Quandary Peak Research

We are proud to welcome Muzammil Hassan to Quandary Peak Research as the Director of Patent Monetization, leading our newly established Patent Monetization and Licensing Support practice. With over 13 years of experience in intellectual property, Muzammil brings deep expertise in #patentLicensing, monetization, litigation, and IP management. He has successfully consulted on monetization strategies, managed complex #patentAcquisitions, and led teams of up to 70 analysts and consultants. In his new role, Muzammil will guide clients through the intricacies of patent licensing and monetization, delivering innovative and tailored solutions. This new service offering enhances our ability to provide comprehensive intellectual property and technology consulting services, reinforcing Quandary Peak’s dedication to exceptional client support. We are thrilled to have Muzammil onboard and look forward to the impact of his leadership and expertise. https://lnkd.in/gbjdBGG5

We're excited to announce that our General Counsel, Tuyana Molokhoeva, will be moderating the "Day in the Life of an Arbitration Practitioner" event at UCLA School of Law, presented by Young California Arbitration in collaboration with UCLA’s International & Comparative Law Program! Recently back in Los Angeles, Tuyana is already making an impact by engaging with the community and sharing her unique perspectives as an attorney. Join Tuyana, along with her fellow California Arbitration (CalArb) members, for this in-person event. It's a fantastic opportunity for students and aspiring #legalProfessionals to learn firsthand about careers in #arbitration. RSVP today to secure your spot and enjoy lunch while gaining valuable insights! We’re proud to support Tuyana’s commitment to fostering knowledge and connection in the legal community.

We’re excited to see Iman Sadeghi, Ph.D. and Isaac Pflaum joining this distinguished conference as moderators and panelists! Their expertise in IP, data privacy, and emerging tech will bring valuable insights to the discussions. Looking forward to connecting with fellow attendees and exploring these timely topics together.

Today, Our Software Experts are Speaking at UIC’s 68th Annual IP, Information & Privacy Law Conference Two of Quandary Peak’s software experts are speaking at this event hosted by University of Illinois Chicago School of Law! Isaac Pflaum, and Iman Sadeghi, Ph.D., will present on the complexities of litigating emergent abilities of AI and address ownership and liability considerations for #AI generated contents and decisions. Their litigation expertise in #IPLaw, #dataprivacy, and emerging tech will bring valuable insights to the discussions. Join us in Chicago and say hello! Learn more at:? https://lnkd.in/e_Z4XyXX?

Today, Our Software Experts are Speaking at UIC’s 68th Annual IP, Information & Privacy Law Conference Two of Quandary Peak’s software experts are speaking at this event hosted by University of Illinois Chicago School of Law! Isaac Pflaum, and Iman Sadeghi, Ph.D., will present on the complexities of litigating emergent abilities of AI and address ownership and liability considerations for #AI generated contents and decisions. Their litigation expertise in #IPLaw, #dataprivacy, and emerging tech will bring valuable insights to the discussions. Join us in Chicago and say hello! Learn more at:? https://lnkd.in/e_Z4XyXX?

Where is an AI Domiciled? Jurisdictional Challenges in #AILaw As AI systems operate across borders, questions about where they are "domiciled" for legal purposes are growing. AI has no physical presence, but courts could tie its domicile to the location of its developer or operator. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) provides precedent for determining jurisdiction based on the developer’s contacts with a particular location. Alternatively, server location may serve as a basis for jurisdiction, as explored in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. (1997), a key case in internet jurisdiction. Another approach is to apply the effects doctrine, as established in Calder v. Jones (1984), allowing for jurisdiction wherever the AI’s actions cause harm. As #AI continues to transcend physical boundaries, legal frameworks will need to adapt, potentially looking toward hybrid models that combine location-based, harm-based, and contractual jurisdictional principles. Quandary Peak Research is excited for the 68th Annual Intellectual Property, Information & Privacy Law Conference, where Iman Sadeghi, Ph.D. and Isaac Pflaum will be guiding discussions on complex questions like these as moderators and panelists. Looking forward to connecting with everyone! Reserve a spot at the event: https://lnkd.in/g8b7FBhV #TechLaw #InternetLaw #Domicile #Jurisdiction

