Podcasts about commentators

North American Sports Commentator & Analyst Sam Brief joins the show to update us on the latest news, results and more out of Major League Baseball a month out from the postseason, expected matchups, winners & more Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Murray, Ian Dennis & Ali Bruce-Ball are back for series three of The Commentators' View. John and Ian relive their experience of getting into the World Cup final and Chris Sutton's clash with the Spanish commentators. Ali reflects on coming off the back of a week of commentating on athletics for the first time and they look ahead to a new Premier League season. Messages, questions and voicenotes welcome on WhatsApp to 08000 289 369 & emails to TCV@bbc.co.uk.TIMECODES 1'50 - Ali commentating on Athletics for the first time 4'10 - The Open 5'50 - John & Ali's antics getting into the World Cup Final 9'18 - Chris Sutton's clash with the Spanish commentators 10'15 - listener correspondence 14'50 - John's gift from a Mexican Commentator 18'44 - Looking ahead to the first Premier League weekend 21'39 - Tributes to Kevin Keegan 30'22 - Could Man City & Liverpool transition pave the way for Man Utd to finish second? 35'02 - Clash of the Commentators 41'23 - Great glossary5 Live / BBC Sounds Commentaries: Sat 1500 Nottingham Forest v Leeds on 5 Live with Ian Dennis and Chris Sutton. Sat 1500 Ipswich Town v Sunderland on Sports Extra 2. Sat 1730 Brentford v Spurs on 5 Live with John Murray and Michael Brown. Sun 1400 Manchester City v Bournemouth on 5 Live. Sun 1400 Brighton v Aston Villa on Sports Extra 2. Sun 1630 Newcastle v Liverpool on 5 Live with John Murray and Pat Nevin.

Formula 1 is back and its popularity among Kiwis is continuing to grow. After a mini break, the final Dutch Grand Prix is kicking off this weekend at Zandvoort, with Liam Lawson back in the seat for Red Bulls. But a little later in the year, F1 is coming to New Zealand's shores – in a sense. Former F1 World Champion Damon Hill and long-time commentator and host of the official F1 podcast Tom Clarkson are visiting Australia and New Zealand for a speaking tour. Clarkson has presented F1: Beyond The Grid since its inception in 2018 —437 episodes— and has personally reported or commentated on over 500 Grands Prix. He joined Mike Hosking to discuss the current season of Formula 1 and touch on what you can expect from the live show. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

UK Football Commentator & Analyst Adam Summerton catches up with Ric to preview the English Premier League 2026/27 season, squads, managers, transfers, expectations, promoted teams & more Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Scientometrics article in question: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11192-019-03064-5.pdf _______________________________________ To order Suicidal Empathy: https://lnk.to/SuicidalEmpathy To order a signed copy of Suicidal Empathy: https://premierecollectibles.com/suicidalempathy _______________________________________ If you appreciate my work and would like to support it: https://subscribestar.com/the-saad-truth https://patreon.com/GadSaad https://paypal.me/GadSaad To subscribe to my exclusive content on X, please visit my bio at https://x.com/GadSaad _______________________________________ This clip was posted on August 17, 2026 on my YouTube channel as THE SAAD TRUTH_2067: https://youtu.be/-EhXlpnE3UA _______________________________________ Please visit my website gadsaad.com, and sign up for alerts. If you appreciate my content, click on the "Support My Work" button. I count on my fans to support my efforts. You can donate via Patreon, PayPal, and/or SubscribeStar. _______________________________________ Dr. Gad Saad is a professor, evolutionary behavioral scientist, and author who pioneered the use of evolutionary psychology in marketing and consumer behavior. In addition to his scientific work, Dr. Saad is a leading public intellectual who often writes and speaks about idea pathogens that are destroying logic, science, reason, and common sense.  _______________________________________

After several decades in the booth, Tim Brando is still at the top of his game. He's also this week's guest on the “Leaders and Legends” podcast. We discuss Caitlin Clark and the WNBA, the college football playoff, Notre Dame's football future, and more.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Gyles discusses various inflation indicators in retail, manufacturing and service sector reports recently out. 

Keeno's back from 44 days in France. Matthew Keenan, Max and Alex wrap the Tour and TDFF. We preview the Vuelta a España — UAE's three-headed monster, Gall, Onley, Landa's last World Tour Grand Tour, Tuckwell's GT debut — and run through Hamburg, Czech Tour, Norway (Uno-X, obviously), Del Toro's deal to 2031 and the transfer whirl. Max's Top 5 commentators, with Keeno sitting right there. We also pay tribute to Finlay Tarling.Wednesday: Team GB sprinter Matthew Richardson.

Neale Jones was Chief of Staff to Labour Leader Jacinda Ardern, and prior to that was Chief of Staff to Andrew Little. He is the director of public affairs firm Capital. Andrew Ketels was the Act Party's chief of staff from 2020 to 2025 and has worked as an advisor to the National Party. He is currently head of government relations for corporate affairs firm Sherson Willis. [picture id="4JJWSRK_Image_13_jpg" crop="16x10" layout="full"] Andrew, Neale and Kathryn discuss recent events in politics including the failed National leadership coup. Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

This week Brian and Harrison intro the show by covering all the major topics in their lives and within the AFL, including; the Geelong concussion situation, the AFL coach merry-go-round, the culture storm surrounding the WNBA, and plenty more. Their guest this week is one of Australia's most versatile sports commentators, Jack Heverin. Jack has built a career across just about every corner of sport, calling everything from AFL and cricket to the NBL, international basketball and major sporting events. Unlike many commentators who come through the playing ranks, Jack's journey started in community radio, producing and journalism, and he's worked his way up to become one of the most respected play-by-play voices in the country. The boys chat about Jack's journey from Langwarren on the Mornington Peninsula to the big stage, what it takes to make it in sports media, what makes a great commentator, the difference between radio and TV, which sports are hardest to call, and where sports broadcasting is heading next. Having spent plenty of time together on MMM, the pair have some great on-air chemistry, with Jack sharing what it's actually like working alongside BT, what happens when the microphones are off, and some of the more outrageous moments from the commentary box. Always the consummate professional, Jack is a team-player, is passionate about his line of work and is truly one of the good guys of Australian sports media. We thank Jack for his time. This Episode is brought to you by: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Yellow Iron Fleet⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ & ⁠⁠Toyota Good For Footy⁠⁠ Hosts: Brian & Harrison Taylor Guest: Jack Heverin Produced by Harrison Taylor Audio & Video by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Rhino Productions⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Neale Jones was Chief of Staff to Labour Leader Jacinda Ardern, and prior to that was Chief of Staff to Andrew Little. He is the director of public affairs firm Capital. Andrew Ketels was the Act Party's chief of staff from 2020 to 2025.

RNZ Sport Editor Dana Johannsen

Time's ticking for National to rebuild itself as a united front after putting Christopher Luxon's leadership to the test a second time. The Prime Minister survived a confidence vote launched by Chris Penk - at yesterday's three hour caucus meeting in Wellington. He's now dumped Penk from his ministerial portfolios and the former Defence Minister has announced he'll quit politics in November. Political Commentator Peter Dunne told Mike Hosking Luxon should be commended for surviving the challenge, but a third one would be a stretch too far. He says this has to be the end of it through to the election, and all the sentiments about the party being “100% united” have to be demonstrated if National's to come through this unscathed. Dunne was sceptical of the idea that Penk had launched the challenge to put himself forward for the job, saying he felt it was "a bit far-fetched", and that Penk was more likely testing the waters for others, namely Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford. "I don't think he necessarily was actively working with Bishop and Stanford, although he was clearly touting their cases," Dunne told Hosking. "[Luxon] can't really run a credible government without those two, so they have to be there, they have to be [kept] in senior roles, and they have to be seen to be treated as senior ministers." LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You've seen him on TV, you've read his books, and now you get to listen to Michael Leppert on the “Leaders and Legends” podcast. Among other topics, Michael discusses writing his new novel, “The Edge of Motherland."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

ITL have today's episode of Figgy's Mixtape hosted by Reggie as he shows us why dog propaganda is a real thing as a goose saves a family in a way we were told only dogs could! Also, we listen into a former substitute getting to announce a baseball inning and WOW... let's get this man a job!

