[pclmulqdq]

That is a good point. MIT professors are usually very aware of the context of their work and the actual contributions they are making. Nevertheless, the MIT press office is a particularly egregious organization in terms of its tendency to exaggerate - my dad's lab cured cancer about 10 times in the early 2000's if you believe the press releases.

In this case, I'm not sure the MIT professor was aware of the "crackpot" invention that effectively pre-empted him. Many professors don't read patents (and there are lots of reasons why they shouldn't), and I'm not sure there was a paper.

One thing about patents is that if an invention is obvious in light of other inventions, it might not be patentable. In this case, I'm pretty sure that this combination of a technology from the 60's, a boost converter, and a LiPo battery may be "obvious" given the prevalence of other drones: it is a combination of two past inventions that fit together naturally (a drone + a propulsion technology). Of course, it will take millions of dollars worth of arguing for someone to say either way.