by Dennis Crouch

I enjoyed reading Professor S.I. Strong’s new article on AI-lawyering and her proposed solution that inspired by the English legal profession’s structure. Although I think this is all still early stage, emerging empirical research is showing how generative AI usage often triggers “metacognitive laziness” and “cognitive offloading” in users. Studies particularly with law students show reduced motivation to learn, diminished ability to self-regulate, and less deep engagement with material—gaining only improved short-term performance on individual tasks.  Routine reliance on AI usage is also showing an atrophy of other critical skills. Namely, when professionals have confidence in GenAI’s ability to perform a task, those folks spend much less effort thinking critically about the issues.

Artificial Intelligence in Civil Justice Systems: An Empirical and Interdisciplinary Analysis and Proposal for Moving Forward by S.I. Strong :: SSRN (more…)

by Dennis Crouch

In a case highlighting the ongoing challenge of claim construction in software patents, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the district court’s determination that Fintiv’s asserted claims are invalid as indefinite. Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 2023-2312 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025).  In the software-element two-step, the court first held that the claim terms “payment handler” and “payment handler service” should be treated as “mean-plus-function” limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim terms used lacked inherent structural meaning; and then as a result found the claims invalid as indefinite because the specification lacked sufficient structural support.   U.S. Patent Nos. 9,892,386, 11,120,413, 9,208,488, and 10,438,196.

The Statutes at Issues:

• 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Conclusion. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
• 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Element in Claim for a Combination.
  An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

(more…)