IPR Details
Sangam Kumar Das' Statement about IPR related to draft-das-ntn-rf-execution-finality, draft-das-payment-execution-finality, draft-das-child-safe-rendering-finality, draft-das...
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.
I. Patent Holder/Applicant ("Patent Holder")
| Holder legal name | Sangam Kumar Das |
|---|
II. Patent Holder's Contact for License Application
| Holder contact name | Sangam Kumar Das |
|---|---|
| Holder contact email | info@sangamdas.com |
| Holder contact info |
Balasore , Odisha |
III. IETF Document or Other Contribution to Which this IPR Disclosure Relates
|
IV. Disclosure of Patent Information
i.e., patents or patent applications required to be disclosed by RFC 8179
A. For granted patents or published pending patent applications, please provide the following information:
| Patent, Serial, Publication, Registration, or Application/File number(s) |
Number: WO2026150382,WO2026150381,WO2026150384 At the centre is WO2026150382, which I informally call the “Mothership.” Its priority framework dates back to 17 August 2025, and the broader development is supported by 32 Indian provisional patent filings. The common principle running through these filings is simple: computation is not authority; identity is not authority; possession of data, credentials, a token, a phone number, consent record, or an AI-generated decision should not by itself constitute final authorization for an externally effective act. A proposed action should become effective only after the required conditions are independently validated at the relevant execution-finality boundary. The 8,598-page Mothership was intentionally prepared at this scale to document this foundational architecture across many technical environments, industries, threat models, and implementation paths. Its length was therefore not intended as repetition, but as broad technical disclosure of a common architectural principle and its numerous embodiments. The other publications develop more specialised branches of that broader work. I developed and filed this work as an independent inventor, without a technical team, without external funding, and using my own personal bank savings. I also intentionally handled the PCT filings without a patent attorney at the international filing stage, primarily to conserve limited resources for filing fees, prosecution, publication, and possible national-phase entry. The term “Mothership” is an explanatory description only and does not alter the independent legal scope, priority entitlement, or examination of any individual application. Sangam Das Note - Patent claims are not granted yet |
|---|
B. Does this disclosure relate to an unpublished pending patent application?:
| Has patent pending | No |
|---|
V. Licensing Declaration
The Patent Holder states that its position with respect to licensing any patent claims contained in the patent(s) or patent application(s) disclosed above that would necessarily be infringed by implementation of the technology required by the relevant IETF specification ("Necessary Patent Claims"), for the purpose of implementing such specification, is as follows(select one licensing declaration option only):
| Licensing | Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee |
|---|---|
| Licensing information, comments, notes, or URL for further information |
My primary motivation in filing this work has not been financial gain. I filed it because I wanted the technical ideas, architecture, and development effort to be formally recorded and attributable, in the hope that the work may one day form part of the historical record alongside other meaningful inventions and inventors. I have undertaken this work as an independent inventor, without an external technical team, without external funding, and with limited personal financial resources. The filing costs have been paid from my own personal savings. I do not presently have sufficient financial resources to pursue every possible national-phase filing, prosecution pathway, or jurisdiction in which protection might otherwise be desirable. I was fully aware of this financial limitation before filing the PCT applications. I nevertheless chose to proceed because creating a formal, public, dated, and attributable technical record of the work was important to me. For the same financial reason, I intentionally handled the international-stage PCT filings without a patent attorney in order to conserve my limited resources for filing fees, publication, prosecution, and possible national-phase entry. Commercial licensing opportunities would of course be welcome, but financial return has not been the sole or primary reason for making these filings. Recognition of the technical contribution, preservation of the development record, and the possibility that the architecture may contribute to future technologies, public infrastructure, safety systems, and technical standards are equally important objectives. ### Mothership and Scope of the Portfolio At the centre of this work is **WO2026150382**, which I informally refer to as the **“Mothership.”** The Mothership is an intentionally broad technical disclosure of approximately **8,598 pages**, designed to document a foundational execution-finality architecture across numerous technical environments, industries, threat models, implementation paths, and embodiments. Its size and breadth were intentional. It was not prepared merely by repeating the same concept. The purpose was to document how a common architectural principle could operate across many different technical contexts. A central principle running through the work is that **computation is not authority**. Similarly, possession of data, an identity, credential, token, consent record, telephone number, AI-generated decision, software instruction, or upstream approval should not automatically constitute final authority for an externally effective act. The relevant action should become effective only after the required conditions are validated and the appropriate execution-finality authority is verified at the relevant boundary. Because the Mothership is intentionally broad, it contains or may support many technical claims, embodiments, and implementations that may have **no relationship to an eventual IETF standard**. Some of those technologies may instead be appropriate