datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Sathya Narayanan's statement about possible IPR claimed in draft-narayanan-dna-rrd-01.txt belonging to Matsushita Electric Industrial Co, Ltd.

Only those sections of the "Patent Disclosure and Licensing Declaration Template for Notification" where the submitter provided information are displayed.

Update this IPR disclosure. Note: Updates to IPR disclosures must only be made by authorized representatives of the original submitters. Updates will automatically be forwarded to the current Patent Holder's Contact and to the Submitter of the original IPR disclosure.

Submitted Date: February 20, 2005

I. Possible Patent Holder/Applicant ("Patent Holder")
Legal Name: Matsushita Electric Industrial Co, Ltd.
II. Contact Information for the IETF Participant Whose Personal Belief Triggered this Disclosure:
Name: Sathya Narayanan
Title:
Department:
Address1:
Address2:
Telephone: +1-609-734-7599
Fax:
Email: sathya@Research.Panasonic
III. IETF Document or Other Contribution to Which this IPR Disclosure Relates:
Designations for Other Contributions:draft-narayanan-dna-rrd-01.txt
IV. Disclosure of Patent Information (i.e., patents or patent applications required to be disclosed by Section 6 of RFC 3979)
A. For granted patents or published pending patent applications, please provide the following information:
Patent, Serial, Publication, Registration, or Application/File number(s):
Date(s) granted or applied for:
Country:
Additional Notes:

The document draft-narayanan-dna-rrd-01 describes technology which may be
covered by a patent application assigned to Panasonic (Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co.). No licensing or other information is available at this date.
This disclosure is aimed at providing a primary disclosure (as described in
RFC3668 section 6) to be updated by Matsushita at a later date with more details
on the licensing terms.

B. Does this disclosure relate to an unpublished pending patent application?: YES
C. If an Internet-Draft or RFC includes multiple parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such Internet-Draft or RFC is alleged to be covered by the patent information disclosed in Section V(A) or V(B), it is helpful if the discloser identifies here the sections of the Internet-Draft or RFC that are alleged to be so covered:
No information submitted