Podcasts about Electrolux

Recently funded and aiming for sustainable retention? Intro chat (no sales pitch): professorgame.com/chat Episode Summary Travis Clapp, co-founder and CEO of Coursebox AI, joins Rob to explain how AI is reshaping course creation and delivery for a platform used in 180 countries with over 300,000 courses built on it. He walks through Coursebox's "Break My Brain" feature, an AI mode built for personalized, adversarial learning rather than points and leaderboards, and explains why the platform now generates in 10 minutes what used to take him days to compile by hand. Travis also shares two gamification experiments gone wrong, an overbuilt golf training module and a crossword in an endangered Aboriginal language, and where he draws the line between fun and function. Listeners come away with a clearer read on why surface-level game mechanics rarely move the needle, and what deep personalization through AI looks like in practice. About the Host Rob Alvarez is Head of Engagement Strategy, Europe at The Octalysis Group (TOG), a leading gamification and behavioral design consultancy. A globally recognized gamification strategist and TEDx speaker, he founded and hosts Professor Game, the #1 gamification podcast, and has interviewed hundreds of global experts. He designs evidence-based engagement systems that drive motivation, loyalty, and results, and teaches LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® and gamification at top institutions including IE Business School, EFMD, and EBS University across Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Key Takeaways Coursebox AI now generates the five-document compliance package Travis used to build by hand for RTOs in about 10 minutes, work that once took him days per client. Coursebox's "Break My Brain" feature lets a learner, or Travis himself testing it on his own sales calls, get challenged and questioned by AI instead of clicking through a linear course, engaging Core Drive 3 (Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback) and Core Drive 4 (Ownership & Possession). Travis's own team told him not to talk about leaderboards, points, certificates, or badges going into this episode, because platform-level leaderboards rarely produce deep engagement on their own, just a carrot on a stick. A German trucking client turned Coursebox training into a fully hands-free, podcast-style experience so drivers could complete quizzes and assignments by voice while on the road. Coursebox is used across 180 countries, has generated over 300,000 courses, and one flagship edX MOOC built on the platform reached more than 20,000 learners. An early gamified golf training module Travis built in 2011 nailed the learner experience but got flagged internally as the most expensive, overpriced piece of work the company had shipped, a reminder that engagement design still has to answer to budget. Topics Covered 0:00 — Opening hook: "don't talk about leaderboards" 1:18 — Travis Clapp's path to Coursebox AI 2:42 — New fatherhood and running a global startup from Australia 6:03 — Favorite fail: an over-engineered golf training module 9:03 — A crossword in an endangered language, gamification taken too far 10:57 — Why leaderboards and points rarely drive real engagement 12:57 — "Break My Brain": AI's personalized deep-learning mode 16:24 — Killing the step-by-step method for open, prompt-based design 18:02 — Tesla's Grok, Porsche, and voice-driven learning everywhere 20:55 — German truck drivers turning training into a podcast 21:41 — AI risk, specialization, and what never depreciates 27:20 — Book picks, favorite game, and where to find Coursebox AI Recently funded and aiming for sustainable retention? Intro chat (no sales pitch): professorgame.com/chat About Travis Clapp Travis Clapp is the co-founder and CEO of Coursebox AI, an AI course creation and training delivery platform used across 180 countries with over 300,000 courses created on the platform. He spent 15 years as an instructional designer before building Coursebox, working with companies like Johnson & Johnson, Electrolux, Michael Hill, and SA Health. At Open Colleges, he built the five-document compliance packages by hand that every RTO needs; Coursebox now generates the same packages in 10 minutes. One of his courses reached over 20,000 learners as a flagship edX MOOC. He knows what good learning takes because he spent years doing it the slow way. Before Coursebox, he founded and ran a social-based LMS for seven years, which became the foundation for what Coursebox AI is today. Four years ago he launched Coursebox AI, not to automate course creation, but to get to the part that matters: delivery. The AI tutor, the grading, the 24/7 coaching, the outcomes. Course creation, in his words, is about 1% of what the platform does. Travis still checks customer support messages at 4am. Find Travis Clapp Online Website: coursebox.ai LinkedIn (Travis): linkedin.com/in/travisclapp LinkedIn (Coursebox AI): linkedin.com/company/courseboxai Instagram: instagram.com/coursebox.ai TikTok: tiktok.com/@coursebox.ai Facebook: facebook.com/courseboxai X/Twitter: x.com/Coursebox_ai YouTube: youtube.com/@CourseboxAI Mentioned in This Episode Some links below are affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. TOG / P&G gamification case study The Octalysis Framework Book: I, Robot by Isaac Asimov Book: The Millionaire Mind by Thomas J. Stanley Book: The Expectant Father by Armin A. Brott & Jennifer Ash Rudick Favorite game: SimCity 2000 (1993) Free Resources and Get in Touch Core Drives in the Wild: Professor Game Free Guide Get Daily Value on Your Email Let's chat about your gamification project YouTube LinkedIn Instagram Facebook Start Your Community on Skool for Free Ask a question

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.

Den dystra trenden för halvledarbolagen på börsen fortsätter och tyngs bland annat av SK Hynix rapport.På den svenska markanden har vi däremot fått två riktigt starka rapporter från Hexagon och Electrolux. Jonas Olavi, förvaltare på Alpcot, ger sin syn på den senaste tiden utveckling och tipsar om vart han ser köplägen idag. Programledare är Martin Bunge-Meyer.

Per quasi quarant'anni Electrolux è stata uno dei simboli dell'industria italiana. Oggi, però, migliaia di posti di lavoro sono a rischio e dietro i licenziamenti si nasconde una partita molto più grande tra costi energetici, delocalizzazione e concorrenza globale. Vuoi far crescere il tuo business? Apri un account FINOM entro il 19 luglio per attivare la promozione esclusiva. Scopri tutti i vantaggi e i dettagli dell'offerta al seguente link — https://www.financeads.net/tc.php?t=76605C2928136110T Ascolta il podcast STORIE di BRAND - https://spotify.openinapp.co/zp15q Entra nel Canale TELEGRAM - https://t.me/storiedibrand Storie su YOUTUBE - https://www.youtube.com/@StoriediBrand Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For two centuries, multinational enterprises (MNEs) have arrived in waves on Australia's shores. Highly visible and influential household names among them – Ford, IBM, Kodak, Electrolux, ANZ – but also many smaller, lesser-known enterprises. Foreign MNEs in Australia today account for almost half of our top 2,000 firms and control over A$1.4 trillion of assets. There is much we do not understand about these important institutions, why they chose to invest here, how they entered, and why some firms survived for long periods, while others exited. The history of MNEs, more than most topics, is inextricably connected to international experience. Across half a century of research, their history has emerged as a vibrant field of investigation in North America, Europe, and, increasingly, Asia. MNE activity in Australia, briefly referenced in some of these studies, formed an important part of the global presence of many firms. This is the first history of foreign MNEs in twentieth-century Australia, filling a major gap in the economic and business history literature of Australia and of the history of international business globally. It integrates the important and distinctive Australian experience with an extensive international and comparative scholarship on big business and MNEs. Bibliographical reference to the interview's book: Ville, Simon, Pierre van der Eng, André Sammartino, David Merrett, and Monica Keneley. 2026. Global Enterprise in Australia: International Business Down Under since Federation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003586272. My interview with Prof Simon Ville about the first volume on the history of MNEs in Australia https://newbooksnetwork.com/in... Bibliographical reference: Ville, Simon, and David Merrett. 2022. International Business in Australia Before World War One Shaping a Multinational Economy. Palgrave. https://link.springer.com/book... Presented by Paula de la Cruz Fernández, Ph.D. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In June 2024 the Greater Memphis, Tennessee Chamber of Commerce announced Elon Musk's artificial intelligence company, xAI, would build its "Colossus" data center in an old Electrolux factory. Two years on, the story continues to expand alongside the company's growing footprint, with a second campus, Colossus II, across the state line in Southaven, Mississippi; a contested gray water recycling plant; an ever-rising count of gas turbines; multiple lawsuits; and communities in South Memphis still pressing for straight answers.Few people have tracked all of it more closely than Neil Strebig, a reporter with The Commercial Appeal in Memphis who has covered the xAI story daily from the beginning. He's attended community meetings and hearings, filed right-to-know requests, parsed the differing interpretations of the Clean Air Act by the EPA, the Shelby County Health Department and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, counted turbines, and spent time with residents living alongside the facilities. The result is a level of detail that few can match.In this conversation, Strebig brings us up to speed on the latest developments — including a newly updated lawsuit citing unpermitted turbines in Southaven, the implications of the SpaceX IPO and the impending IPOs of other AI firms, and the stalled water recycling plant Memphis leaders had counted on. And, he reflects on what it has been like to chase facts as the story spread across two states and a thicket of jurisdictions.

