PAG Report

From Push API PAG

Contents

Status of this Document

This document is approved by the PAG Members as a PAG Conclusion.

Executive Summary

In response to Nokia's disclosure of Intellectual Property, the Push API PAG (PAPAG) concluded that the claims in Nokia's 9 disclosed patents (hereafter, Nokia Patents) do not read on the Push API Specification, assessed as of its 15 August 2013 Working Draft (hereinafter "Push API Specification").


Summary of Conclusions

The Push API PAG has reached the following conclusions:

  1. The Nokia Patents do not read on the Push API Specification.

Summary of Recommendations

Consequently, the Push API PAG does not believe that changes are necessary to the Push API Specification with regards to the disclosures, and recommends that work on the Push API Specification should be continued.

Introduction

The W3C Web Applications (WebApps) Working Group is chartered to develop specifications for webapps, including standard APIs for client-side development. Nokia participates in the Web Applications Working Group.

The goal of the W3C Patent Policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis. Patent Advisory Groups are formed when patent claims are asserted against or expressly excluded from royalty-free commitment for implementations of W3C Recommendations. That happened here when Nokia excluded certain of its patents from the Push API Specification. This report concludes the activities of the Push API PAG.

Procedure

This section traces the necessary procedural steps following the patent exclusion and the creation of the Patent Advisory Group.

The Web Applications Working Group is chartered until 31 May 2014. Part of its charter is to produce the Push API Specification. The Push API Specification published its First Public Working Draft on 18 October 2012.

This triggered a period of 150 days for exclusions from Working Group Participants, which ran until Sunday, 17 March 2013. On 13 Feb 2013 Nokia disclosed these nine patents:

  1. Issued patent "US 6188909" (US + all equivalent foreign counterparts) held by Nokia Corporation
  2. Issued patent "EP 0882375" (Europe + all equivalent foreign counterparts) held by Nokia Corporation
  3. Issued patent "EP 1439723" (Europe + all equivalent foreign counterparts) held by Nokia Corporation
  4. Issued patent "US 7366529" (US + all equivalent foreign counterparts) held by Nokia Corporation
  5. Issued patent "EP 1322072" (Europe + all equivalent foreign counterparts) held by Nokia Corporation
  6. Issued patent "US 6292668" (US + all equivalent foreign counterparts) held by Nokia Corporation
  7. Issued patent "EP 1581016" (Europe + all equivalent foreign counterparts) held by Nokia Corporation
  8. Issued patent "JP 3917596" (Japan + all equivalent foreign counterparts) held by Nokia Corporation
  9. Issued patent "US 7079517" (US + all equivalent foreign counterparts) held by Nokia Corporation


Nokia, as a Member of the W3C, was entitled to make a disclosure statement, and is subject to the deadlines for patent disclosures. Nokia's disclosure statement as well as the complementary information was timely issued and is a valid disclosure.

The Push API Patent Advisory Group was validly set up on 29 May, 2013 according to the rules set forth in Section 7 of the Patent Policy and in conformance with the rules set forth in the Procedures for Launching and Operating a Patent Advisory Group.

Nokia was invited to attend the PAG. Nokia did not participate the the PAG proceedings, nor provide additional information for resolving the PAG.

The PAG did not issue a call for prior art.

In conclusion: Nokia made a valid disclosure and the PAG was created following the relevant rules. There were no issues with the procedure.

Analysis of Disclosures

The PAG categorized these patents into four groups of related patents (e.g. international versions of an issued patent, or divisional patents of an issued patent claiming on a same aspect of the invention), and analyzed the independent claims of each one-by-one.

Analysis of the Patents

See Claims Analysis for detailed review.

Group 1

* US 6188909: Independent claims 1, 8, 13, 18, 22

The Push API Specification does not depend on user messages or short messages, so it can be implemented without matching these claims.

* US 7366529: Independent claims 1, 12, 23, 25, 31, 33, 35

The Push API Specification does not behave in the manner of claims 1, 12; it does not depend on user messages or short messages, as in claims 23, 25, 31, 33, 35.

* EP 0882375: Independent claims 1, 2, 16

The Push API Specification does not depend on user messages or short messages, so it can be implemented without matching these claims.

* EP 1439723: Independent claims 1, 2, 18

The Push API Specification does not depend on user messages or short messages, so it can be implemented without matching these claims.

Group 2

* US 6292668: Independent claims 1, 16 
* EP 1581016: Independent claims 1, 11
* JP 3917596: Independent claims 1, 11

The Push API Specification is an API, not the complete service described in these patents' claims. Implementations need not match the specifics of the patents' claims.

Group 3

* EP 1322072: Independent claims 1, 6, 12

The Push API Specification is an API, not the complete service described in these claims. The scope of the W3C Push API specification is merely the interface between the Web app and the User Agent.

Group 4

* US 7079517: Independent claims 1, 9

The Push API Specification is an API, not the complete service described in these claims. The scope of the W3C Push API specification is merely the interface between the Web app and the User Agent.

Overall Analysis

The Push API PAG believes that the technology described in the Nokia Patents does not apply to the Push API Specification.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

Recommendations

Taking into account the information made available to the PAG, the following recommendations are given:

Disclaimer

Although portions of this PAG analysis were drafted by attorneys following review of the facts, none of the authors is your attorney. No part of this report is intended as legal advice either to W3C or to its members. It is intended merely as a summary of what the PAG has learned to date. Rely on this report entirely at your own risk. However, nothing should prevent even an attorney from expressing his or her personal opinions, and so this analysis includes the personal opinions of the authors.

With respect to W3C, the publication of the Push API Specification Candidate Recommendation would not, by itself, be patent infringement of any patents owned by Nokia or anyone else. Implementers and distributors of software products, though, are encouraged to read the analysis below, consult with their own attorneys, and form their own conclusions.

THESE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PUSH API PATENT ADVISORY GROUP ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE. NEITHER W3C NOR ANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF THIS PATENT ADVISORY GROUP OR THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYERS TAKES ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY, LEGAL CORRECTNESS OR OTHER FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS REPORT. ESPECIALLY, NEITHER W3C NOR ANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF THIS PATENT ADVISORY GROUP OR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYERS MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION THAT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS HERE WILL AVOID AN INFRINGEMENT OF ANY PATENTS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT.

Wendy Seltzer, PAG Chair, October 2013, last updated $Id: push-api-pag-report.html,v 1.3 2013-10-29 17:25:24 wseltzer Exp $