Calida discusses Bremworth's partial takeover, Zuru's nappy wars judgment, and the latest at the Financial Markets Authority.

Brigitte Morten is the Managing Director of public and commercial law firm Franks Ogilvie and a former senior ministerial advisor for the previous National-led government, a National Party member and currently volunteering for the Hutt South MP, Chris Bishop. Tracey Martin was a New Zealand First MP. From 2017 to 2020 she held the roles of Minister for Children, Seniors, Internal Affairs and Associate Education. She is currently the chief executive of the Aged Care Association. Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Susie, Tracey and Brigitte discuss recent events in politics including National's list announcement. 

Canterbury have won back the Ranfurly Shield after beating holders Otago 19-15 in a classic Southern derby in Dunedin, but does it still hold the same place in our rugby hearts as it once did? Commentator and rugby writer Tony Johnson spoke to John Campbell.

The Wellington Saints will take on the Southland Sharks at ILT Stadium in Invercargill. Newstalk ZB sports commentator Nick Bewley joined Piney to discuss the grand final. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's electoral vote success will be on the minds of its newly ranked MPs, with a fight for list positions potentially on for election night. The party's 2026 list sees no adjustment to its top eight, while James Meager jumps to 18 and Melissa Lee falls to 30. Former Minister and commentator Peter Dunne says this list was reasonably predictable, with a lack of notable changes. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Full Show Broadcast. Last (ROC) day of Bills training camp. Gene reacts & reflects as camp moves to Buffalo. News 8 Sports Director Thad Brown joins the show to share his overall thoughts on Bills training camp. Tim Schneider shares his take of the day. Gene plays a match game & looks at camp storylines. Are you attending the Blue & Red scrimmage? Tom Brady & the Motor City Cruise make appearances in last call

Is the Prime Minister fed up with his coalition partners? Christopher Luxon told Kerre Woodham yesterday he's open to another vote on MMP, if re-elected. The system allows more representation in Parliament for smaller parties and was upheld in a 2011 referendum. Political commentator and former Cabinet Minister Peter Dunne told Mike Hosking Luxon's clearly frustrated. Dunne says he thought he'd be leading a strong National government, supported by others, instead of the three-way coalition he signed up for. Luxon's also being described as having loose lips. Dunne told Hosking he's let a lot of comments slip recently appearing to just blurt things out and mop up afterwards – including abruptly ruling out working with the Opportunity Party. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The All Blacks begin their first tour of South Africa for 30 years in Cape Town against the Stormers, a team they have never played in their modern form. Dave Rennie named an experimental side for the test, with Patrick Tuipulotu as the captain and Siale Lauaki and Josh Jacomb scheduled to debut off the bench. And an illness has forced a late change to the team, Anton Segner replacing Wallace Sititi as openside flanker while Peter Lakai moves to number eight. Newstalk ZB's Voice of Rugby Elliott Smith told Mike Hosking that Rennie has pretty much locked in his team for the first clash against the Springboks, but has been open that there's room to move. He says a handful of players such as Tuipulotu, Fabian Holland, and potentially Peter Lakai and Anton Segner could be in conversation for that team. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Justin Bieber Biography Flash a weekly Biography. Justin Bieber's last few days have been a mix of low‑key family summer, social‑media controversy, and quiet career positioning that could end up being biographically pivotal. First, on the personal and public‑appearance front, local outlet KHQ in Idaho reports that Justin and Hailey were spotted visiting the small business Breaking Bread CDA in North Idaho, continuing his long‑standing pattern of retreating to the Pacific Northwest and Montana during touring breaks for slower, family‑oriented summers. That repeated choice of North Idaho as a seasonal base is becoming a genuine lifestyle chapter for Bieber, not just a one‑off vacation. Social media has been louder. The Express Tribune and Geo.tv both report on the backlash after video showed Justin smoking a cigar while on a Mediterranean family holiday with Hailey and their young son Jack Blues, prompting criticism that he was smoking too close to the child. In the past few days, Los40 in Spain and Geo.tv note that Bieber has responded indirectly on Instagram, posting fresh images of himself with a cigar and even a selfie seemingly “trolling the trolls,” without issuing a formal statement. Commentators frame these posts as a defiant, image‑management moment: Justin telegraphing that he will live on his own terms, while letting the public debate rage around him. Any deeper psychological reading of those posts is speculative and not confirmed by Bieber. On the business side, Holr Magazine details a July 30 Instagram carousel where Justin blends golf and boating shots with prominent placement of his fashion label SKYLRK's logo, a subtle but sustained push that shows he's treating SKYLRK as a long‑term brand, not a quick merch drop. That makes these otherwise casual summer posts significant: they document Bieber's evolution into lifestyle entrepreneur, integrating fashion and personal aesthetic into his public identity. Musically, Forbes highlights how his World Cup Final halftime performance of “Everything Hallelujah” has driven a notable chart resurgence, with multiple older hits reappearing on global rankings and “Everything Hallelujah” nearly cracking the U.S. Digital Song Sales top 10 again. That kind of catalog rebound, tied to a single high‑profile performance, reinforces Bieber's staying power and will likely be remembered as part of his mid‑2020s comeback narrative. Meanwhile, fan chatter on X and Instagram about him strumming acoustic guitar in a home‑studio setting has sparked unconfirmed speculation of a new album in the works, but there is no verified announcement of fresh touring or a release date yet; industry coverage continues to stress that he remains off the road and focused on studio work. Pregnancy rumors circulating after a date‑night video of Hailey resting a hand on her stomach are pure social‑media speculation at this point, with no comment or confirmation from the couple. Thank you for listening, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an update on Justin Bieber, and search the term Biography Flash for more great biographies. Thanks for listening. This has been a Quiet Please production. Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

Hurricanes co-captain Du'Plessis Kirifi has made a major positional switch for the Wellington NPC team. The flanker will play in the backs - at second-five - against Auckland at Western Springs this Saturday. The eight-test All Blacks loosie was a surprise omission from Dave Rennie's 44-strong squad touring South Africa. Newstalk ZB sports commentator Jason Pine explained further. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Gregg Jarrett, Fox News legal commentator, joins Sid to detail the legal implications that come with Dr. Anthony Fauci's refusal to answer more than 100 questions during last week's fiery Senate hearing, sparking a legal showdown over whether a witness granted a sweeping presidential pardon can still invoke the Fifth Amendment, and what happens next if Fauci is held in contempt.

Rebecca Stevenson is a senior journalist at BusinessDesk.