Näringslivsprofilen om energikrisen, behovet av en energiöverenskommelse, EU:s relation till USA och Kina och generationsskiftet i familjen. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radios app. Jacob Wallenberg är styrelseordförande i Wallenbergsfärens investmentbolag Investor, som i sin tur är delägare i flera svenska storbolag som Saab, Electrolux, Atlas Copco, ABB och SEB. Sedan 2022 är Jacob Wallenberg också ordförande för arbetsgivarorganisationen Svenskt Näringsliv. ”Risk att man sätter sig på händerna”Kriget i Iran och blockaden av Hormuzsundet har lett till en global energikris. För näringslivet innebär det mer ovisshet, vilket gör det svårare att fatta långsiktiga beslut – och osäkerheten sträcker sig bortom kriget i Iran, säger Jacob Wallenberg. ”På en högre nivå har vi ju en geopolitisk situation med friktion mellan USA och Kina, ett EU som letar sin roll i det här sammanhanget. Vi kommer från en era av globalisering när vi skulle ut och resa i världen och företag skulle resa över gränser, nya marknader, tillväxt, till en situation med ökad protektionism och tullar, som vi ofta talar om. Sammantaget så betyder det här att vi går ifrån en tid när man visste ungefär hur saker och ting fungerade, förutsägbarhet, till en tid när det är stor oförutsägbarhet och det är svårt att fatta långsiktiga beslut”, säger Jacob Wallenberg. Ja, men det måste man ju ändå göra som företagsledare?”Precis så är det, men det betyder trots allt en risk för att man sätter sig på händerna och avvaktar och tittar. Det är väl det som oroar mig mest. Vi är inne i en era som är mer svårbearbetad för företagare och för individer i stort”, säger Jacob Wallenberg. Ny relation till USA och KinaI det nya geopolitiska läget menar Jacob Wallenberg att EU behöver förändra relationen till Kina och USA:”Det viktiga är att EU mejslar ut en ny strategi i sitt förhållande till USA. Det ska vara en djup relation, men vi måste stå upp raka i ryggen och stå för våra värderingar, etc. Samma sak vad gäller Kina. Där har vi historiskt stått lite i skuggan av USA och gjort ganska mycket som de har gjort. Det tycker jag uppenbarligen inte att vi ska göra idag utan vi måste mejsla ut våra egna tankar i och kring relationen med Kina. Så att EU har väldigt hög grad att, inom citationstecken, ännu mer ta hand om sig själv” säger Jacob Wallenberg. Efterlyser energiöverenskommelse I sin egenskap av ordförande för Svenskt Näringsliv har Jacob Wallenberg tillsammans med organisationens vd nyligen skrivit en debattartikel i SvD med en önskelista på vad nästa regering behöver göra för att öka tillväxten i svensk ekonomi. Den första punkten är en politisk överenskommelse över blocken om stabil elförsörjning, för att näringslivet ska investera i ny kärnkraft. ”När man går in och satsar på det här så vill vi gärna se att näringslivet är engagerade, tar en del av risken, är med och investerar för att göra detta möjligt. Ur det perspektivet blir det här väldigt angeläget, att ju säkrare förutsättningar det finns att jobba med – läs politiken, politiska regler – ju lägre risk och större chans att man kommer att investera. Det är vi ute efter”, säger Jacob Wallenberg.När det gäller det blocköverskridande, statsministern brukar hävda att det redan finns en slags de facto-energiöverenskommelse politiskt i det att det fattats en rad beslut om kärnkraften som Socialdemokraterna är med på i stora delar. De politiska beslut i energifrågan som redan är fattade, räcker de?”Inriktningen är väldigt positiv, men de facto så har vi inte en bred överenskommelse idag. Jag hoppas att vi kommer att få det, men vi har det inte idag.”Vilken sorts politisk överenskommelse om energin krävs för att få till de där långsiktiga spelreglerna som ni efterlyser?”I grunden, och det har jag sagt tidigare, så handlar det om ett handslag mellan ledarna för respektive sida i den svenska politiken. Det är för mig trovärdigt”, säger Jacob Wallenberg. Regeringen har tagit fram en rad förslag som innebär att staten ska ta en större del av kostnaden och den ekonomiska risken för ny kärnkraft. I det kärnkraftsprojekt som kommit längst, planerna på nya reaktorer vid Ringhals, så ska staten tillsammans med det statliga energibolaget Vattenfall stå för 80 procent av ägandet och risken. Resterande 20 procent ska ett konsortium av privata företag stå för, där ingår även Wallenberg-bolag. Vad tycker Jacob Wallenberg om den balansen? ”Det är väl i alla fall en fantastiskt bra början att det finns privatkapital med där. Vilket då pekar på att det finns förutsättningar att driva detta på kommersiell basis och att det inte bara är staten som går in och tar hela risken. Jag ser det som väldigt positivt”, säger Jacob Wallenberg.Om uppluckrad klimatpolitik: ”Vore väldigt olyckligt”Nyligen investerade familjen Wallenberg i ståltillverkaren Stegra, ett av de stora men osäkra projekten i den svenska gröna omställningen.”Vi tror att grön omställning är nånting som efterfrågas av kunder. Vi upplever att du har ett moraliskt ansvar att tänka i de termerna. Vi tror att när du ska anställa unga människor så förväntar de sig att deras nya arbetsgivare har grönt i sin tanke. Det här är saker som vi tycker är grundläggande”, säger Jacob Wallenberg.Stegras affärsmodell bygger till stor del på EU:s utsläppshandelssystem, ETS, alltså att politiska beslut gör det så dyrt med utsläpp att det blir lönsamt med grönt stål. Det finns vissa tecken nu på att EU:s klimatpolitik rullas tillbaka, att beslutade tuffa klimatregler luckras upp. Hur ser du på den utvecklingen?”Jag tycker att det vore väldigt olyckligt. De så kallade ETS-reglerna, södra Europa vill backa, norra delen av Europa vill fortsätta. Många i norra Europa, många företag har redan investerat i teknologier som adresserar det här. Det skulle vara investeringar som inte går i hamn om ETS-reglerna skulle ändras. Jag tror på att vi måste gå åt det här hållet. Därför skulle jag inte önska att EU genomförde de här förändringarna”, säger Jacob Wallenberg. Generationsskifte i familjen WallenbergJacob Wallenberg ingår den femte generationen Wallenberg. Han har nyligen fyllt 70 år. Sedan i fjol har medlemmar ur nästa generation fått ledande positioner i familjens företag.”Det finns ett stort antal personer i nästa generation som utbildas, får sin egen arbetslivserfarenhet, etcetera. Några av dem har kommit in i mer centrala roller i styrelser etcetera. Det har gått bra. Jag hoppas att det ska fortsätta att gå bra”, säger Jacob Wallenberg. Är ambitionen att det i nästa generation ska bli lika tydligt som idag med tre, nu är det ju du, din bror Peter Wallenberg och din kusin Marcus Wallenberg?”Nej, det finns inget egenvärde i ett exakt antal. Men det är ganska uppenbart att det är ett stort ansvarsområde. Att vi kan vara tre den här gången istället för en eller två som det har varit historiskt ser vi som en stor styrka. Jag hoppas att det kommer att vara ännu fler i framtiden som har framträdande roller”, säger Jacob Wallenberg. Gäst: Jacob Wallenberg Programledare Johar BendjelloulKommentar Knut Kainz RognerudProducent: Maja LagercrantzTekniker: Peter BerglundIntervjun spelades in torsdag den 11 juni 2026.

O QUE AS ACADEMIAS ESTÃO PECANDO NA FORMAÇÃO PROFISSIONAL NA VISÃO DA ELECTROLUXDiretamente de Curitiba, Eu questionei Rodrigo Padilha, Vice-Presidente de Negócios e Serviços ao Consumidor LATAM no Grupo Electrolux.Quer assistir o debate completo? Visite https://universidadedoconsumidor.com.br/curso-data-mastery-360@rodrigopadilhabr@hevertonsa@universidadedoconsumidor#atendimentoaocliente #experienciadocliente #atendimento #customerexperience #electrolux #cienciadedados #rh