for separate commercial deployment, organisation-specific implementation, strategic partnerships, or, where appropriate, exclusive licensing arrangements. For this reason, I cannot reasonably place the entire Mothership application, its patent family, or every present or future claim arising from this broader work under a FRAND commitment. ### IETF / FRAND Licensing Position My FRAND commitment is therefore **strictly limited to those specific patent claims that become Necessary Patent Claims for implementation of a specification actually adopted by the IETF**, in accordance with the applicable IETF IPR framework. For clarity, disclosure of a patent application to the IETF does **not** mean that every claim contained in that application, related priority application, PCT filing, patent family, or broader portfolio is being offered on FRAND terms. Only those specific claims that are actually necessary for implementing the relevant adopted IETF specification are intended to fall within the FRAND commitment. Claims relating to broader architectural concepts, alternative implementations, optional functionality, different industries, organisation-specific deployments, proprietary implementations, or other subject matter that is not necessary for implementation of the relevant IETF specification remain outside this FRAND commitment. Those non-standard-essential claims may therefore remain available for separate licensing arrangements, including ordinary commercial licences and, where appropriate, exclusive licences for particular implementations, fields, organisations, or applications. Accordingly, my position is that **the claims necessary to implement an adopted IETF specification may be licensed on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, while claims that remain outside the standard retain their independent licensing and commercial status.** I do not intend this statement to suggest that the IETF itself determines or certifies the essentiality of individual patent claims. The commitment is directed to claims that qualify as Necessary Patent Claims for implementation of the relevant adopted IETF specification under the applicable IETF framework. ### Purpose of the FRAND Approach My purpose in adopting this approach is to create a practical balance. If part of my work becomes necessary for an open technical standard, I do not want the relevant patent rights to become an unreasonable barrier to implementation of that standard. FRAND licensing can provide a mechanism through which implementers can obtain access to genuinely necessary claims on fair and non-discriminatory terms. At the same time, I am an independent inventor funding this work largely from my own savings. Preserving the commercial value of inventions and claims that are **not** incorporated into an IETF standard is important because licensing income from such technology may help support continued research, patent prosecution, national-phase filings, technical development, and the creation of further inventions. My broader objective in seeking FRAND treatment for genuinely standard-essential claims is therefore not simply to collect royalties. It is also to establish a sustainable path through which standardisation can encourage adoption of useful technology while allowing me to continue inventing, developing, documenting, and protecting additional technologies in the future. ### Voluntary Royalty-Free Public-Interest Licensing Position Separately, and entirely as a **voluntary public-interest commitment**, I am willing to consider granting **royalty-free licences to sovereign governments and public authorities for strictly non-commercial public-interest uses**, including public safety, emergency response, disaster management, child safety, critical-infrastructure protection, and similar genuine governmental or public-interest purposes. This voluntary position does **not itself grant any licence** and should not be interpreted as an automatic, unconditional, irrevocable, or generally available royalty-free licence. Any such royalty-free permission would arise only through a **separate written licensing agreement** entered into with the relevant sovereign government or public authority. The written agreement may define the applicable patent rights, technology, project, permitted purpose, duration, territory, safeguards, beneficiaries, and scope of use. Such a voluntary royalty-free arrangement would not automatically extend to commercial exploitation, commercial resale, sublicensing, unrelated private-sector activity, or contractors using the technology outside the expressly authorised governmental or public-interest purpose. This voluntary sovereign and public-interest licensing policy is **separate from the IETF FRAND commitment** and does not modify the licensing position applicable to ordinary implementers of an IETF specification. ### Reservation of Rights Nothing in this statement is intended to constitute a general patent waiver, abandonment of patent rights, dedication of the portfolio to the public, unrestricted royalty-free licence, or FRAND commitment covering claims that are not Necessary Patent Claims for implementation of the relevant adopted IETF specification. The intended balance is straightforward: **Claims necessary for an adopted IETF standard → available under the applicable FRAND commitment.** **Claims not necessary for that standard → remain outside FRAND and retain their independent licensing status.** **Non-commercial sovereign and public-interest use → may be considered voluntarily on a royalty-free basis through a separate written agreement.** My broader objective remains to preserve an attributable record of the technical contribution, obtain appropriate recognition for the work, support responsible adoption where standardisation occurs, and preserve sufficient freedom and resources to continue developing further inventions in the future. |
Note: The individual submitting this template represents and warrants that he or she is authorized by the Patent Holder to agree to the above-selected licensing declaration.
VI. Contact Information of Submitter of this Form
| Submitter name | Sangam Kumar Das |
|---|---|
| Submitter email | info@sangamdas.com |
Only those sections of the relevant entry form where the submitter provided information are displayed above.