This Day in Legal History: The Immigration Act of 1882On August 3, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Immigration Act of 1882, the first comprehensive federal law regulating immigration into the United States. Before this, immigration had largely been left to the individual states; this Act marked the moment the federal government claimed the subject as its own, and it built the first federal machinery for controlling who could enter the country.The Act did two enduring things. First, it imposed a “head tax”—fifty cents on every immigrant arriving by ship—to fund the administration of immigration, and it placed enforcement under the Secretary of the Treasury, creating the country's first federal immigration bureaucracy. Second, and more consequentially for the law that followed, it created categories of people who would be excluded: convicts, the “insane,” and—in language that would echo for the next century and a half—”any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” That public-charge concept, born here in 1882, is the same doctrine we discussed just a couple of weeks ago when the current administration revived an expansive version of the public-charge rule.The significance of August 3, 1882 is that it is the taproot of the entire federal immigration system. Coming just months after the Chinese Exclusion Act, it established the foundational premise that the national government decides the terms of admission to the United States, and it introduced the framework—head taxes, excludable categories, federal enforcement—on which everything since has been built. It's worth sitting with the tension in the date: 1882 is also, almost exactly, the moment Emma Lazarus was composing “The New Colossus,” with its welcome to the tired and the poor. The law and the poem were born together, and the distance between them—between the statute's exclusions and the sonnet's embrace—is a distance the country has been arguing about ever since.Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has formally rescinded the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” clearing what had been the biggest obstacle to his confirmation. If you were with us last week, this is the resolution of that story. The fund—created by a Justice Department order back in May—would have used taxpayer money to compensate people who claimed to be victims of the prior administration's Justice Department, a group that notably included those convicted in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack. Republican Senator John Cornyn had refused to support Blanche's nomination until the fund was killed, and this week Blanche did exactly that, signing an order declaring the May directive “rescinded” with “no force or effect,” and, as part of the deal, agreeing to limit the related immunity arrangement so it applies only to the IRS and not to other agencies. The significance ties together several threads we've followed all summer. This fund grew out of the same collusive IRS settlement that a federal judge voided as a sham, and it sat at the center of concerns about the Justice Department being used to reward the president's allies. That a senator from the president's own party forced its formal repeal as the price of confirmation is advice-and-consent working as a genuine check—and it means the incoming attorney general takes office having had to publicly dismantle one of the administration's most criticized initiatives before the Senate would trust him with the job.Acting US Attorney General Blanche rescinds ‘anti-weaponization' fund before confirmation vote | ReutersNPR · NBC NewsIn a court filing, Capital One has disclosed for the first time that it closed more than 300 Trump Organization bank accounts back in 2021 after an anti-money-laundering review—the first time a bank has formally tied such concerns to its decision to cut off the president's family business. The context is a lawsuit: the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust and Eric Trump sued Capital One in Florida last year, alleging the bank “debanked” them for political reasons, having notified the Trump Organization of the closures in March 2021, just weeks after January 6. Capital One's filing reframes that story entirely. The bank says its compliance team did precisely what federal regulators expect—flagging accounts that raised anti-money-laundering red flags and acting on them. Here's the legal machinery underneath. Under the Bank Secrecy Act and related anti-money-laundering rules, banks are legally obligated to monitor their customers, file suspicious-activity reports, and, when warranted, close accounts; failing to do so can expose a bank to serious regulatory penalties. Importantly, Capital One did not accuse the Trump Organization of actual money laundering—flagging a risk and proving a crime are very different things. The significance is that this is a clean collision between two hot legal debates: the “debanking” complaint that financial institutions are dropping customers for political or ideological reasons, and the reality that banks operate under mandatory AML obligations that require them to shed risky accounts. A court will now have to decide which of those framings fits what Capital One actually did.Capital One says it closed Trump Organization's accounts after anti-money-laundering review | ReutersCNBC · NPRTom Goldstein, the prominent Supreme Court advocate and SCOTUSblog founder we've been following, has launched his appeal—asking the Fourth Circuit to overturn his twelve convictions for tax and mortgage fraud and to undo his six-year prison sentence. Recall the case: a jury found that Goldstein concealed millions from a secret high-stakes poker life, diverted his law firm's fees to cover gambling debts, and lied to mortgage lenders; he was sentenced to 72 months and ordered to pay more than $3 million in restitution. The appeal is a reminder that even a resource-intensive, headline conviction gets a second look, and Goldstein is raising some genuinely lawyerly arguments. The most interesting is venue—the constitutional requirement that a defendant be tried in the right place. His team argues that while prosecutors proved he filled out loan applications in Maryland, they never proved from where he actually transmitted the documents, leaning on a recent Fourth Circuit decision that took venue seriously. He's also challenging the admission of statements he made in media interviews and the wording of the jury instructions. Commentators describe his path as daunting, and it is—appellate courts rarely overturn convictions, and factual findings get real deference. But the significance is that these are exactly the kinds of technical, procedural issues on which serious appeals are built. Goldstein spent his career winning cases at the top of the appellate system; now he's testing whether that same system will scrutinize the government's work in convicting him.US Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein appeals tax conviction | ReutersLaw360 · Bloomberg LawAnd finally, the Justice Department has moved to drop its criminal case against David Hearn, the former Olympic canoeist charged with vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool—and the reason is striking. We covered Hearn's not-guilty plea back in July, when his lawyers called the prosecution an abuse of power built on a “concocted narrative.” It turns out that characterization may have been closer to the truth than the charge. In a 20-page filing, prosecutors acknowledged that evidence received after Hearn was indicted shows the damage to the pool “was the result of flawed installation by the contractor,” compounded by “the rush to complete the project” before the America 250 celebrations around July 4. In other words: not vandalism—shoddy construction. The U.S. Attorney's office said it only learned of the flawed-installation evidence after a grand jury had already indicted him. The significance goes right to prosecutorial power and its risks. A 67-year-old man was detained for hours and charged with a felony over damage that, by the government's own admission, he didn't cause. The case collapsing is the system correcting itself—but only after Hearn spent weeks as a felony defendant. It's a real-world illustration of a point we keep returning to: the decision to charge is one of the most consequential and least reviewable powers in the legal system, and when it's exercised on a flawed factual premise, the damage to the person charged is done long before the dismissal.US Justice Department drops case against former US Olympian over Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool | ReutersPBS NewsHour · CNN This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Liam, Phil and Susie discuss recent events in politics including Winston Peters' comments in the House toward Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan.Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Liam Hehir and  Phil Goff discuss with Susie the political issues of the day.