A Electrolux está completando 100 anos no Brasil e o futuro da marca passa por sustentabilidade, eficiência energética e inovação conectada ao dia a dia dos consumidores. Durante uma visita à fábrica da empresa em Curitiba, o repórter Bruno Bertonzin conversou com João Zeny, diretor de sustentabilidade do Electrolux Group na América Latina, e Alexandre Neves, gerente sênior de design da Electrolux na América Latina. No episódio, os executivos explicam como a empresa trabalha para criar produtos mais econômicos, quais iniciativas existem para descarte consciente de eletrodomésticos antigos e como o Brasil se tornou referência global em design dentro da companhia. A conversa também aborda o impacto das novas regras de eficiência energética no mercado brasileiro, o futuro dos produtos conectados e como a Electrolux pretende continuar relevante nos próximos 100 anos. Você também vai conferir: Acer entrou na disputa dos óculos inteligentes contra a Meta, Agora já dá pra pagar compras usando anéis e pulseiras inteligentes e Canon quer trazer de volta o sucesso das câmeras estilo Cyber-shot. Este podcast foi roteirizado e apresentado por Fernanda Santos e contou com reportagens de Nathan Vieira e Bruno Bertonzin. A trilha sonora é de Guilherme Zomer, a edição de Leandro Gomes e a arte da capa é de Erick Teixeira.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Copa do Mundo de 2026 promete marcar uma nova era para o futebol. Pela primeira vez, inteligência artificial, sensores, análise preditiva e estádios inteligentes devem fazer parte da experiência dentro e fora de campo. No novo episódio do Podcast Canaltech, Fernanda Santos conversa com Gui Zanoni, especialista em IA e tecnologia, sobre como a FIFA está preparando aquela que pode ser a Copa mais tecnológica da história. Durante o papo, eles discutem temas como arbitragem automatizada, jogadores escaneados em 3D, uso de inteligência artificial para análise tática, transmissões cada vez mais parecidas com videogames e o impacto dessa transformação para clubes, atletas e torcedores. O episódio também aborda os limites da tecnologia no esporte, os riscos de monitoramento e privacidade e como os clubes brasileiros já vêm usando dados e IA nos bastidores do futebol. Você também vai conferir: Xiaomi agora quer conquistar até o mercado de mochilas, BYD quer vender até robôs humanoides e Brasil vira peça-chave na estratégia global da Electrolux. Este podcast foi roteirizado e apresentado por Fernanda Santos e contou com reportagens de João Melo e Bruno Bertonzin. A trilha sonora é de Guilherme Zomer, a edição de Leandro Gomes e a arte da capa é de Erick Teixeira.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dagens ämnen: 0:00 Intro 2:48 Sivers 12:04 Rymd 17:22 Octave 23:24 Medtech 25:33 Alphabet 30:40 Electrolux 33:38 Biotech 35:35 Iran 39:02 Lätt att dras med i hajpen 40:25 Veckans Fill or Kill www.instagram.com/fillorkillpodden   Tack RoboMarkets! https://open.spotify.com/show/7nqoFzFNOZHoQDUnrwKf4L     @RoboMarketsSE Tack @avanzabank! http://avanza.se 

La Commissione europea invita gli Stati membri a riprogrammare fondi di Coesione e Just Transition Fund per sostenere famiglie e imprese colpite dal caro energia, accelerando investimenti energetici a rapido impatto e misure per ridurre la dipendenza dai combustibili fossili. La proposta di Raffaele Fitto ha però sollevato critiche dal Comitato europeo delle Regioni, che accusa Bruxelles di usare i fondi di coesione come “bancomat di emergenza”, sottraendo risorse già impegnate allo sviluppo territoriale e alla transizione energetica. Il commento è di Gianni Trovati, Il Sole 24 OrePer gli elettrodomestici italiani l'unica salvezza è l'altagamma?Il mercato europeo degli elettrodomestici continua a crescere nei volumi ma perde valore, mentre i competitor asiatici conquistano quote di mercato grazie a prezzi più bassi. Nel 2025 i prodotti importati dall’Asia hanno superato quelli europei per quota di mercato. Il caso Electrolux di Cerreto d’Esi diventa emblematico: l’abbandono della produzione di alta gamma, più artigianale e redditizia, ha accelerato la crisi dello stabilimento. Operai e sindacati denunciano anni di tagli ai costi e scarsi investimenti in innovazione, mentre la produzione standardizzata viene spostata all’estero. Ne parliamo con Francesco Casoli, Presidente ElicaExport italiano: crescita a doppia cifra in Cina, Svizzera, Usa e India. Rallenta il Medio OrienteAd aprile l’export italiano extra-Ue cresce dell’11,3%, trainato soprattutto da Cina, Svizzera, Stati Uniti e India, con vendite che sfiorano i 28 miliardi di euro. Rallenta invece il Medio Oriente, ancora penalizzato dagli effetti della guerra dopo l’attacco Usa-Israele all’Iran: nel primo quadrimestre il calo verso l’area è del 16%. A sostenere il made in Italy sono soprattutto energia, beni intermedi e beni strumentali. Migliora anche l’avanzo commerciale con i Paesi extra-Ue, nonostante l’aumento del deficit energetico legato ai rincari delle materie prime. Interviene Marco Fortis, Vicepresidente Fondazione Edison e Co-Presidente Comitato Scientifico Fondazione Edison.

Rassegna stampa economico-finanziaria del 26 Maggio 2026, strutturata per macro-temi e basata sulle principali testate giornalistiche nazionali.Investimenti, Mercati e RisparmioTestate: Repubblica / MF / Il Sole 24 Ore* Longevità, salute e portafoglio: Repubblica evidenzia il tema della pianificazione finanziaria legata all'allungamento della vita. Il punto manageriale è chiaro: previdenza, sanità integrativa, gestione del rischio di non autosufficienza e pianificazione successoria diventano sempre più centrali. Indicazione positiva: per consulenti e private banker si apre uno spazio crescente di advisory evoluta, non solo di prodotto.* AI e governance cognitiva: MF sottolinea che l'Italia è in ritardo sull'intelligenza artificiale, ma può essere in anticipo sulla governance. Il tema non è solo tecnologico: riguarda regole, responsabilità, controllo dei dati e qualità delle decisioni. Per imprese e professionisti è un'opportunità: chi investe ora in competenze, processi e controllo del rischio AI può costruire vantaggio competitivo.Industria, Imprese e Made in ItalyTestate: Il Giornale / Repubblica / La Stampa / Il Sole 24 Ore Festival dell'Economia* Electrolux, piano da 1.719 tagli: Il Giornale riporta un piano di riduzione di 1.719 posti su 4.400 dipendenti italiani. I siti coinvolti mostrano tagli pesanti: Cerreto d'Esi verso chiusura, Porcia da 571 a 309 addetti, Solaro da 615 a 398, Forlì da 683 a 345, Susegana da 728 a 418. Il nuovo incontro è fissato al 15 giugno. Lettura positiva: la reazione coordinata di Governo, Regioni e sindacati può diventare un banco di prova per difendere filiere industriali e competenze produttive.* La “lavatrice cinese” e la pressione competitiva: Repubblica segnala il peso crescente dei produttori cinesi, sostenuti da prezzi bassi e sussidi pubblici. Il tema non riguarda solo l'elettrodomestico: è una questione di politica industriale europea. Per le imprese italiane diventa essenziale puntare su qualità, design, automazione e filiere ad alto valore.* Politica industriale europea: Il Sole 24 Ore Festival dell'Economia richiama la necessità di una politica industriale solida per l'Europa. Messaggio positivo: l'UE può ancora giocare una partita rilevante se coordina investimenti, energia, difesa commerciale e innovazione.Fisco, Normativa e CasaTestate: Il Sole 24 Ore / Italia Oggi* Piano Casa, 22 passaggi attuativi: Il Sole 24 Ore segnala che per rendere operativo il Piano Casa servono 22 passaggi tra commissari, intese, decreti e regolamenti. Tra i punti: Fondo housing, edilizia integrata, programmi di rigenerazione urbana e interventi sopra 1 miliardo di euro con possibile nomina di un commissario. Indicazione positiva: se attuato con rapidità, il piano può generare investimenti, riqualificazione urbana e offerta abitativa a prezzi calmierati.* Agrivoltaico, stop alle VIA fotocopia: Italia Oggi evidenzia l'orientamento contro valutazioni ambientali standardizzate e non specifiche. Lettura business: il settore resta interessante, ma richiede progetti più solidi, documentazione tecnica puntuale e maggiore qualità autorizzativa. Banche, Credito e FinanzaTestate: MF* BCE e banche UE: serve “Mythos”: MF segnala l'esigenza per le banche europee di rafforzare strumenti, infrastrutture e visione comune. Il tema è strategico: competitività bancaria, efficienza operativa, tecnologia e gestione del rischio. Indicazione positiva: il settore bancario europeo può recuperare terreno se accelera su integrazione, digitalizzazione e scala.Energia e GeopoliticaTestate: Il Sole 24 Ore / Corriere della Sera / Repubblica / La Stampa / Il Giornale / Riformista* Caro energia, bonus da 430 milioni: Il Sole 24 Ore riporta crediti d'imposta contro il caro energia per complessivi 430 milioni di euro: 300 milioni per autotrasporto, 90 milioni per carburanti in agricoltura, 40 milioni per fertilizzanti agricoli, 10 milioni per imprese della pesca. Le misure riguardano i mesi di marzo, aprile, maggio 2026, con alcune attuazioni ancora da completare. Segnale positivo: il sostegno è mirato su settori esposti a costi energetici e logistici.* Hormuz, negoziati ancora complessi: Corriere, Repubblica, La Stampa e Riformista insistono sulla difficoltà del negoziato Iran-USA. Il Giornale cita anche il tema dell'uranio e dei 12 miliardi legati a Hormuz. Impatto business: rischio su energia, trasporti marittimi e inflazione importata. Aspetto positivo: la presenza di negoziati, pur difficili, mantiene aperto uno spazio diplomatico.* Dazi e Cina: La Stampa segnala che Italia e altri Paesi UE chiedono una stretta verso la Cina. Il tema è la difesa dell'industria europea da concorrenza sussidiata. Positivo per il Made in Italy: una risposta europea coordinata può proteggere settori industriali strategici, purché non degeneri in frizioni commerciali penalizzanti.Lavoro, Formazione e Capitale UmanoTestate: Repubblica / Il Giornale / Il Sole 24 Ore* AI, lavoro e salute: Repubblica collega intelligenza artificiale, lavoro, sanità, disinformazione e mercato. Il punto economico è rilevante: l'AI non sostituisce solo mansioni, ma cambia competenze, organizzazioni e responsabilità. Indicazione positiva: le imprese che formeranno il personale potranno aumentare produttività e qualità dei servizi.* Crisi industriali e competenze: il caso Electrolux mostra che il problema non è solo occupazionale ma anche di conservazione del know-how manifatturiero. La priorità manageriale è evitare dispersione di competenze e accompagnare la transizione industriale con investimenti e riqualificazione.

