Statement about 229 IPR related to RFC 6386," March 21, 2013, 230 232 Authors' Addresses 234 David Benham 235 Cisco Systems, Inc. 236 170 W Tasman Dr. 237 San Jose 238 USA 240 Email: dbenham@cisco.com 242 Jonathan Rosenberg 243 Cisco 244 170 West Tasman Drive 245 San Jose, CA 95134 246 USA 248 Email: jdrosen@cisco.com