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 177 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, who is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. He is the mastermind behind the BSH v. Electrolux decision of the European Court of Justice about long-arm jurisdiction in Europe that has the whole patent world stirring in Europe at the moment! But before we jump into this fascinating interview, I have news for you! Emboline v. AorticLab (UPC Court of Appeal) The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified for the first time how a conditional revocation counterclaim should be handled, in a dispute over Emboline’s embolic protection patent EP 2 129 425 against AorticLab. A defendant can validly make its revocation counterclaim conditional on infringement being found first, meaning no ruling on the counterclaim is needed if the infringement claim fails, as the Munich Local Division had held. The Court of Appeal also closed a related gap: if the claimant appeals a non-infringement finding, the counterclaimant may conditionally appeal the unresolved counterclaim too. AorticLab missed its own appeal deadline and can now at best seek re-establishment of rights, while Emboline has already appealed the non-infringement finding. FujiFilm v. Kodak (UPC Court of Appeal) Following the closely watched long-arm jurisdiction ruling of June 2, the UPC Court of Appeal, chaired by Rian Kalden, has now granted FujiFilm an injunction against Kodak in a second proceeding. The Court upheld the limited printing plate patent and found that Kodak’s Sonora XTRA 3 plate infringes it. Kodak can no longer sell or use that plate in Germany. OpenAI v. EUIPO (General Court of the EU, T-555/25) The General Court’s Eighth Chamber dismissed OpenAI’s action against the EUIPO decision to partially cancel the OPENAI trademark. The partial refusal for classes 9, 42, and 45 rests decisively on Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, the descriptiveness ground. For a significant part of the English-speaking public, “OPENAI” directly conveys that the goods or services are provided using freely accessible artificial intelligence. Dental Monitoring v. Align Technology (CAFC) On July 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit confirmed that AI and deep-learning patent claims covering dental image analysis are not patent-eligible under Section 101. Simply training a “deep learning device” on a specific dataset does not amount to a patent-eligible technical solution. Publisher v. Google (Munich I Regional Court) The Munich I Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google from spreading false factual claims about a publishing company in its AI Overviews. A search query combining the company’s name with the German term for “fraud scheme” had triggered an AI-generated summary containing entirely fabricated accusations of subscription traps. KPN v. Oppo (Federal Court of Justice, X ZR 103/24) On July 1, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed KPN’s appeal against the revocation of a central claim of its LTE patent EP 2 291 033. Oppo had successfully challenged the claim, leaving KPN’s infringement action against Oppo’s German distribution entity without a legal basis for now. BSH v. Electrolux: What the ECJ Ruling Means for Your Company’s Patent Enforcement Strategy A vacuum cleaner from 2001 has reshaped the European patent landscape. That sounds like an overstatement. It isn’t. For IP Fridays, I spoke with Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, founder of HEILEIN IP LAW and long-time Senior IP Leader at BSH Home Appliances. He guided the case BSH v. Electrolux from its first strategic idea all the way to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, a case that earned the 2025 Managing IP Award as “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” For managing directors, IP heads, and R&D leaders at German Mittelstand companies, this case is not a legal footnote. It changes where you can enforce your patents, and it changes where you yourself can be sued if your company operates across several European markets. That is what this article is about. Background: How a Patent Dispute Became an ECJ Case The invention dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, BSH identified what it believed was an unauthorized use of that invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. Nobody, Heilein says, could have imagined at the time that this matter would eventually reach the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. In late 2018, BSH successfully defended the patent through opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office. In 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. A classic milestone win, the kind that occurs regularly in patent practice. Except the patent had been validated in many countries. Winning in Germany did not solve the enforcement problem everywhere else. Heilein describes the starting point in very concrete terms: how do you enforce a patent that exists in many countries without filing a separate lawsuit in every single one? And how do you prevent claims from becoming time-barred while you work that out? Running parallel proceedings in multiple countries is not just legally complex. It consumes time, personnel, and money that a mid-sized company rarely has in that quantity to spare. This is exactly where the real value of this case for you begins. From the outset, this was never an academic debate about jurisdiction. It was a question that every company holding rights in more than one country eventually faces: how do you enforce your rights efficiently without burning your budget on ten parallel proceedings? Brussels Ia Regulation: The Underrated Article 4 While searching for a solution, the BSH team came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The underlying idea is simple: a person can generally be sued in the country where that person is based. In the BSH case, that pointed toward the Swedish home court, because Electrolux is headquartered in Stockholm. For a long time, this rule played no real role in patent practice. The widely held view was that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead the moment a defendant challenged the validity of the patent. Anyone wanting to enforce a patent across several countries appeared to have no choice but to litigate country by country. Heilein and his team questioned that assumption instead of simply accepting it. This is the point I find most instructive: challenging accepted assumptions in your own field is often the difference between a standard solution and a strategic one. In 2020, the team decided to file the action in Sweden, aware that they were looking at a possibility, not a guarantee. Cross-Border Enforcement: The Three Questions Referred to Luxembourg After Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents, the Swedish home court declared itself not competent to hear the case. BSH appealed, and the Swedish Court of Appeal agreed to refer three questions to the European Court of Justice. The first question addressed the core problem: does a home court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over an infringement claim lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid? The second question concerned a feature common to many legal systems, including Germany’s, where infringement and validity are decided in separate proceedings. The third question originally concerned Turkey. Today, most people immediately think of the United Kingdom, and some even think of US patents. Originally, the question was simpler: do the same jurisdiction rules apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? The fact that the ECJ first assigned the case to a Chamber of seven judges and later referred it to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges already signaled how much weight the Court placed on these questions. The Judgment: What the ECJ Actually Decided A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid. For many years, the opposite was widely assumed to be settled law. The ECJ made clear that this reading was too narrow. The court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. One point matters for how you read this ruling: questions concerning the validity of a European patent still fall to the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new is that the infringement case does not automatically collapse the moment validity is challenged. The home court keeps control of the overall proceeding. For patents from EU Member States, the home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction. It assesses the validity challenge. If it looks strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it looks weak, the home court may proceed. For patents from non-EU countries, the home court may stay the case if a validity proceeding is already pending there, drawing on Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The result is a considerably more flexible system than most observers expected . Patents from Outside the EU: Long-Arm Jurisdiction The part of the judgment with the greatest international reach concerns patents from countries outside the EU. The ECJ ruled that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity generally does not apply to non-European patents. That means the general rule can apply instead, opening the door for infringement claims based on non-European patents to be brought before a home court where the defendant is based in the EU. Commentators quickly started calling this “long-arm jurisdiction.” One clarification matters here, because it tends to get lost in the public discussion: the ECJ did not say that a European home court can revoke or invalidate a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and courts of the country that granted it. What the ECJ said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties. That distinction is essential to how you should read this ruling. Consequences in Practice: Fujifilm, Regeneron, and Onesta Three recent cases show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm v. Kodak: the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the ECJ delivered its judgment, building on reasoning the Advocate General had already signaled in the BSH case. In June 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach based on the principles confirmed in BSH. Regeneron v. Formycon: the Munich home court applied the BSH framework and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent, one of the first examples of a national home court putting the BSH logic into practice. Onesta v. BMW: this case shows the debate has moved well beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two US patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that US patents should generally be decided by US courts. The injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich court, and Onesta has appealed the Texas decision. The Munich home court stayed the proceeding but did not reject its own jurisdiction. Whether a European home court can ultimately decide infringement claims based on US patents remains an open question, one that has turned from a European jurisdiction issue into an international jurisdiction conflict. What This Means for Your Company Heilein sums up twenty years of litigation in three lessons, and I share this assessment without reservation when advising my Mittelstand clients. First: patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation still matters, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning, not only once the first cease-and-desist letter has been sent. Second: choice of forum now carries real strategic weight. Where you bring a case can matter just as much as the legal arguments themselves. Third: long-term commitment pays off. Major developments rarely result from a single filing or a single hearing. They come from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. For you as a managing director, R&D lead, or Head of IP at an innovative Mittelstand company, this translates into two concrete points. First, if you hold rights in several European countries and a competitor infringes them, you no longer necessarily have to fund five or six parallel national proceedings. A single action at the infringer’s home base can be the economically smarter option. Second, and this side of the ruling gets less attention in public discussion, if your company is based in Germany and operates across several countries, you can now be sued at your own home base over patent infringement claims tied to activities in other countries. That risk belongs in every freedom-to-operate analysis and in every assessment tied to acquisitions or market entry. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Host Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein. If you don't know Ernst-Peter, he is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. Thank you for being on IP Fridays. Answer Yeah, great to be here! BLOCK 1 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE CASE Host When looking at your career, one thing stands out: you never really followed the traditional path of either private practice or industry. Er, how did your professional journey begin, actually? Answer My professional roots are actually in private practice. After qualifying as a Patent Attorney, I worked in private practice and fairly early founded my own law firm, which later became HEILEIN IP LAW. Host So you never completely left private practice behind? Answer Exactly. In 2005, I had the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities on the BSH side. There, I was able to build and lead a new unit within the IP organization. The team was responsible for patents in the small appliances business, as well as global design and trademark protection. At the same time, I helped build an international network of internal and external IP counsel and coordinated their work. Host That still sounds fairly like traditional IP work. When did international disputes become part of your career? Answer Over time, my focus gradually shifted from traditional IP protection to strategic enforcement. That included anti-counterfeiting activities, global trademark and design matters, and cross-border patent disputes. Host So your work became more about enforcing rights rather than simply obtaining and managing them, right? Answer Exactly. And that development eventually led me to play a strategic role in the case BSH Home Appliances versus Electrolux, a case that still accompanies me today. Host Looking back now — from private practice, to building an international IP organization, and eventually becoming involved in a case before the European Court of Justice — did you ever imagine that path? Answer No, not at all. Looking back, this combination of private practice, responsibilities on the business side, and international enforcement experience turned out to be very useful when our case eventually reached the European Court of Justice. BLOCK 2 – HOW IT ALL STARTED Host Yeah, talking about this case. The case BSH versus Electrolux started long before it reached the European Court of Justice. When did the story actually begin? Answer The story actually begins much earlier than most people would expect. The invention itself dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, we identified what we believed to be an unauthorized use of the invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent in suit was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. At the time, nobody could have imagined that this would eventually lead to a decision of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. Host Wow, 20 years! That's a long time. So, at first this was simply a normal patent dispute? Answer Yes, absolutely! After many years of opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office, we were finally able to defend the patent successfully in late 2018. Less than one year later, in the summer of 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. Host Er, at that point, one might think, that the patent owner had achieved its goal, right? Answer That is what many people would think. But that judgment did not bring the dispute to an end. A new challenge emerged. The patent had been validated in many European countries. Winning in one country, like Germany, did not automatically solve the enforcement issue in all the other countries. Host What was the practical problem then? Answer We were facing a very simple question: How do we enforce a patent that exists in many countries? And how do we prevent claims from becoming time-barred without filing separate infringement actions in every single country? Doing that would not only be legally complex. It would also require a huge amount of time, effort, and money. Host That sounds less like a major legal question and more like a business problem. Answer Exactly. At the beginning, this was not an academic discussion about jurisdiction. It was a very practical business question. How can we enforce our rights efficiently without running parallel lawsuits all over Europe? That was the real challenge we were trying to solve. BLOCK 3 – THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL ACTION Host So, how did the idea of one central action emerge? Answer While looking for possible solutions, we came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The idea behind that rule is very simple. In general, a person can be sued in the country where that person is based. In our case, that pointed us toward the Swedish home court because Electrolux is based in Stockholm. Host That sounds like a fairly ordinary jurisdiction rule. Answer Yes. And that was exactly what made it interesting. Article 4 is the general rule. The question was whether that rule could also be used for patent infringement claims covering several countries. Host Was that a common approach at the time? Answer No. Quite the opposite. Many people believed that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead. Host That sounds rather dramatic. Why did people think that? Answer Because there was a widely held view that a central patent case could be stopped as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. As a result, many companies assumed they had no real choice but to litigate country by country. Host Yet you decided to look at the issue differently. Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth taking a fresh look at accepted assumptions. We felt that Article 4 might play a much more important role than many people believed. Host So at that point, you already saw an opportunity, right? Answer Yes, we saw a possibility! Not a guarantee. But we believed there was a strong legal basis for bringing all claims before the Swedish home court. Host And that eventually led to the lawsuit being filed in Sweden, right? Answer Exactly. In 2020, we decided to file the action in Sweden. That followed our success before the European Patent Office in late 2018 and in the Düsseldorf infringement proceedings in 2019. At that stage, our objective was very practical. We were simply trying to find an efficient way to enforce rights that exist in many countries. Host At that point, you already think the case might end up before the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. We were focused on solving a business problem. The idea that the case would eventually reach the European Court of Justice came much later. BLOCK 4 – THE OBSTACLE: GAT v. LuK Host You mentioned that, er, many people believed cross-border patent litigation in Europe was no longer a realistic option. Why was that? Answer The main reason was an earlier decision of the European Court of Justice known as GAT versus LuK, decided in 2006. For many years, that decision was understood to mean that a home court could lose its ability to hear a patent infringement case as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. In practice, that understanding made many cross-border patent cases extremely difficult. As a result, many people believed that cross-border patent litigation was not effective. Host And yet you decided to follow exactly that path, right? Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth questioning assumptions that have been accepted for many years. We believed that Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation played a more important role than many people thought. That is why, in 2020, we decided to file the case in Sweden. Host And at that point, did you already realize that the case might eventually reach the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. Our goal was simply to find a practical solution to a real enforcement problem. The idea that this would eventually become a case before the European Court of Justice was far from our minds. BLOCK 5 – THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host So, how did the case eventually reach the European Court of Justice then? Answer After we filed the lawsuit in Sweden in 2020, Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents. The Swedish home court then concluded that it could not hear the case and declared itself not competent to proceed. We appealed that decision, because the issues were important and affected far more than just our case. We suggested that several questions should be referred to the European Court of Justice. The Swedish Court of Appeal agreed and sent those questions to Luxembourg. Host So, what were these main questions? Answer At the heart of the case, there were three questions: First: if a home court has jurisdiction over a patent infringement case, does it lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid? Second: Does it make a difference if the national legal system requires validity issues to be decided in a separate proceeding? And third: Do this jurisdiction rules also apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? Host The third question sounds particularly interesting. Answer Yes, at the time, the discussion in our case focused on Turkey. Today, many people immediately think about the United Kingdom, and some even think about US patents. But originally, the question was much simpler. We wanted to know, whether the same jurisdiction rules also apply when patents from non-European countries are involved. Host And, did you realize how important that third question might become? Answer No, certainly not to that extent. At the beginning, most of the discussion focused on the relationship between the different jurisdiction rules within Europe. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the European Union. Host So, how did the European Court of Justice react then? Answer That was actually quite interesting. The European Court of Justice first heard the case before a Chamber of seven judges. Later, it referred the case to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges. That already showed that the European Court of Justice considered the issues to be important. And when the judgment finally came out, some of the answers were very different from what many observers had expected. BLOCK 6 – THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host Let’s talk about the European Court of Justice’s answers. What was, in your view, the most important part of the decision? Answer The most important point was this: A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction just because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid. For many years, many people believed exactly the opposite. The European Court of Justice made it clear that this understanding was too narrow. The home court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. That is really the key message of the decision. Host Why is that so important? Answer Because it gives new momentum to cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. Before this decision, many people assumed that a defendant could effectively stop a central infringement case simply by challenging the validity of the patent. The European Court of Justice made clear that this is not automatically the case. Host Does that mean the home court hearing the infringement case will now also decide whether the patent is valid? Answer No, and that is a very important point. The European Court of Justice confirmed that questions about the validity of a European patent should still be decided by the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided for in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new, is that the infringement case does not automatically fall apart because of a validity challenge. The home court can keep control of the overall case. Host So, how does that work in practice? Answer The European Court of Justice gives the home court some flexibility. For patents from Member States of the European Union, the home court does not automatically lose its power if the defendant says the patent is invalid. The home court can look at the validity challenge. If it seems strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it seems weak, the home court may continue the infringement case. For patents from countries outside the European Union, the home court may also stay the case if there is already a validity case pending in that country. In such situations, Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation may apply. That creates a much more flexible system than many people expected. Host Er, we have discussed the implications for patents from Member States of the European Union, but a lot of attention has been given to another part of the decision, that we already talked about briefly, namely patents from countries outside the European Union. Answer Absolutely, and that may be the part of the judgment with the biggest international impact. Host Why? Answer Because the European Court of Justice decided that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity does not generally apply to patents from non-European countries. In simple terms, that means the general rule can still apply. And that opens the possibility of bringing infringement cases based on non-European patents before the home court where the defendant is based in the European Union. Host That sounds like a very far-reaching statement. Answer It is. That is why many commentators started talking about what is often called “long-arm jurisdiction.” In other words, a European home court may, under certain circumstances, deal with infringement claims relating to patents from countries outside the European Union. Host So, many listeners may now wonder: Can a Swedish or a German home court really decide a dispute involving a British or Turkish patent? Answer Ah, we need to be careful here. The European Court of Justice did not say that a European home court can cancel or revoke a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and national courts of the country that granted the patent. What the European Court of Justice said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties in a dispute. That is an important distinction. Host Did you realize during the proceedings how important this part of the decision might become? Answer Not to this extent. We started with a very practical enforcement problem. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the original case. Today, the decision is discussed not only in connection with Turkish patents, but also British patents and even possible claims involving US patents. Host If you had to summarize the decision in one sentence, and I know, this is a very difficult task, what would that sentence be? Answer The European Court of Justice did not re-invent cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. But after many years, it clearly gave it much more room to develop. BLOCK 7 – THE REACTION OF THE IP COMMUNITY Host So, how was the decision received after it was published? Answer Ah, the reaction was very strong. It quickly became clear that many people saw the decision as much more than just another patent case. Many articles and commentaries described it as an important development in European patent litigation. Host Did that surprise you? Answer To some extent, yes. Of course, we knew that the questions referred to the European Court of Justice were important. But I was surprised by how quickly the decision became a major topic of discussion across the European patent community. Host Er, you later presented the decision at several conferences yourself, right? Answer Yes. The discussion started right away. I had the opportunity to discuss and present the case at several conferences and events, including the annual VPP conference in Germany and the Ingolstadt Patent Symposium. I recently received an invitation to serve as a panel speaker on cross-border litigation at the AIPPI World Congress 2026 in Hamburg. What struck me most was that both internal and external IP counsel were trying to understand the practice consequences of the decision. Host So, what was the question you were asked most often? Answer Almost always the same one: How far does this decision really go? People wanted to know whether this was simply a correction of earlier case law or whether it marked the beginning of a new phase in cross-border patent enforcement. Host And what did you say? Answer I would describe it as: neither a revolution nor a minor adjustment. The European Court of Justice did not rewrite the system. But it clearly changed the balance between the different jurisdiction rules. That is why I believe the decision will continue to be discussed for many years, both in practice and in academia. Host Er, one year later, the case received the Managing IP Award as the “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” What did that recognition mean to you? Answer First of all, it was a great honor for everyone involved. But for me, the most important thing was the message behind the award. The award showed that the decision affects much more than the parties involved in the case. It has an impact on European patent practice as a whole. And it also shows that the underlying jurisdiction questions reach far beyond patent law. They are relevant whenever companies have to enforce rights across borders in an increasing international world. That is what makes this case special. Host You often describe this case as a team effort. Answer Absolutely. A case of this size is never the work of one person. Many people contributed over many years. On the BSH side, team members from different functions played an important role throughout the proceedings. And we worked closely with external advisors in several countries. So I see the award as recognition of a shared achievement rather than an individual success. Host Looking at the discussions today, would you say the debate is over? Answer Not at all. I actually think we are only at the beginning. There are still many practical questions that home courts will have to answer in the coming years. That is exactly why the decision remains so interesting. BLOCK 8 – WHAT DOES THE DECISION MEAN IN PRACTICE? Host Let’s move from legal theory to practical business implications. What does this decision mean for patent owners and companies? Answer In my view, the biggest change is strategic. Patent owners now have better opportunities to bring cross-border disputes together in one central proceeding. At the same time, companies need to be aware that they may face claims at their European headquarters covering activities in several countries. So the decision creates opportunities, but it also creates new risks. Host That sounds really like a significant shift; right? Answer I would call it a rebalancing rather than a revolution. The European Court of Justice did not create a completely new system. But it made clear that the general rule — suing a defendant where it is based — plays a much bigger role than many people had assumed. As a result, the court at the defendant’s home base becomes much more important strategically. Host In the patent community, people often talk about cases such as Fujifilm v. Kodak, or Regeneron v. Formycon or Onesta v. BMW. Why are those cases attracting so much attention now? Answer Because they show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm was important because it was one of the first UPC cases to test the logic that was later confirmed in BSH. At that time, the BSH case was already pending before the European Court of Justice, and the Advocate General had expressed a view that pointed in that direction. Against that background, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment. In June 2026, based on the principles confirmed in BSH, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach. Host And what happened in Regeneron v. Formycon ? Answer In the Regeneron case, the Munich home court applied the approach confirmed in BSH and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent. That was one of the first examples of a national home court using the BSH framework in practice. That demonstrates that the decision is not just an academic discussion. It already has practical consequences. Host And what about the Onesta case? Answer The Onesta case shows that the debate has moved beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two U.S. patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that U.S. patents should generally be decided by U.S. courts. The Onesta case therefore illustrates that the limits of the BSH logic are now being tested internationally. Host Did that end the proceedings in Munich? Answer Not necessarily. What makes the case interesting is that the Texas injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich home court. At the same time, Onesta appealed Judge Albright’s decision in the United States. The Munich home court therefore decided to stay the case for the time being. Importantly, however, the Munich home court did not reject its own jurisdiction. So, at least for the moment, the underlying question remains open. Host Can a European home court ultimately decide infringement claims based on U.S. patents? Answer That question has not yet been answered. But the case has already shown that such an attempt can trigger strong reactions outside Europe. In that sense, the debate has moved from a European jurisdiction question to an international jurisdiction conflict. Host For our audience of internal and external IP counsel, what are the main lessons from this decision? Answer For me, there are three key takeaways. First: Patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation remains important, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning. Second: The choice of forum is becoming more important. Where you bring a case may be just as important as the legal arguments themselves. And third: Long-term commitment matters. This case shows that major developments rarely happen because of a single filing or a single hearing. They usually result from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. Host Do you think this decision will also influence the Unified Patent Court, the UPC? Answer Yes, I believe so. The decision fits into a broader trend toward more centralized patent litigation. Both, the UPC and the BSH decision are driven by the same idea: Handling cross-border disputes more efficiently and more consistently. What is interesting is that many of the questions were faced in BSH versus Electrolux are now reappearing in a new form before the UPC. Cases like Fujifilm versus Kodak show that the discussion about jurisdiction, scope, and cross-border effects is far from over. Institutions may be new. But the underlying challenge remains the same: How do we enforce patents effectively across borders? Host Some commentators even see this as a step toward a more independent European patent judiciary. Do you agree? Answer To some extent, yes. Professor Hanns Ullrich, who supervised my doctoral studies on the legal protection of a then new semiconductor technology many years ago, recently observed that the UPC is gradually developing its own European case law.[DH1] I think that is — again — a very accurate observation. If you look at the developments since BSH and the first UPC decisions, you can see that European patent litigation is becoming more connected. National courts will remain important. But at the same time, we are seeing a more integrated European patent system taking shape. How far that development will go remains to be seen. Host Looking back on the entire journey — from a vacuum cleaner patent, through litigation in several countries, all the way to the European Court of Justice and an award-winning decision — what is your personal conclusion? Answer My main conclusion is that innovation needs effective legal protection. But it also requires the willingness to challenge established assumptions and explore new approaches. For me, the BSH versus Electrolux case shows that persistence, teamwork, a willingness to challenge accepted assumptions, and a long-term strategic view can sometimes lead to developments that go far beyond the original dispute. BLOCK 9 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE DECISION Host Ernst-Peter, today we have talked a lot about jurisdiction, patent enforcement, and European case law. When you look back at this journey, which has lasted almost twenty years, what impressed you most? Answer Probably the realization that major developments rarely follow a straight line. When we started thinking about the case, we were dealing with a very practical problem. Nobody said: Let’s create a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice. We were simply looking for a reasonable and practical solution for a company. The fact that this would eventually lead to a decision with Europe-wide impact was something nobody could foresee at the time. Host Were there moments when you thought the case might fail? Answer Of course. Whenever a case lasts many years, there will be setbacks, new questions, and unexpected developments. That is exactly why persistence is so important. In the end, success is often not about one filing or one hearing. It is about staying focused on a clear objective over a long period of time. Host You often talk about teamwork. Is that one of the main lessons from this case? Answer Absolutely. A case of this size requires commitment from many people and institutes over many years. On the BSH side, my role was to help maintain the strategic direction and long-term commitment that such a case requires. At the same time, experts from different functions within BSH contributed technical expertise, testing, documentation, and practical support throughout the proceedings. On the legal side, Roman Sedlmaier and his team at IP-Counsels Gigerich & Sedlmaier (IPCGS) helped develop the cross-border litigation strategy and the overall case architecture. Our Swedish litigation team then carried the arguments through all stages of the proceedings. Looking back, it was the combination of institutional commitment, technical expertise, strategic leadership, well-designed case architecture, and consistent execution that made the difference. Host One final question. What advice would you give to young internal or external IP counsel? Answer Stay curious: Don’t be afraid to question accepted assumptions. Be patient: Intellectual property is usually a marathon, not a sprint. And never forget that every patent dispute involves an invention, a business, and many people who have worked hard to bring that innovation to market. For me, that connection between technology, law, and strategy is what still makes this profession so fascinating today. Host Ernst-Peter, thank you very much for joining us today on IP Fridays. Answer Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.