Do you consider yourself a luddite? Are you fighting the use AI as the answer to furthering civilizations? Ditch, Tim & Producer Max took a few minutes to opine on "neo-luddism" and the idea that questioning the rapid advancement of AI may not categorize someone as a luddite. Elon Musk's xAI supercomputer Grok calls Memphis home. The facility, Colossus 1 as it's known, was built in an existing Electrolux factory. Colossus 2 is being constructed in Southaven, MS and is part of the massive data center construction boom. A "gargantuan" data center has been approved in Utah that would encompass a 62 square mile space and would double the state's electricity consumption. Support the show: https://www.newstalk989.com/personalities/memphis-morning-news/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rassegna stampa economico-finanziaria del 15 Maggio 2026, strutturata per macro-temi e basata sulle principali testate giornalistiche nazionali.   Investimenti, Mercati e FinanzaTestate: Il Sole 24 Ore / MF / La Stampa / Corriere della Sera / Repubblica* Consob ancora senza vertice. La nomina del presidente resta bloccata dopo un nuovo nulla di fatto nella maggioranza. Il tema è rilevante perché riguarda la governance del mercato finanziario italiano e la credibilità delle authority in una fase di forte volatilità regolatoria.* EGM: 207 società quotate e 11 miliardi di capitalizzazione. MF fotografa un mercato alternativo ancora vitale, utile per Pmi e scale-up che cercano capitale senza passare dai circuiti tradizionali. Il dato positivo è che esiste ancora una piattaforma domestica per accompagnare crescita, passaggi generazionali e internazionalizzazione.* Criptovalute: primo stop italiano e sequestro milionario a Coinbase. La Stampa segnala un intervento che conferma l'inasprimento della vigilanza sugli operatori crypto. Per gli investitori istituzionali il messaggio è chiaro: il settore resta interessante, ma solo con presìdi di compliance robusti.* Monete digitali private sotto osservazione. Il Sole 24 Ore richiama i rischi sistemici legati a stablecoin e strumenti digitali non pienamente regolati. Il lato positivo è che la regolamentazione può rafforzare la fiducia degli investitori e aprire spazio a operatori più solidi.Banche, Credito e ImpreseTestate: Il Sole 24 Ore / MF / Corriere della Sera / Repubblica* Da Simest 4,3 miliardi in 3 mesi. MF evidenzia un'accelerazione degli strumenti a supporto dell'export e dell'internazionalizzazione. È un segnale favorevole per le imprese italiane: liquidità, garanzie e finanza agevolata restano leve centrali per presidiare mercati esteri complessi.* Demanio: patrimonio da 63 miliardi e 5 miliardi da investire. Il Sole 24 Ore segnala il potenziale economico del patrimonio pubblico. La valorizzazione degli asset immobiliari dello Stato può diventare una leva di investimento, rigenerazione urbana e collaborazione pubblico-privato.* Authority e nomine: Consob, Antitrust e Rai in stallo. Più testate riportano tensioni sulle nomine pubbliche. Per il mondo economico il punto non è solo politico: la stabilità delle autorità indipendenti incide direttamente su mercati, concorrenza e fiducia degli operatori.Fisco, Normativa e CasaTestate: Il Sole 24 Ore / Corriere della Sera / La Stampa* Rottamazione estesa anche alle multe. Il Corriere segnala che nel decreto fiscale entra anche il tema delle sanzioni amministrative. Il valore complessivo della rottamazione viene indicato in 48 miliardi. Il beneficio potenziale è una maggiore capacità di recupero crediti per gli enti, ma resta il rischio di stratificare nuove sanatorie.* IMU, Tari e multe: doppie sanatorie locali. Il Sole 24 Ore descrive un quadro fiscale frammentato, con enti locali chiamati a gestire regole non sempre lineari. Per famiglie e imprese la priorità resta la certezza delle scadenze e dei perimetri applicativi.* Concordato preventivo: nel mirino 1,4 milioni di partite IVA considerate inaffidabili. Il Sole 24 Ore segnala una stretta selettiva sul rapporto tra Fisco e autonomi. Il dato è rilevante perché può spingere verso maggiore trasparenza, ma richiede attenzione per non penalizzare chi ha anomalie formali e non evasive.* Piano casa: previsto un maxi bonus di volumetria per gli interventi privati. La misura può attivare investimenti edilizi senza replicare gli eccessi del Superbonus. Il punto positivo è la possibilità di mobilitare capitale privato, riqualificazione urbana e offerta abitativa.Industria, Export e DifesaTestate: MF / La Verità / Il Foglio / La Stampa / Corriere della Sera* Export di armi italiane a 9 miliardi: Leonardo domina. MF segnala una forte crescita del comparto difesa. È un settore sempre più strategico, sia per ragioni geopolitiche sia industriali: alta tecnologia, occupazione qualificata e filiere nazionali diventano asset competitivi.* La finanza investe nel defence tech italiano. La Verità evidenzia l'interesse crescente dei capitali privati verso tecnologie dual use, sicurezza, spazio, cyber e difesa. Il dato positivo è la nascita di un ecosistema dove startup, industria e finanza possono convergere.* Ferretti: cambio di governance e crescente peso cinese. La Verità e Il Tempo leggono il dossier come caso simbolico di presidio estero su un marchio industriale italiano. Il rischio è la perdita di controllo strategico; l'opportunità è rafforzare strumenti nazionali per proteggere competenze e filiere pregiate.* Electrolux e industria europea. La Verità segnala il tema della tenuta occupazionale e competitiva. Il nodo resta il costo industriale europeo: energia, regolazione e concorrenza internazionale. In positivo, la crisi può accelerare politiche industriali più pragmatiche.Energia e GeopoliticaTestate: Corriere della Sera / Repubblica / Il Sole 24 Ore / Domani / Il Foglio / Il Giornale* Gasdotto Nigeria-Marocco-Europa: piano da 25 miliardi. Il Sole 24 Ore segnala un progetto infrastrutturale di grande scala. Per l'Europa è una potenziale leva di diversificazione energetica, utile a ridurre dipendenze e vulnerabilità.* Hormuz sotto pressione: altre due navi colpite. Corriere, Repubblica e altre testate descrivono l'escalation nello Stretto. L'impatto economico è diretto su energia, trasporti e premi assicurativi. La possibile intesa con Teheran viene letta come tentativo di stabilizzazione.* USA-Cina: accordi su carne, Boeing e chip, ma Taiwan resta il nodo. Repubblica e Il Giornale riportano aperture commerciali, inclusa la partita sugli aerei Boeing e sui semiconduttori. Il messaggio per le imprese è duplice: qualche spazio di normalizzazione c'è, ma la catena tecnologica resta terreno di scontro.* Draghi: Europa sola, servono impegni comuni sulla difesa. Corriere, Repubblica, Messaggero, Domani e Foglio convergono sul messaggio dell'ex premier. Per il business europeo significa più spesa comune, più industria continentale, più coordinamento strategico.Lavoro, Formazione e Capitale UmanoTestate: Repubblica / Il Sole 24 Ore / Il Foglio / Espresso* Bonus assunzioni sempre meno utilizzati. Repubblica segnala un calo dell'efficacia degli incentivi al lavoro. Il tema centrale è che il mercato non si sblocca solo con bonus: servono competenze, formazione e semplificazione.* Medicina: l'80% degli aspiranti resta nel sistema universitario. Il Sole 24 Ore evidenzia un dato positivo sul capitale umano sanitario. La sfida è trasformare l'accesso in percorsi formativi sostenibili, con effetti di lungo periodo su sanità e occupazione qualificata.* IA a scuola: insegnarla per governarla. L'Espresso porta il tema dell'intelligenza artificiale nella formazione. È una priorità economica, non solo educativa: alfabetizzazione digitale e competenze AI saranno decisive per produttività e competitività.