AI and the EU: How Will the EU AI Regulation Shape AI Accountability? The EU AI Regulation is set to introduce stricter guidelines on how AI systems are developed and deployed, particularly in high-risk sectors like healthcare, finance, and law enforcement. The #AIRegulation mandates transparency and human oversight, particularly addressing AI's "black box" problem, where it’s difficult to understand how an AI reaches a decision. For example, the regulation will likely impose liability on developers and operators for any harm caused by AI systems, reflecting the discussions in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985), where jurisdiction was based on the developer's control over the technology. In this way, the EU is setting a global benchmark for #AI accountability, ensuring that human oversight remains central even as AI systems grow in complexity and autonomy. The 68th Annual Intellectual Property, Information & Privacy Law Conference will explore compelling questions in IP and privacy, with Quandary Peak experts Iman Sadeghi, Ph.D. and Isaac Pflaum leading as moderators and panelists. We're excited for the insightful discussions ahead! Sign up for this event: https://lnkd.in/g8b7FBhV #AILaw #EUAIAct #BusinessLaw #TechLaw #EnforcementActions #Liability

The Legal Personhood of AI: Could AI Become a "Person" in the Eyes of the Law? Could AI systems one day have legal personhood, like corporations? The idea of granting AI legal rights and responsibilities has sparked debate. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (1886) recognized corporations as legal persons, which could serve as a precedent for AI. However, questions about accountability, decision-making, and liability complicate the matter. In a similar debate over non-human rights, the case Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Lavery (2017), denied personhood to a chimpanzee, suggesting that personhood is still reserved for entities with certain human-like characteristics. Until legal frameworks evolve, #AI will likely remain under the control of human or corporate entities, with legal personhood left to the future. Intriguing questions like these will shape conversations at the upcoming 68th Annual Intellectual Property, Information & Privacy Law Conference, where Quandary Peak experts Iman Sadeghi, Ph.D. and Isaac Pflaum will be contributing as moderators and panelists. We look forward to engaging with everyone! Learn more about the event: https://lnkd.in/g8b7FBhV #AILaw #BusinessLaw #TechLaw #LegalPersons #Decisionmaking

AI Tort Liability: Who Pays When AI Causes Harm? Self-driving cars, AI-powered medical devices, and autonomous drones are examples of AI systems that could cause physical or financial harm. But who is responsible when an AI system makes a mistake? The legal landscape is still evolving, but several models of liability could apply. One possibility is strict liability, which holds the operator or developer responsible regardless of fault. This has been applied in product liability under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, which doesn't require proof of negligence—just causation and harm. Alternatively, negligence-based frameworks could be used, but they raise challenges around proving AI’s "duty of care." The res ipsa loquitur doctrine, outlined in Byrne v. Boadle (1863), may also shift the burden to AI developers to prove they were not negligent when an #AI system causes harm in ways that wouldn't occur without fault. Iman Sadeghi, Ph.D. and Isaac Pflaum will join as moderators and panelists at the 68th Annual Intellectual Property, Information & Privacy Law Conference, where thought-provoking questions like these will take center stage. We’re eager to contribute to and learn from the discussions! Join us at the event: https://lnkd.in/g8b7FBhV #TortLaw #Negligence #DutyofCare #ProductsLiability #StrictLIability

AI as an Agent in Contract Law: Can Machines Make Binding Agreements? As Artificial Intelligence becomes more integrated into business operations, the question arises: can #AI systems form binding contracts? Traditional contract law requires a "meeting of the minds"—a mutual understanding between parties. However, AI lacks human consciousness and subjective intent, raising doubts about whether such a meeting can occur. Courts may turn to the Objective Theory of Contracts, as seen in Lucy v. Zehmer (1954), which focuses on outward expressions rather than subjective intent. This could make AI-generated agreements binding if they exhibit clear, objective terms. Another approach might treat AI as an agent of its developer or owner, holding those entities accountable for AI’s contractual actions. The concept of vicarious liability, established in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998), could apply, where principals are responsible for actions performed by their agents within the scope of their authority. These types of thought-provoking questions will be part of the upcoming 68th Annual Intellectual Property, Information & Privacy Law Conference, where Quandary Peak’s experts will be joining as moderators and panelists. We look forward to the discussions! Learn more about the event: https://lnkd.in/g8b7FBhV #AILaw #ContractsLaw #IPLaw #DataPrivacy #Chicago