The border between defining requirements and development of standards is often unclear. It is therefore important that an IPR policy is in place irrespective of whether UCAIug is focused on only developing requirements, directly setting standards or both.

The UCAIug would gain additional perspectices by reviewing the guidelines of bodies that have looked extensively at setting IPR policies for trade organizations. For example, such organizations include the Intellectual Property Owner's Association (IPO), the American Bar Association (ABA), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and others. Two document that may be particularly helpful in this regard are “Standards Primer: An Overview of Standards Setting Bodies and Patent-Related Issues that Arise in the Context of Standards Setting Activities,” COMM. ON TECHNICAL STANDARDIZATION SECTION OF SCI. & TECH. LAW, AM. BAR ASS’N, STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PATENT POLICY MANUAL, and “ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for American National Standards.”  

It is concerning that the proposed IPR policy is vague, imprecise, and out of step with the spirit of those documents, and does not appear to adequately consider  the many significant legal  ramifications surrounding notification and licensing of intellectual property rights in a standards-setting context.  In fact, the proposed policy in its current form appears so far removed from policies enacted by the many other trade organizations with which UCAIug interacts, that it could be quite difficult for many members to continue their support for, and important work with, the UCAIug.

John Boot

GE Energy