Mortgage rates look set to continue creeping higher. The cost of two-year wholesale borrowing for banks has jumped from 3.35% to around 3.70% in just four weeks. The increase reflects markets pricing in higher inflation, rising global borrowing costs, and expectations the OCR could stay higher for longer. Independent Property Commentator Tony Alexander told Mike Hosking it's primarily a result of domestic factors – with the extra pressure from rates moving up in Australia and the United States. He says New Zealand is currently in a mild recovery mode and inflation is unusually high for this point in the cycle, so our monetary policy will be tightened further. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Netflix appears to leave With Love, Meghan out of a promotional collection celebrating its Emmy contenders, sparking fresh debate over Meghan Markle's Daytime Emmy nomination. Commentators claim Prince Harry is increasingly focused on repairing his relationship with King Charles, while questions continue about how warm the Sussex family reunion at Highgrove really was. Reports say Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet were awestruck by their royal heritage, Piers Morgan accuses Harry and Meghan of hypocrisy over their children's privacy, Meghan faces calls to reconcile with her father, and King Charles reportedly pressures Prince William to end the brothers' long-running feud.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/palace-intrigue-king-charles-meghan-markle-and-all-the-royal-family-gossip--4522904/support.Palace Intrigue is a daily British royal family podcast covering King Charles, Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, Kate Middleton and the House of Windsor. New episodes every day. Follow on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Part of the Caloroga Shark Media network.

