Dragonfly Managing Partner Haseeb Qureshi Questions NEAR Patent Infringement Claims
Haseeb Qureshi publicly responded on social media to a patent infringement accusation against NEAR, pointing out that the relevant patent was only granted a few months ago (around the end of July) and was previously in application status, thus cannot constitute infringement.
He noted that according to the opposing party's own timeline, the patent was approved at the end of July, while their algorithm was changed in September, resulting in a potential infringement window of only about one month. The algorithm in question was initially published in an academic paper under a CC-BY license, and the opposing party cited this paper in their implementation.
Qureshi emphasized that there was no possibility of infringement before the patent was granted and questioned the reasonableness of publicly applying pressure in such a short window and in the context of publicly available academic sources. The relevant patent number cited in the discussion is 12695626.
This dispute involves algorithms used by the NEAR protocol for a long time and technologies like vetKeys. Qureshi had previously publicly inquired whether the relevant IP was proprietary or had been disclosed through academic papers.
Current public discussions focus on the timing of the patent grant, the timing of the algorithm change, and the CC-BY license of the academic paper, with no formal legal outcomes publicly available yet.
In terms of market mechanisms, blockchain project implementations often rely on publicly available academic results, and claims made shortly after patent grants may impact open-source and academic citation practices. The beneficiaries are the protocols that rely on public research, while the parties under pressure are those who quickly assert rights after the grant.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Haseeb Qureshi is a managing partner at Dragonfly, with a long-standing focus on crypto infrastructure, AI, and security issues, often fact-checking technical claims in public forums. He had previously publicly questioned the source of the relevant IP, emphasizing the boundary between academic paper disclosure and patent protection.
In terms of capital pathways, such disputes typically revolve around the long-term operational code of open-source protocols and subsequent patent grants. The claiming party attempts to convert academic results into exclusive rights, while the protocol party proves usage prior to the grant or based on public licenses through citations and timelines. Resource mobilization focuses on public opinion and factual statements rather than immediate litigation.
This is similar to conflicts between academic papers and subsequent patent applications in other blockchain or open-source projects. It is currently in the early stage of asserting patent rights after the public disclosure of technical implementations.
Essentially, this is about the transfer of pricing power. Academic disclosure has placed algorithms in the public domain or under loose licenses, and after patent grants, there is an attempt to re-establish exclusive pricing rights; when the time window is short and citations are clear, the market re-prices the validity of the claims, affecting open-source projects' assessments of patent risks.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
Before grant is application, after grant is right
Public paper is source, short window is claim
Citation exists, infringement needs to prove new exclusivity