Add support for representing patent information

[stevespringett]

Implements patent support. Closes #596

---

TODO/DONE

• add examples for XML
• add examples for JSON
• add examples for ProtoBuf
• implement for XML
• implement for JSON
• implement for ProtoBuf

[stevespringett]

@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).

[planetlevel]

Hi Steve, I spent some time with this, and it looks pretty comprehensive. For all my experience with patents (IP degree from G'town, drafted several patents for big companies at a lawfirm, have 7-8 of my own)... I guess my patent experience has been pretty simple relative to these complex scenarios. Sorry I thought I could be more help here,

…

--Jeff 410-707-1487

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 2:17 PM Steve Springett ***@***.***> wrote: @planetlevel <https://github.com/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). — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#597 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAUUFTHRYGRI6F6OVTPFO3D2TXQNZAVCNFSM6AAAAABW3U24E6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDOMJRGQ2DMMJQHA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***> [image: stevespringett]*stevespringett* left a comment (CycloneDX/specification#597) <#597 (comment)> @planetlevel <https://github.com/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). — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#597 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAUUFTHRYGRI6F6OVTPFO3D2TXQNZAVCNFSM6AAAAABW3U24E6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDOMJRGQ2DMMJQHA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[stevespringett]

@jkowalleck do you know what's up with the Java checker? It's failing on the valid-standard-1.7 test file, which is not part of this PR, and was never failing previously to my knowledge. Also, the PHP one is not returning any useful information, just a generic error.

[jkowalleck]

@jkowalleck do you know what's up with the Java checker? It's failing on the valid-standard-1.7 test file, which is not part of this PR, and was never failing previously to my knowledge. Also, the PHP one is not returning any useful information, just a generic error.

did not look into details of this PR, but is suspect the XSD changes are breaking things unintentionally.
if I should guess, it is that a XML element patents is missing the intended min-occurrence, which makes it required - which breaks existing test cases.

https://github.com/CycloneDX/specification/actions/runs/14794751751/job/41539253573?pr=597#step:5:1237

test /home/runner/work/specification/specification/tools/src/test/resources/1.7/valid-standard-1.7.xml ...
ERROR: Unexpected validation error for file: /home/runner/work/specification/specification/tools/src/test/resources/1.7/valid-standard-1.7.xml
LibXMLError Object
(
    [level] => 2
    [code] => 1871
    [column] => 0
    [message] => Element '{http://cyclonedx.org/schema/bom/1.7}definitions': Missing child element(s). Expected is ( {http://cyclonedx.org/schema/bom/1.7}patents ).

    [file] => /home/runner/work/specification/specification/tools/src/test/php/
    [line] => 3
)

https://github.com/CycloneDX/specification/actions/runs/14794751743/job/41539253424?pr=597#step:4:2194

Error:  Tests run: 395, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.899 s <<< FAILURE! -- in org.cyclonedx.schema.XmlSchemaVerificationTest
Error:  org.cyclonedx.schema.XmlSchemaVerificationTest.dynamicTestsWithCollection()[392] -- Time elapsed: 0.007 s <<< FAILURE!
org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: 1.7/valid-standard-1.7.xml ==> expected: <true> but was: <false>
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionFailureBuilder.build(AssertionFailureBuilder.java:151)
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionFailureBuilder.buildAndThrow(AssertionFailureBuilder.java:132)
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertTrue.failNotTrue(AssertTrue.java:63)
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertTrue.assertTrue(AssertTrue.java:36)
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertTrue(Assertions.java:214)
	at org.cyclonedx.schema.XmlSchemaVerificationTest.lambda$dynamicTestsWithCollection$0(XmlSchemaVerificationTest.java:84)
	at java.util.Optional.ifPresent(Optional.java:159)
	at java.util.ArrayList.forEach(ArrayList.java:1259)
	at java.util.ArrayList.forEach(ArrayList.java:1259)

[stevespringett]

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the guidance.

[jkowalleck]

did a complete review of all changes.

• the JSON, the XML, and the PB are consistent.
• data models made sense - thanks to the good documentation/annotation

[jkowalleck]

RFC notice sent on May 3, 2025

• https://groups.io/g/CycloneDX/message/310
• https://cyclonedx.slack.com/archives/CVA0G10FN/p1746226664508629

Public RFC period ended May 31, 2025

[jkowalleck]

this one just was accepted during a Ecma TC54 meeting 👍

[Nicolas-Peiffer]

Great news 🚀 , and great result. Thank you ❤️ to all the people involved.