Steak and Sandra continue to talk about their favorite sports commentators and analysts, talk about what they think makes good sports commentators and analysts, and let listeners call in and give their thoughts as well!

 TikTok's economic contribution to New Zealand, upcoming inflation figures and the Commerce Commission's  annual enforcement priorities.  

Rather than trying to prove every allegation, organize the discussion around five investigative buckets. Foreign intelligence. Federal agencies. Election administration. Technology vulnerabilities. Media behavior. Whether listeners agree or disagree with Trump's conclusions, each category raises different questions. Foreign influence is different from domestic fraud. Data access is different from vote manipulation. Institutional bias is different from criminal conspiracy. Perhaps the funniest aspect of modern politics isn't the scandal. It's the speed. Within minutes of Trump's announcement... Commentators already knew. They knew the documents were meaningless. They knew the conclusions were false. They knew the speech was dangerous. Remarkable. Most Americans can't finish reading IKEA instructions before admitting defeat. Cable news apparently reviews classified intelligence at warp speed. It's less journalism than psychic hotline. They skipped the investigation and went straight to the verdict. Imagine a detective arriving at a crime scene saying, "I don't need fingerprints. I've already tweeted who did it." That has become our political culture. Segment One "Hunter Becomes Hunted" One of history's favorite plot twists. The hunter becomes the prey. For nearly a decade Trump was investigated by nearly everyone. Special counsels. Congress. State prosecutors. District attorneys. Leaks. Anonymous officials. Television panels. It was like watching one man chased by every goose in America. Now imagine the psychological adjustment if investigators themselves become subjects of investigation. Whether or not wrongdoing is ultimately established, the reversal alone changes the political dynamic. That's fertile ground for comedy. The same people who loved investigations suddenly discover privacy.   Kevin Jackson has been called, the "white-collar" Joe Rogan. Given their similar backgrounds in TV, comedy, and martial arts, it's easy to see why people enjoy Kevin's show so much. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Ben Thomas and  Lianne Dalziel on the resignation of Stuart Nash as a NZ First candidate and National's paid parental policy.

Pop Culture Thursday: Jared reads the latest celebrity headlines from Page Six and gives his unfiltered takes!Matt Damon mistaken for Brad Pitt at FIFA World Cup finalJennifer Lopez bathtub birthday photos before turning 57BBC commentator confuses Pharrell with A$AP Rocky at World Cup finalSammy Sheen says Charlie Sheen has not given her money and credits OnlyFans for her successMegan Fox claps back after critics call her lingerie photos embarrassingJared is on tour!

The latest from the world of sport including Ryan Fox's Open Championship win and the future of netball in New Zealand.

If you think you have to move to New York or LA to make it in fashion, this episode says otherwise.Jack Savoie joins us from Denver to talk about building a fashion career — and a viral following — without uprooting your life. We get into how a fake Manolo Blahnik callout on TikTok caught Bethenny Frankel's attention and took him from 20K to 67K followers overnight, why he still works full-time as a buyer at A.Line while creating content on the side, and how he broke the news that Sabrina Carpenter was wearing Dior at Coachella before Vogue's own exclusive dropped. We also talk about his path from Nordstrom shoe sales to designer buying, the "Shoes of the Past" series that turned fashion nostalgia into a cultural moment, and his advice for anyone trying to break into the industry without an internship or a big city zip code.In this episode, we get into:How Jack built a career in fashion while staying based in Denver, and why he doesn't think you need to live in New York or LA to make it in the industryThe story behind his viral Manolo Blahnik video — how he spotted a fake shoe in a Bethenny Frankel TikTok and grew from 20K to 67K followers in under 24 hoursHis path from selling shoes at Nordstrom to becoming a buyer at boutique retailer A.LineHow "Shoes of the Past," his series on discontinued cult shoes like the YSL Eiffel Tower cage boot and the Isabel Marant Beckett wedge, became his biggest content waveWhat it's actually like balancing a full-time buying job with a content career, and how he manages burnoutHow he broke the news that Sabrina Carpenter wore Dior at Coachella before Vogue's own exclusive was publishedHis biggest recent splurge — a surprise Birkin 30 in Rouge H from his longtime Hermès sales associate — and why he waits months before wearing new purchasesThe brands and designers he thinks are doing the best work right now, including Chanel, Dior, and KallmeyerHis current red carpet favorites, from Teyana Taylor and Margot Robbie to Sombr's fashion-forward run this yearHis advice for anyone trying to break into fashion without a traditional industry job or big-city moveJack SavoieInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thesavoiedailyTikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@jack.savoieLet's Get DressedYouTube: www.youtube.com/@livvperezInstagram: www.instagram.com/letsgetdressedpodNewsletter: https://substack.com/@livvperezLiv Perez Instagram: www.instagram.com/livvperezTikTok: www.tiktok.com/livv.perezShopMy: https://shopmy.us/livvperezLet's Get DressedYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@livvperezInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/letsgetdressedpod/Newsletter: https://substack.com/@livvperezLiv Perez Instagram: www.instagram.com/livvperezTikTok: www.tiktok.com/livv.perezShopMy: https://shopmy.us/livvperez Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

[X] SB – Elon Musk on America's record US could have taken over the world   Media. Universities. Government. Corporations. Medicine. [SEGMENT 2-2] Lack of Trust 2 [X] SB – Pres Trump 4 Part 1 CCP 2020 CCP largest compromise of election data 220M US voter files Lots of data of voters.    Once trust falls below a critical threshold, people begin questioning everything. Even true statements. That's why institutional credibility is so difficult to rebuild. Trust doesn't disappear because of one lie.   Rather than trying to prove every allegation, organize the discussion around five investigative buckets. Foreign intelligence. Federal agencies. Election administration. Technology vulnerabilities. Media behavior. Whether listeners agree or disagree with Trump's conclusions, each category raises different questions. Foreign influence is different from domestic fraud. Data access is different from vote manipulation. Institutional bias is different from criminal conspiracy. Perhaps the funniest aspect of modern politics isn't the scandal. It's the speed. Within minutes of Trump's announcement... Commentators already knew. They knew the documents were meaningless. They knew the conclusions were false. They knew the speech was dangerous. Remarkable. Most Americans can't finish reading IKEA instructions before admitting defeat. Cable news apparently reviews classified intelligence at warp speed. It's less journalism than psychic hotline. They skipped the investigation and went straight to the verdict. Imagine a detective arriving at a crime scene saying, "I don't need fingerprints. I've already tweeted who did it." That has become our political culture. Segment One "Hunter Becomes Hunted" One of history's favorite plot twists. The hunter becomes the prey. For nearly a decade Trump was investigated by nearly everyone. Special counsels. Congress. State prosecutors. District attorneys. Leaks. Anonymous officials. Television panels. It was like watching one man chased by every goose in America. Now imagine the psychological adjustment if investigators themselves become subjects of investigation. Whether or not wrongdoing is ultimately established, the reversal alone changes the political dynamic. That's fertile ground for comedy. The same people who loved investigations suddenly discover privacy. Kevin Jackson has been called, the "white-collar" Joe Rogan. Given their similar backgrounds in TV, comedy, and martial arts, it's easy to see why people enjoy Kevin's show so much. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Two time World Cup champion and double Olympic gold medalist Carli Lloyd called out the U.S. men’s national team star Christian Pulisic for his lackluster performance against Belgium and throughout the World Cup. She made comments on television and followed up on social media, but once word came out that Pulisic was playing on a broken leg, some fans demanded Lloyd apologize, one even using her pregnancy to body shame her after her honest assessment of Pulisic. Lloyd not only refused to apologize, she doubled down on her commentary, and we wonder if a man had offered the same critique, would anyone have even noticed?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two time World Cup champion and double Olympic gold medalist Carli Lloyd called out the U.S. men’s national team star Christian Pulisic for his lackluster performance against Belgium and throughout the World Cup. She made comments on television and followed up on social media, but once word came out that Pulisic was playing on a broken leg, some fans demanded Lloyd apologize, one even using her pregnancy to body shame her after her honest assessment of Pulisic. Lloyd not only refused to apologize, she doubled down on her commentary, and we wonder if a man had offered the same critique, would anyone have even noticed?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two time World Cup champion and double Olympic gold medalist Carli Lloyd called out the U.S. men’s national team star Christian Pulisic for his lackluster performance against Belgium and throughout the World Cup. She made comments on television and followed up on social media, but once word came out that Pulisic was playing on a broken leg, some fans demanded Lloyd apologize, one even using her pregnancy to body shame her after her honest assessment of Pulisic. Lloyd not only refused to apologize, she doubled down on her commentary, and we wonder if a man had offered the same critique, would anyone have even noticed?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John Murray, Ian Dennis and Ali Bruce-Ball catch up ahead of the FIFA World Cup quarter-finals. John reflects on another amazing experience at the Azteca where he witnessed England grind out a 3-2 win over Mexico to reach the quarter-finals. Ian tells us what it was like being at the 'match of the tournament' - Argentina v Cape Verde. And has Ali possibly just eaten the best bowl of pasta in his life? They're also joined by special guest engineer Rob as he lifts the curtain on how things work behind the scenes at stadiums on match day. Messages, questions and voicenotes welcome throughout the tournament on WhatsApp to 08000 289 369 & emails to TCV@bbc.co.uk.2'09 - The best bowl of pasta Ali has ever eaten? 3'25 - John being recognised far and wide 5'20 - England media day sausage rolls & interviewing Dan Burn 6'26 - John's reflections on England v Mexico 8'30 - Behind the scenes at the Azteca 10'13 - Seeing Jordan Henderson on a stretcher and interviewing Kane 12'31 - Ian witnessing Argentina v Cape Verde 16'19 - The performance of African teams at the World Cup 20'46 - Listener correspondence 23'41 - Engineer Rob talking microphones and behind the scenes 28'47 - Uncle Ian's advice to beer flying 30'58 - Unintended pub names 37'57 - John's case of mistaken identity 39'37 - John's tribute to Malcolm Wright 42'08 - How is Ian getting on with Chris Sutton?