L'11 e il 12 maggio si è tenuto a Nairobi, in Kenya, il vertice internazionale Africa Forward, pensato per rilanciare la collaborazione tra la Francia e i paesi africani su innovazione, crescita e sviluppo sostenibile. Con Andrea Spinelli Barrile, giornalista La multinazionale svedese di elettrodomestici Electrolux ha annunciato un piano di riduzione della produzione e dell'occupazione in Italia, che prevede un taglio di circa il 40 per cento della forza lavoro, con 1.700 esuberi su circa 4.500 dipendenti e la chiusura dello stabilimento di Cerreto d'Esi, in provincia di Ancona. Con Francesca Coin, sociologa Oggi parliamo anche di:YouTube • Yunnan mountain taro: one taro, a hundred flavors, warming every meal, sul canale di Dianxi Xiaogeyoutube.com/watch?v=6qOENidPkSg&vl=viCi piacerebbe sapere cosa pensi di questo episodio. Scrivici a podcast@internazionale.it Se ascolti questo podcast e ti piace, abbonati a Internazionale. È un modo concreto per sostenerci e per aiutarci a garantire ogni giorno un'informazione di qualità. Vai su internazionale.it/abbonatiConsulenza editoriale di Chiara NielsenProduzione di Claudio Balboni e Vincenzo De SimoneMusiche di Tommaso Colliva e Raffaele ScognaDirezione creativa di Jonathan Zenti

0:00 Camel toe discussion 0:04 Chick out – Jeff in 0:07 Jeff's daughter flipped him off to his face 0:09 Letter – Rudy's Hot Dogs 0:10 Kristi's dream – dancing with Bob while he drank martinis 0:14 Letter – BOB & TOM hot dog channel 0:24 Letter – saw The Beach Boys live; Sam and the Pharaohs opened 0:29 Letter – never microwave food 0:30 Letter – in-laws still using Electrolux vacuum after 60 years of marriage 0:34 Letter – dogs do not pee in pools; dog poops in ocean 0:35 Letter – dog gets out of pool to pee 0:37 Jeff's mom peed on his leg in the lake 0:47 Letter – when will Jess prepare hot dogs? 0:49 Letter – wedding first dance was “Stumblin' In” 0:49 Letter – itemized bill for living at home 0:52 Letter – worker dropped Dairy Queen Blizzard 0:53 Tom does not care for soccer 1:03 Sports 1:09 “Locomotion” song discussion 1:10 SWR – most basketball half-court shots (“Dr. Buckets”) 1:25 New car smell discussion 1:26 Tom says he has never stolen anything 1:27 Woman stole bottle of wine; police discovered it hidden on her person 1:29 100 hot dogs stolen from a high school 1:30 “I Would Eat 100 Hot Dogs” – Pat Godwin 1:44 Jeff has had one car repossessed; Pat had two 1:46 Jason's EV cameras allow people to leave messages 1:48 Study – people want to have more fun 1:48 75% prefer TV and dining out for entertainment 1:54 Josh jokes with Tom about living too cautiously 1:55 Josh wants a Skee-Ball machine 2:07 Phone – Dr. Buckets 2:26 In Studio – Jess 2:31 Little Tikes car now available as EV 2:35 Man stole items using a large tricycle 2:46 Today in History 2:48 Ace owns two pairs of Velcro sneakers 3:10 Secret Service officer arrested for indecent exposure 3:11 Josh jokes about bizarre public behavior 3:14 Tom's toilet brush discussion 3:23 Zoom – Alli Breen 3:24 Letter – girlfriend suspicious about gym visits 3:25 Letter – boyfriend's roommate breakup situation 3:27 Letter – boyfriend discovered past relationship hookup 3:29 Letter – talking to guy on Twitter; she would have to drive 3:31 Letter – girlfriend wants him to attend church instead of playing video games 3:36 Letter – found jewelry receipt in boyfriend's car but received no jewelry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

L’Italia resta un Paese a forte vocazione industriale con la seconda manifattura in Europa dopo la Germania.Però i segni di una certa deindustrializzazione avanzano. Di qualche giorno fa la notizia degli esuberi annunciati da Electrolux e di un suo ridimensionamento industriale.Le sorti dell’ex-Ilva intanto restano sempre in bilico a due anni dalla sua messa in vendita.Ne parliamo con Paolo Bricco, inviato de Il sole 24 ORE e Michelangelo Agrusti (nella foto), presidente di Confindustria Alto Adriatico.

Per la crisi della produzione degli elettrodomestici non c è tregua nel nostro Paese e più in generale in Europa. Dopo Beko e Candy, è il momento di Electrolux che ha annunciato ai sindacati (Fiom, Fim e Uilm) 1.700 esuberi, il 40% del totale dei 4.500 addetti in Italia. I rappresentanti dei lavoratori hanno risposto che è un piano inaccettabile e si sono alzati dal tavolo dell incontro - che si è svolto a Venezia Mestre - proclamando lo stato di agitazione permanente e un primo sciopero di 8 ore in tutti gli stabilimenti. Poi hanno chiesto al Governo un immediato intervento con una convocazione urgente al Mimit. Nei prossimi giorni coinvolgeranno le Istituzioni locali. Il Ministro delle Imprese e del Made in Italy, Adolfo Urso, stamattina ha convocato lunedì 25 maggio alle ore 15.00, presso Palazzo Piacentini, un tavolo sulla vertenza Electrolux. Il piano del gruppo come spiega una nota della multinazionale svedese dell elettrodomestico si tratta di un percorso per ottimizzare il proprio assetto organizzativo e produttivo in Italia. Il programma si inserisce in un più ampio piano globale del Gruppo, che punta all efficienza operativa complessiva e a ottimizzare la capacità industriale su scala globale, per rendere l organizzazione più agile e competitiva. Tradotto nella pratica, questo significa ridimensionare tutti i siti italiani, chiuderne uno e fermare alcune produzioni, come le lavasciuga a Porcia e i piani cottura a Forlì. Ne abbiamo parlato con Cristina Casadei, Il Sole 24 Ore.Research to Innovate Italy, a Bologna la prima edizione dedicata a ricerca e innovazione con il supporto delle regioniOggi e Domani (12 e 13 Maggio) all'Ex Gam di Bologna debutta "Research to Innovate Italy"(R2I) , la prima edizione dell evento promosso dalla Conferenza delle Regioni e delle Province Autonome e organizzato dalla Regione Emilia-Romagna insieme ad Art-ER, Attrattività Ricerca Territorio è la Società Consortile dell Emilia-Romagna nata per favorire la crescita sostenibile della regione attraverso lo sviluppo dell innovazione e della conoscenza, l attrattività e l internazionalizzazione del territorio. Con oltre trenta eventi, 150 speaker e 30 startup: una due giorni aperta a imprese, ricercatori, amministratori pubblici ed esperti per discutere, insieme alle regioni, di sovranità tecnologica, deep tech, infrastrutture tecnologiche e digitali, fondi europei e attrazione dei talenti, con la partecipazione tra gli altri del presidente della Conferenza delle Regioni Massimiliano Fedriga, del ministro Adolfo Urso, del vicepresidente della Commissione europea Raffaele Fitto ed è stata invitata anche la commissaria europea per Startup, Ricerca e Innovazione Ekaterina Zaharieva. La postazione di Radio 24 è al primo piano, vicino al main stage dell evento. Al centro del confronto le regioni e il documento di posizionamento elaborato da Regioni e Province autonome, che chiedono un ruolo strutturato nei processi decisionali europei e nazionali sulle politiche di ricerca e innovazione, a partire dalla programmazione Horizon Europe 2028-2034, dallo European Innovation Act e dall Industrial Accelerator Act. Le Regioni chiedono in particolare l'istituzione di un Tavolo permanente Governo-Regioni per la co-programmazione delle politiche di ricerca e innovazione, un fondo pluriennale per il cofinanziamento nazionale delle Grandi Infrastrutture di Ricerca e il rafforzamento della dimensione regionale e territoriale delle politiche europee per Ricerca e innovazione. Abbiamo approfondito il tema con Massimiliano Fedriga, Presidente Conferenza delle Regioni e della regione Friuli Venezia Giulia e con Marco Gay Presidente Esecutivo Zest e Presidente Unione Industriali Torino.

Electrolux annuncia il dimezzamento della produzione e 1700 esuberi, con chiusura dello stabilimento di Cerreto d'Esi. Sentiamo Nicola Salsano di UILM Ancona, lavoratore proprio dello stabilimento interessato e componente della RSU.Oggi trasmettiamo in diretta da Bologna in occasione della prima edizione di Research to Innovate Italy, evento dedicato all'innovazione e alla collaborazione tra imprese, ricerca e territori, promosso dalla Conferenza delle Regioni e delle Province Autonome e organizzato dalla Regione Emilia-Romagna e Art-ER. Ci raggiunge nel nostro studio mobile all'Ex Gam Vincenzo Colla, Vicepresidente della Regione Emilia-Romagna con delega a Sviluppo economico e green economy, Energia, Formazione professionale, Università e ricerca.Hantavirus: arrivano le linee guida del Ministero. Altri tre contagi tra i passeggeri. Con noi Roberta Villa, medico, giornalista e divulgatrice scientifica, autrice della newsletter "Fosforo e miele" su Substack.

Flera bolag har rapporterat bra för första kvartalet och trots orosmoment är börsindex upp. Panelen diskuterar även megatrender, köptips och säljtips.Aktierna vi nämner i aktiepodden denna gång är i tur och ordning Hansa, Bahnhof, Investor, Bravida, Huskvarna, Dometic, Enea, Apotea, Electrolux, Indutrade, Addnode, Sweco, Hexatronic, Yubico, ABB, SpaceX, Studsvik, SMP Global Water ETF, Munters, Lundin Mining, Plejd, H&M, AkerBP, Exchange Income, Anoto, Active Biotech, IPC, Alligo, Meren Energy, Epiroc och Alcadon. Börspanelens alla sajter hittar du här:shows.acast.com/tresmarta/aboutHernhag.seBorspsykologen.seSternersforlag.se Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Today in Manufacturing Podcast is brought to you by the editors of Manufacturing.net and Industrial Equipment News (IEN).This week's episode is brought to you by UnDesked. How much is digitizing your frontline business worth? Paper creates cost long before anyone calculates it. Time spent filling out forms, chasing signatures, re-entering inspection data, and following up on audits adds up quickly across shifts.UnDesked's ROI Calculator turns those everyday activities into real cost — and shows what changes when work is executed digitally instead of documented after the fact.Every week, we cover the three biggest stories in manufacturing, and the implications they have on the industry moving forward. This week:- Refrigerator Factory Lays Off 1,500 Ahead of Switch to Washers- Why This New Factory Looks Like Rolling Hills- Rocket-Powered Concept Car Goes 0-60 mph in Less Than a SecondIn Case You Missed It- Why Some Workers Are Embracing AI While Others Won't Use It, According to a New Gallup Poll- Sub-Zero to Boost U.S. Manufacturing Capacity at a Factory That Isn't Open Yet- Kellogg is Putting Toys Back into Some Cereal Boxes as a Toy Story 5 Tie-InPlease make sure to like, subscribe and share the podcast. You could also help us out a lot by giving the podcast a positive review. Finally, to email the podcast, you can reach any of us at David, Jeff or Anna [at] ien.com, with “Email the Podcast” in the subject line.

A U.S. refrigerator factory will lay off 1,500 employees later this year ahead of a planned production change to laundry appliances including washing machines and dryers.Electrolux, a home appliance manufacturer based in Sweden, announced a retooling at its South Carolina plant as part of a new joint venture agreement with the Midea Group, which will own 45% of the facility. Food preservation production will be phased out by July 2026 and fabric care is expected to start in the first half of 2027.The JV is expected to hire up to approximately 1,200 employees gradually across 2027 and 2028 as laundry appliance production ramps up. According to WYFF, all the laid off employees will be offered severance packages and will be invited back to work in the retooled facility.Electrolux called the shutdown temporary, but said “we recognize the impact this decision will have on our valued employees. We are working closely with state and local agencies to support our employees and, where feasible, assist with placement in alternative roles within the Anderson community.”#manufacturing, #appliances, #electrolux, #midea, #layoffs, #manufacturingjobs, #factoryretooling, #supplychain, #industrialnews, #automation, #globalmanufacturing, #costcutting, #economy, #madeinusa, #southcarolina, #manufacturingindustry, #businessnews, #workforce, #factoryjobs, #industryupdates

En Capital Intereconomía seguimos la apertura del Ibex 35 y de las bolsas europeas en una sesión donde la renta variable resiste pese a un entorno de dudas. En el análisis de mercados, Juan Enrique Cadiñanos, CEO Global en Bullfy, señala que Europa sigue sin tener argumentos sólidos para liderar las subidas, en un contexto en el que no actúa como motor del mercado. Aun así, destaca la capacidad de la renta variable para aguantar el “chaparrón” y mantener el tono positivo. En el plano empresarial, Cadiñanos pone en valor movimientos como el de ENI, que considera una señal positiva para fidelizar inversores y atraer nuevos, mientras que se muestra crítico con compañías como Electrolux, a la que acusa de escudarse en factores externos como los aranceles en lugar de mejorar su gestión. En contraste, subraya el buen momento de Intel, con resultados sólidos y un posicionamiento favorable dentro del sector tecnológico. Además, advierte del creciente papel de China en tecnología, industria y vehículos, con actores como DeepSeek ganando peso y aumentando la competencia frente a Estados Unidos en sectores clave. Terminamos la hora con el consultorio de bolsa junto a Roberto Moro, donde los oyentes reciben orientación para invertir en un mercado con oportunidades, pero también con incertidumbre

Alright, folks! Buckle up because today we're diving into some serious shenanigans happening in the business world. Eric's shining a spotlight on a certain Chinese company, Vivor, that's been on a mission to swipe American inventors' ideas right out from under their noses—talk about a low blow! We're talking outright patent theft, and it's enough to make any small business owner throw their toolbox across the room. But wait, there's more! We'll also dish out the deets on some critical product recalls you'll want to keep an eye on, so your home improvement projects don't turn into a trip to the ER. So grab your coffee (or whatever helps you cope with this madness), and let's get into it because this midweek update is packed with juicy info that'll have you questioning your next Amazon purchase! In today's midweek update, we dive headfirst into the murky waters of patent theft and the ongoing saga of small businesses battling corporate giants. Eric's taken a magnifying glass to the troublesome practices of Vivor, a Chinese company notorious for its flagrant disregard for intellectual property rights. As he lays out the case, it's not just a few bad apples; it's a whole orchard of innovation being pilfered right under our noses! With examples like the Vivor electric vacuum suction cup that shamelessly mimics the Grabo power tool, Eric passionately argues that these kinds of practices are not just wrong—they're damaging the very fabric of American entrepreneurship. He's got some spicy hot takes on how these companies are undercutting quality and creativity, leaving inventors and small businesses in the dust. So grab a seat and some popcorn as we explore what's happening behind the scenes and why it should matter to you, the consumer. But wait, there's more! Eric also touches on some crucial recalls that you absolutely need to know about. From the Electrolux gas ranges that could pose a burn hazard to those sketchy Amazon Basics knives that might just slice your finger open instead of that camping apple, this segment is all about keeping you safe while you navigate the wild world of home improvement. He emphasizes the importance of staying informed and proactive, inviting listeners to check out the Consumer Product Safety Commission for the latest updates. It's a rollercoaster ride of information that mixes humor with urgency, making sure you don't just laugh but also learn a thing or two about protecting yourself and your wallet. As we wrap things up, Eric reflects on the broader picture of our remodeling and construction economy, which seems to be spiraling downward in his Portland backyard. He shares his frustration as he watches local tradespeople head for greener pastures in other states while commercial properties plummet in value. It's a stark reminder of the challenges facing our economy and the importance of supporting local businesses against the tide of foreign competition. Through witty banter and real talk, we're left pondering what the future holds for American innovation and craftsmanship. So tune in, buckle up, and let's navigate this wild ride together!Takeaways:In this episode, Eric dives into the alarming trend of Chinese companies, like Vivor, blatantly stealing American inventions, highlighting the urgent need for awareness about intellectual property theft.We discuss how small businesses are struggling against these big corporations that rip off their designs, leaving inventors feeling frustrated and powerless in the face of such blatant piracy.Eric shares some shocking examples of cheap knockoffs flooding the market, which may look similar to trusted brands but are often of much lower quality and could cause safety issues.Important recalls are on the table, including Electrolux gas ranges and Amazon Basics knives, reminding listeners to stay alert and check for recalls to ensure their safety.The state of the remodeling industry is rough, especially in places like Portland, where local builders are facing economic challenges and moving elsewhere for work opportunities.Finally, we touch on some oddball legislation in Oregon that's trying to ban animal processing, leaving us scratching our heads and wondering what in the world is going on.Links referenced in this episode:aroundthehouseonline.comaroundthehousehqCompanies mentioned in this episode:VivorGraboElectrolux GroupFrigidaireAmazonAmazon BasicsWagner Spray TechThanks for listening to Around the house if you want to hear more please subscribe so you get notified of the latest episode as it posts at https://around-the-house-with-e.captivate.fm/listenIf you want to join the Around the House Insider for access to the back catalog, Exclusive Content and a direct email to Eric G and access to the show early https://around-the-house-with-e.captivate.fm/support We love comments and we would love reviews on how this information has helped you on your house! Thanks for listening! For more information about the show head to https://aroundthehouseonline.com/Information given on the Around the House Show should not be considered construction or design advice for your specific project, nor is it intended to replace consulting at your home or jobsite by a building professional. The views and opinions expressed by those interviewed on the podcast are those of the guests and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Around the House Show.Mentioned in this episode:Subscribe to the podcast Make sure and Subscribe on your favorite podcast player or the link below! Podcast Subscribe 2026

