1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22209, USA
+1-703- 475-9217
http://dicom.nema.org
E-mail: [email protected]
M I N U T E S (Revised1)
DICOM WORKING GROUP TWENTY-SIX
(Pathology)
October 23, 2016
Torrey Hills B, Grand Hyatt
San Diego, California
Voting Members Present
Represented by
CAP & DPC
JAHIS
Leica Biosystems
PathCore
Philips Medical System
Roche
Sectra
Newport Instruments
Vastra Gotalandsregionen (VGR)
Bruce Beckwith
Megumi Kondo
Anne Brumme
Dan Hosseinzadeh
Frank van Apeldoorn
for Hans Wijngaarden
Joachim Schmid
Simon Häger
Robert C Leif
Mikael Wintell
Voting Members Not present
Carl Zeiss
Corista, LLC
GE Healthcare
Nikon Instruments
Objective Pathology
Represented by
Martin Gluch
Eric Wirch
Charles Parisot
Stanley Schwartz
Kemp Watson
Alternate Voting Representatives, Observers, and Guests Present
Mariska Beni
David Clunie
Tobey Cornich
David de Mena
Rohit Deshpande
Eric Glassy
Niels Grabe
Andreas Keil
Doug Murphy
Clark Silcox
1
CAP/DPC
PixelMed (P)
University of Colorado
Andalusian Public Health System
Leica Biosystems
CAP & DPC
University of Heidelberg
microDimensions
CAP
NEMA
Corrected attendance list
1
_______________________
DICOM WG-26 – Pathology
May 25, 2016
Stephen Vastagh
Presiding Officer:
DICOM/MITA/NEMA
Mikael Wintell, Co-Chair
P= by phone
1.
Opening
The Co-Chair called the meeting to order at 9:00 USA Pacific Time. Clark Silcox, NEMA General Counsel
reminded participants of the antitrust rules. Agenda was approved. The minutes from the previous meeting
were approved.
Meeting re-opens in a joint session with IHE PaLM 13.00-17.00 Pacific Time.
Thank you to Abbey Norris Kovacinski, DPA for arranging the meeting facilities.
Clark Silcox described the antitrust rules in further details.







2.
Standard may contain IP not developed by DICOM committees
IP policy allows use of best available techniques at the committees discretion
Sometimes 3rd party IP is included unknowingly and is discovered after standardization
Vendors are encouraged to disclose relevant IP (important and beneficial)
IP holders may choose to license the IP to the industry
Terms of license must be reasonable and non-discriminatory
Essential patents are those needed to practice the standard - Members are required to license on
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
Patent Discussion





-
Mikael Wintell reviewed “Aperio” patent history
Rob Leif mentioned that copyrights are also IP and covered by patents law
Rob Leif compared DICOM to XML and wished for a similar development
Bruce Beckwith asked if the practice of filing patents on the DICOM standard was common
Clark Silcox said that there were not many patents that overlap DICOM Anne Brumme said she
had been championing licensing of the “Aperio” patent within Leica
 Anne Brume presented Leica’s position on the “Aperio” patent in previous meetings and restates
them again
 Leica intends to provide a no cost and royalty free license
 Patent license agreement is intended to allow freedom to operate
 The spirit of patent license agreement is to allow implementations to exist
 There is a process to handle licensing requests from prospective licensees
 Anne wants to clear any misunderstandings
 Andreas Keil asked who should be contacted regarding the patent license agreement and what are
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms?
o Anne Brumme says Leica is willing to discuss terms with any new licensor
 Stephen White <[email protected]> is the contact person at Leica
Dan Hosseinzadeh asks if Leica has already licensed the “Aperio” patent
2
_______________________
DICOM WG-26 – Pathology
May 25, 2016
 Anne Brumme says licensors already exists
Mikael Wintell asks the group what are the lessons learnt, it's been a long time since standardization
David Clunie provides several comments about patents as they relate to DICOM rules
 When a member of DICOM WG contributes to a standard and then seeks a patent, DICOM rules
apply which include
o A requirement to license patent on non-discriminatory terms
 If a non-member seeks a patent on a part of the DICOM standard, then DICOM rules do not apply
 Licensing fees discourage open source software since publishers cannot collect fees
 Licensing fees and legal hurdles hinder open source and reference implementation
 When uncertainty exists, then open source implementations will not happen
 Lack of adoption of Supp. 145 is due in part to a lack of open source & reference implementations
-
3.
Discussion on optimizing Supplement 145












4.
Discussion on Supplement 122




5.
-
-
Joachim Schmid says, implementers have not adopted the standard
Joachim says there is a desire to change/optimize Sup145
Frank van Apeldorn agrees with Joachim in that Sup145 can be optimized and enhanced
Anne Brumme says a major effort to avoid patent licensing is unwarranted since a pathway for
licensing exists
Mikael Wintell says that the situation with the lack of adoption is very frustrating
Andreas Keil says the prospect of legal action for implementers of Sup145 is not at all acceptable
for small companies
Andreas Keil says there is no incentive to implement if the community does not adopt the standard
David Clunie says that open source implementers need a licensing exception
David Clunie says OME and Openslide are popular libraries that do not support DICOM and are
competing alternative standards
David Clunie asks whether the terms of the license agreement can be public and that transparency
would provide confidence to all in the community
Joachim Schmidt recommends to postpone discussion on updating the standard since Anne
Brumme is providing assurances about Leica’s good intentions
Dan Hosseinzadeh says mass acceptance of the license agreement by the community, is required
in order to move forward
Michael Wintell provides some background on VGR’s process of adopting digital pathology based
on DICOM
Mikael presents Image Information Object Definition (see presentation in meeting folder)
Mikael asks for help with mapping Sup122 to real world situations
Bruce Beckwith offers to help but says he lacks technical knowledge of DICOM
Discussion on Interoperability Showcase
Dan Hosseinzadeh describes the Interoperability Showcase (see proposal in showcase folder)
 David Clunie says HIMSS with the TM on “Interoperability Showcase”
 David Clunie recommends that WADO be added to the Showcase proposal
 Eric Glassy says DPA and CAP will support the Showcase
Andy Evans asks whether DICOM will complicate FDA clearance
 David Clunie says DICOM is largely outside the scope of FDA
 Eric Glassy comments on FDA requirements
3
_______________________
DICOM WG-26 – Pathology
May 25, 2016
o
o
o
6.
IHE Meeting Update


7.
Rob Leif provided a list of relevant standard for WG26 (see list in meeting folder)
Next meeting


9.
Mikael Wintell describes the last joint meeting with IHE in Berlin
o In detail the joint work to be carried out will be in the scope of workflow and how to
produce a white paper based upon a true clinical workflow
Next joint meeting will be held on November 9-11, 2017 in Chicago
Other Items

8.
FDA requires that approved image viewers warn users when opening image formats not
intended for the viewer via an active dialog
Multiple compression modes should be supported
FDA regulatory requirements may be difficult to overcome without the use of a standard
like DICOM
USCAP Annual Meeting, March 2017
Pathology Visions, October 2017
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. USA Pacific Time.
Reported by Co-Chair of WG-26:
Mikael Wintell
Submitted by DICOM Secretariat:
Luiza Kowalczyk
Reviewed by Legal Counsel:
Clark Silcox
4
_______________________
DICOM WG-26 – Pathology
May 25, 2016