As America nears its 250th birthday, our Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets looks back at the early republic as a volatile frontier market, and what its path from credit risks to durable institutions can teach investors today.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, markets are closed for the observance of 4th of July. But as America approaches its 250th anniversary, we take a look back to look forward at early America as a frontier market.It's Friday, July 3rd at 9am in Seattle.If you were a global investor at the end of the 18th century looking for a stable, low-risk home for your capital, it would have been entirely reasonable to avoid the newly minted United States of America. By the standards of modern finance, the young republic was not a developed market in waiting. It was a frontier economy: volatile, debt-burdened, institutionally fragile, resource-rich, politically combustible, and astonishingly unequal.Its currency had collapsed. Its public finances were suspect. Its citizens resisted taxation, and its growth prospects were extraordinary. In 1810, 70 percent of the country was under the age of 25.That is one of the revelations of Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty, which focuses on the early days of the new country from 1789 to 1815.Wood's America is not the marble republic of statues and myth. It is speculative, messy, and full of motion. The United States succeeded not by escaping the dysfunctions that we associate with emerging or frontier markets, but by turning them into sources of strength.Start with capital. Early America needed it desperately. Roads, canals, land purchases, and government all required credit, and there was never enough of it. The country was rich in land and poor in liquidity, a classic emerging market mismatch.What the young country couldn't borrow or invent, it misappropriated, lifting intellectual property from its former masters in Britain. What Alexander Hamilton understood was the importance of confidence given this challenge; that debts would be honored, contracts enforced, and taxes, however unpopular, collected.His financial program was an attempt to solve the emerging market problem before the phrase existed. How to persuade investors that a new state, born in revolution and nearly bankrupted by war, could be trusted. To Hamilton, public credit was the foundation of independence.To many Jeffersonians, however, this system looked like an attempt to smuggle a British financial order back into the country that had just fought to expel it.The early republic's debates over debt, banks, speculation, and taxation sound contemporary because the underlying question is perennial in frontier markets: Can a society embrace credit and foreign capital without being captured by it?The U.S. was not starting from zero. It inherited legal traditions, habits of self-government, and a culture of contract and property. Those foundations gave confidence that disputes could be adjudicated, debts pursued, and rules would not be arbitrary.Early America was risky, but it was not lawless. And still, it did not go smoothly. There was no Federal Reserve, FDIC, or even a uniform national currency. Business was conducted with foreign coins, notes issued by private banks, IOUs, and blind optimism.Bank failures were common. In 1808, the Farmers Exchange Bank of Rhode Island issued over $600,000 of notes against less than $90 of gold in its vaults. You almost have to admire the audacity.Yet the same instability that made early America risky also made it unusually open. Land was the country's great asset class, a source of migration, ambition, speculation, and opportunity, at least for white settlers. It also produced bubbles, administrative strain, the expansion of slavery, and the violent dispossession of Native peoples.The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 was a risky, leveraged acquisition of distressed real estate, doubling the scale of the American experiment before anyone had quite figured out how the original version was supposed to work. Wood is especially good on the familiar energy unleashed by this world.The engine of U.S. growth was not an aristocracy of polished grandees, but the "middling sort." Shopkeepers, artisans, tavern owners, mechanics, farmers, merchants, and speculators – many convinced that in America, birthright mattered less than hustle.Commentators of the time complained about the degraded press, political polarization, hostility to expertise, and the vulgarity of a society obsessed with getting ahead. None of this sounds especially distant.What saved America from the usual traps of frontier economies was not immaculate stability. It was adaptability. Its constitution was amended. Political power changed hands despite animosity.Bankruptcy laws allowed for failure. Competition was ferocious, and economic power was generally too diffuse to be easily monopolized. The early republic's genius lay less in solving its contradictions than in creating ways to fight over them without destroying the whole.That is a useful lesson for America at 250. We tend to look backwards for reassurance, imagining that the country once possessed a unity, prudence, and institutional solidity that we have since lost. Wood suggests something different, that the United States was turbulent from the start.Its legacy was contested, its finances distrusted, its politics venomous, its expansion intertwined with slavery and Native dispossession, and its future uncertain. Emerging markets become developed markets not because they stop having crises, but because they build credibility through them. They learn which institutions matter, which bargains endure, which debts must be paid, and which moral liabilities compound when deferred.America was not born orderly, rich, or secure. It was born in the mud, financed on fragile credit, driven by speculation, and sustained by an almost irrational confidence in the future.So, enjoy the fireworks – and let them be a reminder that national maturity is not the absence of volatility. It's the capacity to turn that volatility into renewal.A postscript: Gordon S. Wood died in early June of this year. As a professor, author, and one of the preeminent scholars of the American Revolution, he brought fresh insight and deep humanization to the country's founding. For anyone looking for a better understanding of America as it celebrates a big anniversary, we'd wholeheartedly recommend his workThank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

On today's show, Pat, AJ Hawk, and the boys chat about Giannis Antetokounmpo officially being traded to the Miami Heat for a number of players including Tyler Herro and a bunch of picks, plus tonight's NBA Draft, the NFL denying Brendan Sorsby's supplemental draft request, more World Cup action, and everything else happening in the sports world. They are also joined by several great guests including ESPN Senior NBA Insider Shams Charania, 18 year NBA veteran, NBA Champion, and ESPN NBA analyst Richard Jefferson, after being acquired from from the Ottawa Senators by the Florida Panthers both Brady and Matthew Tkachuk; USMNT midfielder Tyler Adams; Telemundo commentator and 6x Emmy Winner Andres Cantor; 2x Major Champion after winning another US Open, Wyndham Clark; and ESPN Senior NFL Insider Adam Schefter.  Make sure to subscribe to youtube.com/thepatmcafeeshow or watch on ESPN (12-2 EDT), ESPN's Youtube (12-3 EDT), or ESPN+. We appreciate the hell out of all of you, we'll see you tomorrow. Cheers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices