-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 66
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[WIP] v1.7 - Add patent support #597
base: 1.7-dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Steve Springett <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: steve.springett <[email protected]>
"bom-ref": "patent-1", | ||
"patentNumber": "US1234567890", | ||
"applicationNumber": "12345", | ||
"jurisdiction": "US", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In US, We apply for two patents one that covers US and another that covers International scope. The jurisdiction is still US but the patent would cover all countries that have US agreements in place.
I think we should separate the jurisdiction vs grant type/scope - US vs international.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe that use case is handled by patent families, which group patents filed into different jurisdictions and which represent a single thing that is being patented. That approach aligns with ST.96.
@planetlevel would you be able to review this? We have worked with WIPO on providing summary information for patents and patent families and we believe our current support for both of these are correct. Let us know otherwise. However, I'm particularly interested in a review of the patent assertions which allow BOM creators to assert their relationship with the patent (owner, licensing, etc). |
Implements patent support. Closes #596
TODO/DONE