PQA IPR has a FWD finding all challenged claims invalid.
So, that's both patents VLSI won its Intel verdict on invalidated. Discretionary denial is a complete policy failure, so why is the USPTO looking to make rules enshrining it into law?
Idiosyncratic views on patents. Policy counsel at CCIA and lead blogger for Patent Progress. Former litigator, big ole patent nerd.
All views my own.
| Website | https://www.patentprogress.org |
| Pronouns | he/him |
| Website | https://ccianet.org/about/team/joshua-landau/ |
| Website | https://staging.bsky.app/profile/jslandau.bsky.social |
PQA IPR has a FWD finding all challenged claims invalid.
So, that's both patents VLSI won its Intel verdict on invalidated. Discretionary denial is a complete policy failure, so why is the USPTO looking to make rules enshrining it into law?
Also Sen. Padilla's question about an over-focus on English is 100% on point.
Montgomery making the simplest point, but also the most important one - AI is not a shield. Whether an AI tool or a human does something, it should be treated the same.
Hawley is just wrong here. If you're harmed by AI, and that harm is a legally cognizable harm, then yeah, you can sue.
I think Sen. Hirono's question about how the same AI that makes up a funny joke can also make up election disinfo illustrates an important point.
A smartphone camera can be used to record your kid's dance recital. It can also be used for copyright infringement. It's essential to keep both in mind, not just focus on the latter.