RFC-PCS-0007

 

Patent Disclosure and FRAND Licensing Framework

Status: Draft

Intended Status: Standards Track

Updates: RFC-PCS-0001 through RFC-PCS-0006

Reference: PATENT_NOTICE.md

Expires: TBD

 

1. Abstract

This document defines the Patent Disclosure and Licensing Framework applicable to implementations of the Persistra Cognitive Standard (PCS).

 

The framework establishes transparency regarding essential intellectual property, clarifies the relationship between PCS conformance and patent rights, and describes a Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing approach intended to support broad adoption while preserving innovation incentives.

 

2. Motivation

Persistent cognitive state systems introduce novel architectural mechanisms that may be subject to patent protection.

 

A clear and explicit patent disclosure framework is necessary to:

• Enable informed implementation decisions
• Reduce uncertainty for implementers
• Avoid post-deployment licensing disputes
• Encourage adoption through predictable licensing terms

 

This document exists to promote clarity, not to restrict participation.

 

3. Scope

This document applies to:

• Implementations claiming PCS conformance
• Implementations seeking PCS certification
• Implementations incorporating PCS-defined mechanisms

This document does not mandate licensing, nor does it assert infringement.

 

4. Definitions

Essential Patent: A patent or patent application containing one or more claims that are necessarily infringed by implementing one or more normative (“MUST” or “REQUIRED”) requirements of the Persistra Cognitive Standard, where no technically feasible, compliant alternative exists.

 

FRAND: Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory

 

Patent Holder: An entity holding intellectual property relevant to PCS

 

Implementer: Any party implementing PCS specifications

 

Normative language follows RFC 2119.

 

5. Patent Disclosure

5.1 Disclosure Statement

Implementers are advised that one or more aspects of PCS may be covered by patents or patent applications owned by Persistra Inc. and/or other parties.

A non-exhaustive list of relevant patents and applications MAY be published separately.

 

5.2 No Warranty

This disclosure does not represent a warranty that PCS implementations are free of patent claims.

 

Implementers are responsible for conducting their own intellectual property assessments.

 

5.3 Patent Notice

See PATENT_NOTICE.md for further guidance.

 

6. Essential Patent Categories

Without limitation, implementation of one or more normative requirements of PCS MAY necessarily infringe patents with claims covering, including but not limited to::

• Persistent cognitive state architectures
• Multi-factor salience-based retrieval mechanisms
• Deterministic policy enforcement
• Cross-model cognitive continuity
• Distributed and federated cognitive memory graphs

 

This categorization is illustrative, not exhaustive.

 

6.1 Essentiality Determination

Whether a patent claim is essential is a technical and legal determination that depends on the scope of PCS requirements implemented.

 

Essentiality MAY be assessed with respect to: • Specific PCS levels (L1–L4) • Specific normative requirements within a level • The absence of technically feasible, non-infringing alternatives

 

Exocortical Concepts, Inc. reserves the right to designate, update, or clarify essential patent status as PCS evolves.

 

7. Relationship Between PCS Compliance and Licensing

7.1 Specification vs Rights

PCS specifications define technical requirements, not legal rights.

Compliance with PCS does not itself grant patent licenses.

 

7.2 Certification Independence

PCS certification, as defined in RFC-PCS-0006, is independent of patent licensing.

 

Certification indicates technical conformance only.

 

8. FRAND Licensing Commitment

8.1 Licensing Intent

Persistra Inc. declares its intent to offer licenses to its patent claims that are essential to compliance with PCS normative requirements on FRAND terms.

 

8.2 Scope of FRAND

FRAND licensing applies to patents that are essential to PCS compliance.

Non-essential patents may be licensed separately.

 

8.3 No Automatic License

This declaration does not create an automatic license.

 

Licenses require mutual agreement and execution of appropriate legal instruments.

 

8.4 Standards-Essential Context

This framework is intended to align with established industry practices for standards-essential intellectual property, while preserving implementation flexibility and innovation.

 

Nothing in this document shall be construed as a waiver of rights, nor as a mandatory licensing obligation absent mutual agreement.

 

9. Licensing Considerations

FRAND licensing terms MAY consider factors including, but not limited to:

• Scope of PCS level implemented (L1–L4)

• Deployment scale

• Commercial vs non-commercial use

• Revenue derived from PCS-dependent functionality

 

Licensing terms SHOULD be consistent across similarly situated implementers.

 

10. Non-Discrimination

Licenses SHALL NOT be conditioned on:

• Use of a particular LLM provider

• Use of Persistra reference implementations

• Participation in PCS governance

 

This ensures technology neutrality.

 

11. Defensive Suspension

Licenses MAY include defensive suspension provisions.

• Such provisions MAY suspend licensing rights in the event of:
• Patent litigation initiated by the licensee related to PCS

 

Defensive suspension terms SHOULD be reciprocal.

 

12. Disclosure Timing

Patent disclosure is provided prior to widespread PCS adoption.

This timing is intended to:

• Avoid surprise licensing demands

• Allow informed architectural decisions

• Support good-faith implementation

 

13. Third-Party Patents

PCS may implicate patents held by third parties.

This document does not address third-party licensing obligations.

 

14. Antitrust Considerations

This framework is intended to comply with applicable competition laws.

PCS participation is voluntary.

 

Licensing discussions SHALL be conducted bilaterally and independently.

 

15. Updates and Transparency

Persistra Inc. MAY periodically update public patent disclosures.

Material changes SHOULD be publicly communicated.

 

16. Security Considerations

Patent licensing does not substitute for security evaluation.

Implementers remain responsible for secure deployment.

 

17. IANA Considerations

This document defines no IANA actions.

 

18. Conclusion

The PCS Patent Disclosure and FRAND Licensing Framework provides transparency and predictability for implementers while preserving innovation incentives.

By separating technical specification, certification, and licensing, PCS enables broad adoption without compromising intellectual property rights.

 

End of RFC-PCS-0007