Prenumerera och kommentera. Länk till podden: https://pod.link/1726949171?view=apps0:00 Teknikens framtid: dystopi eller utopi? (starten på samtalet)1:18 AI, prognoser & varför historiker misstror framtidsprofetior4:09 Entreprenörskap, förändring & lärdomar från Franska revolutionen6:13 USA som jämförelse: ekonomi, samhällsmodell & vad som är “svårt att mäta”7:48 Ojämlikhet & konsumtion: “Disneyland-krisen” som symptom10:01 Sverige efter kriget: WWII, Olof Palme, Dag Hammarskjöld & tidsandan13:18 “1406 träffar på andra världskriget” — hur skriver man historia utan att drunkna?15:00 Att skriva historia på riktigt: helhetsgrepp, urval & vad som faktiskt spelar roll20:00 Källkritik, förenklingar & att leva med osäkerhet i stora skeenden29:05 Teknik som gör oss oberoende — men också mer ensamma (särskilt i Sverige)34:54 Internet, konflikter & varför extremer syns mest (och mitten tystnar)37:38 Boktryckarkonsten, tryckfrihet & kaoset när nya medier slår igenom41:20 Talang vs träning: “10 000 straffsparkar” och vägen till verklig skicklighet46:12 Meningsfullhet utan arbete: självkänsla i ett post-jobb-samhälle52:00 Vardagslivet fortsätter alltid (även i historiska kriser)57:44 Axel Wenner-Gren & Electrolux: entreprenörsmyten, säljgeniet & industrihistoria1:02:36 Visionärer & fantasi: vad som skiljer stora byggare från resten1:08:10 Välfärdsstat vs socialism: varför vi pratar förbi varandra (begreppen)1:13:31 Polarisering: hur “energin” flyttar mot kanterna — och vad det gör med samhället1:20:28 Henriks böcker + podden Tidsmaskinen + Asimov-tankar (avrundning)

Edvin Resebo has grown in LPBF as LPBF has grown, starting at Siemens and then the Alfred Nobel Science Park. Now he heads up AMEXCI, an effort to industrialize Additive Manufacturing. AMEXCI can design, optimize, test, and print parts from prototypes to volume production. Working across exacting industries, the firm is trying to take its partners Atlas Copco, Electrolux, ABB, Husqvarna, Hoganas, Saab, Scania, SKF, Stora Enso & Wartsila. But it works with other firms also in a collaborative approach that could be a method for other regions, clusters, or alliances to industrialize additive. This episode of the 3DPOD is brought to you by Continuum Powders, industry leaders in sustainable metal powder production. From aerospace to energy, Continuum delivers high-performance powders made from reclaimed materials without compromising quality. 

Boksluten och säsongen för utdelningsbesked är över oss och vi går igenom de stora kursrörelserna vi sett i många aktier. Dessutom vad vi tror om börsen under våren och resten av 2026.Aktierna vi nämner i podden är i tur och ordning Ericsson, Lagercrantz, Electrolux, Securitas, NCC, Billerud, Volvo Cars, ABB, Nvidia, Vitrolife, Bure, Mycronic, EQT, Avanza, Nordnet, Karnov, Diös, Castellum, Intea, Nordea, Veteranpoolen, IPC, Meren Energy, Shamaran, AkerBP, Vår Energi och Skolon. Börspanelens alla sajter hittar du här:shows.acast.com/tresmarta/aboutHernhag.seBorspsykologen.seSternersforlag.se Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Webinar page with video, slides, and moreWhat makes a Lean transformation last not just a few years, but two decades? At Electrolux, the answer wasn't more tools, more training, or more Kaizen events. The breakthrough came when the company realized that leadership behaviors — not Lean mechanics — were the deciding factor in whether improvement stuck.In this episode, Sandro Casagrande shares the story behind the Electrolux Manufacturing System (EMS), now in its 20th year. He explains why the early years of EMS produced uneven results, what changed when Electrolux shifted its focus to leadership habits, and how coaching routines, visual management, and leader standard work became the backbone of a sustainable improvement culture.Drawing from more than 30 years with Electrolux, Sandro details:• Why early EMS efforts succeeded in some plants but stalled in others• How leadership behaviors became the turning point in creating organizational habits• What neuroscience and habit loops taught Electrolux about sustaining change• How coaching — not directing — accelerates team development and problem solving• How sites reach gold and platinum performance levels, and why those gains hold even through turnover, new products, and process changes• Why zero-injury safety goals became both realistic and expected• How digitalization and platforms like KaiNexus now support global consistency and scaleSandro also lifts the curtain on Electrolux's leadership academy: a months-long experiential system where leaders learn by doing — running improvement cycles, receiving coaching, and ultimately becoming coaches themselves.If you're trying to build a culture where improvement happens every day, not just during events or crises, Sandro's journey offers practical, hard-earned insight into what it really takes.About the GuestSandro Casagrande is the Group Methodology & Documentation Leader at Electrolux. His Lean journey began in 1994, and he has been central to EMS from its earliest pilot projects through today's global digitalization efforts. He was the first Italian to achieve EMS Master Gear certification and continues to guide EMS implementation across all business areas.

A série Talks Estadão Mídia & Mkt traz as trajetórias, desafios e inovações na voz das lideranças da comunicação e do marketing. A primeira temporada é dedicada a mulheres de impacto – profissionais que estão transformando o mercado e redefinindo o futuro dessa indústria. No segundo episódio, Rita Lisauskas e Igor Ribeiro entrevistam Ana Peretti, VP de marketing e sustentabilidade da Electrolux Latam.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this preview episode, Mark Graban talks with Sandro Casagrande of Electrolux about the upcoming KaiNexus webinar: “Unlock the Power of Leadership: The Electrolux Manufacturing System (EMS) Way.”Register for the full webinar (Dec 10, 1 pm ET):https://info.kainexus.com/unlock-the-power-of-leadership-the-electrolux-management-system-ems-way/webinarSandro shares insights from more than 30 years at Electrolux, including:• How continuous improvement started with Total Quality Management in Italy• The evolution of EMS from early pilots to a global system• Why strong leadership behavior—not just tools and training—determines sustainability• Lessons learned from uneven progress across sites• How EMS Way reframed the company's strategy to focus on culture, people development, and leader capabilityIf you're interested in Lean, leadership, cultural transformation, or sustaining improvement across a global enterprise, this discussion sets the stage for a powerful webinar.Learn more about KaiNexus webinars: https://www.kainexus.com/webinars

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

Ken Holland, the legendary hockey executive, joins the show to discuss his surprising move to become Vice President and General Manager of the Los Angeles Kings. After a distinguished career that included building championship teams in Detroit and Edmonton, Holland shares insights on his transition to LA, his philosophy on team building, and what it takes to construct a Stanley Cup contender in the modern NHL.IN THIS EPISODE:[00:00] - Ken Holland joins the show and discusses his unexpected move to become VP/GM of the Los Angeles Kings after a stint in the NHL's hockey operations department.[01:00] - The Western roots that made the LA opportunity attractive, and Holland's relationship with Luke Robitaille and the Anschutz ownership group.[02:00] - A lighthearted look back at Holland's near-career as an Electrolux vacuum salesman before Neil Smith and Jim Devellano recruited him as a scout in 1985.[03:00] - Holland's analysis of his former team, the Edmonton Oilers, and what makes them different in their current playoff run.[05:00] - The Stuart Skinner question: understanding goaltender consistency and the pressure of playing in Canada with elite forwards.[07:00] - Holland's first priorities as Kings GM: decisions on key unrestricted free agents including Matt Roy on defense and David Rittich in goal.[10:00] - How team building has evolved over 30 years in the NHL, from Holland's days with Detroit to the modern salary cap era.[12:00] - The most important decisions a GM makes: the coach and the goaltender, plus the critical role of defensive structure.[15:00] - Evaluating Darcy Kuemper and the Kings' goaltending situation moving forward.[17:00] - Building the perfect roster: size, speed, skill, compete level, and why it's a two-goalie league.[20:00] - Will the league shift toward physicality after Florida's success, or will skill players remain premium assets?[23:00] - Holland's thoughts on the remaining playoff teams and what makes championship-caliber organizations.[25:00] - Reflecting on the mentorship of Neil Smith and Jim Devellano, and how a phone call in 1985 changed everything.X: https://twitter.com/NHLWraparoundNeil Smith: https://twitter.com/NYCNeilVic Morren: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vic-morren-7038737/NHL Wraparound Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nhlwraparound/#NHLWraparound #KenHolland #LosAngelesKings #EdmontonOilers #NeilSmith #VicMorren #NHL #DetroitRedWings #StuartSkinner #DarcyKuemper #LukeRobitaille #StanleyCup #HockeyGM #CalvinPickard #DrewDoughty #MattRoy #DavidRittich #RobBlake #BillRanford #WarrenFoegele #QuintonByfield #BrandtClarke #JimmyDevellano #ScottyBowman #ChrisChelios #Nicklidstrom #ConnorMcDavid #LeonDraisaitl #MattiaasEkholm #ChrisOsgood

How do you keep hotel laundry running when every minute counts? In today's episode, Steve Carran sits down on the trade show floor with Zach Yaeger, Business Development Manager at LaundryLux — a company making major waves in the hotel laundry and commercial laundry space.Zach shares how he went from college intern to spending 12+ years growing with LaundryLux, why their European-engineered Electrolux equipment is changing the game for hotels, and the biggest challenges they solve for hoteliers — especially fast lead times, reliability, and utility savings.What you'll learn in this episode: How LaundryLux stands out from other laundry companiesWhy technology and efficiency are becoming critical in hotel laundry roomsHow fast lead times and stocked equipment protect hotels from downtimeThe future of laundry in hospitality and growing demand nationwideWatch the FULL EPISODE on YouTube: https://youtu.be/WxkMXOo7Y2wLinks:Zach on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/zach-yaeger-77ab9499/LaundryLux: https://laundrylux.com/For full show notes head to: https://themodernhotelier.com/episode/228Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-...Join the conversation on today's episode on The Modern Hotelier LinkedIn pageConnect with Steve and David:Steve: https://www.linkedin.com/in/%F0%9F%8E...David: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-mil.

Nesse encontro reaprendi, atualizei e mudei minhas percepções sobre aposentadoria de recomeço voltada para quem planeja iniciar seu próprio negócio. Se antes tinha certezas, agora tenho muita curiosidade e vontade de ir mais a fundo. Este é meu convite para um instigante e didatico conteúdo com Maria Augusta Orofino, ou simplesmente “Guta”, que vem se destacando como uma influente especialista no tema Empreendedorismo e Inovação para o publico Senior 50+, com anos ministrando treinamentos, cursos, mentorias e consultorias a muitos executivos e empresarios no Brasil. Ela é Mestre em Gestão do Conhecimento com cursos de extensão realizados na Duke Universitye UC Berkeley –USA e Universidade de Barcelona -Espanha, considerada como um dos 50 nomes multiplicadores da criatividade no Brasil, em 2022, pela revista WiredFestival e premiada pela ABTD-PR como Personalidade do Ano em RH, em 2021 e Top ofMind HSM Academy2021 e 2022, com um portfólio que inclui empresas como: M. Dias Branco, Vale, TIM, Claro, Electrolux, Ultracargo, Mitutoyo, DOW Quimica, Abbot, Unilever entre outras. Autora do livro Liderança para Inovação. Co-autora dos livros Jornada Ágil, Business Model You, Estrategista Visual e #BoraInspirar. Professora da ESPM, HSM Academye Sustentare. Conteudista e apresentadora de programas de capacitação na UOL Edtech, Grupo Anima e HSM University. Após toda essa vivencia e experiencia ao longo de sua carreira desenvolveu um método único e constantemente atualizado, especialmente pensado para profissionais que passam anos adquirindo habilidades e conhecimento dentro das empresas, mas que em dado momento da vida sentem que chegou o momento de escrever um novo capítulo da sua história. Através da mentoria pelo MÉTODO SILVER - Empreende 50+, Guta auxilia diversas empresas a saírem do sonho distante para o mundo real ou digital! Atualmente seus projetos preparam empresas para os desafios do futuro do trabalho, aliando estratégia, cultura e desenvolvimento de pessoas. Sua crença se baseia em que a transformação das organizações começa por inspirar e fortalecer indivíduos, por isso, cada ação que conduz busca gerar não apenas resultados sustentáveis, mas também relações de confiança, engajamento e propósito. Vem conosco se questionar se este é um caminho possível para o seu futuro e validar se há novos dados, fatos, conhecimentos que possam acender a chama de inovação que despertará seu instinto de empresário Senior. Afinal de contas, parafraseando um dito popular: empreender e coçar, é só começar! Para contatar nossa convidada ou saber mais do tema: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariaaugustaorofino/Site: www.mariaaugusta.com.brInstagram: @‌mariaaugustaorofino Ou contate diretamente através do e-mail falecom@mariaaugusta.com.br ! Acompanhe o Tábula Rasa nas redes sociais:– Facebook– Instagram– LinkedIn– Threads– X/Twitter– YouTube Ouça o Tábula Rasa nos principais agregadores:- Spotify- Apple Podcasts- Deezer- Amazon Music- PocketCasts O Tabula Rasa é produzido pela Rádiofobia Podcast e Multimídia e publicado pela Rádiofobia Podcast Network.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 Bhavana Mittal | Co-Founder,  Executive Director, Chief Growth Officer Bert labs Awarded Marketing, Media, Digital professional, Speaker, Advisory Board Member and Jury member for various industry associations, Yoga teacher (YT200) with 25+ years of experience. At Bert Labs, Bhavana plays a crucial role with intertwined functions. She serves as the visionary leader, setting the strategic direction for the company and ensuring that its mission aligns with the rapidly evolving tech landscape. She provides overall guidance, supervises the executive team, and maintain a strong connection with the board of directors to secure support for innovative ventures.On the other hand, at Bert Labs Bhavana fuels growth in the dynamic environment. She identifies opportunities, forging strategic partnerships, and driving revenue through the introduction of Bert Platform Solution and products in the market. She keeps a keen eye on market trends, harnessing data analytics to inform product development and marketing strategies, and fostering customer engagement to ensure the company's offerings are precisely tailored to meet emerging requirements. Bhavana drives the leadership team that balances visionary direction with actionable growth initiatives, propelling Bert Labs to success in the competitive tech landscape.Her career trajectory prior to Bert Labs has been:VP (Head) – Media and Digital at RPSG Group where Bhavana worked across all the Group businesses, including Saregama Caravan, Too Yumm!, Naturali, Spencer's, Nature's Basket, Fortune India, Open, Hello! Magazine, RPSG Sports (including Lucknow SuperGiants)Regional Head – Media, Digital and Communication, South Asia at Reckitt Benckiser, working across Digital and Media for all brands including Dettol, Durex, Harpic, Lizol, Vanish, Veet etc. Was a part of the integration team for Mead Johnson into RB. India represenative for Digital CoEHead – Media and CSR, India Sub-continent for GSK Consumer Healthcare, working across all brands including Horlicks, Boost, Eno, Crocin, Iodex, etc. Launched Sensodyne in India successfully. Headed Indirect Procurement for the initial 2 years. Was a part of the integration team for Novartisinto GSKCH. Led Global taskforce for strategic initiatives Manager and Head, Media Audit as part of Accenture Consulting. Set up the practice for Indian and International ClientsMedia Director/Head of Media at Cheil Communications, for Samsung and Hyundai business. Launched Samsung Mobile phones and LEDs, Samsung Side-by-side refrigerators, Hyundai Tuscon and Hyundai Sonata during her stint Media Director at Initiative Media for LG, Revlon and Nestle business Manager at Maximize (GroupM) for NIIT, Electrolux, JK Tyres business Media Supervisor at Universal McCann for Reckitt Benckiser, Indiatimes Media Executive at Saatchi & Saatchi, launched Hyundai, Santro and Accent in India Industry  

Send us a textWelcome to another episode of Laundromat Resource! In this week's edition of Laundromat News Today, your New Anchor Jordan Berry dives into the latest happenings shaping the laundromat industry. From highlights at the recent Clean Show—including Maytag's Outstanding Distributor Awards and exciting innovation winners like Electrolux's new Tosai combo washer-dryer—to must-attend upcoming events like the Laundry CEO Forum in Dallas and the exclusive Laundromat Accelerator retreat in Hawaii, Jordan has you covered. Plus, get the scoop on celebrity encounters in laundromats (hello, Mike Tyson!), the growing impact of major brands like Tide and Kathy Ireland Laundry, and why building a strong laundromat brand is more crucial than ever. Tune in for industry insights, practical tips, and all the big news that's making real waves in the world of laundromats.Show notes: https://www.laundromatresource.com/laundromat-news-september-06-2025/Have news, big or small, about your laundromat or your laundromat industry-supporting business? Send your press release to news@laundromatresource.com to be featured on a future episode of Laundromat News Today.Don't Miss Out! Make sure you're subscribed to the Laundromat Resource Newsletter to catch all links, articles, and updates from this and every episode. If you have thoughts on AI folding robots—or anything else laundromat related—reply and let us know! We love hearing from you.Join us in Hawaii for the Laundromat Accelerator Hawaii!https://laundromatresource.com/hawaiiLaundry CEO Forum Returns to Dallas - October 5-7, 2025, with Exclusive CEO-Level Programming for Laundry Leadershttps://www.laundromatresource.com/laundry-ceo-forum-returns-to-dallas-october-57-2025-with-exclusive-ceo-level-programming-for-laundry-leaders/Connect With UsYouTubeInstagramFacebookLinkedInTwitterTikTok

Ana Vernaza, gerente general de Electrolux para la región Andina by Diario La república

Guest: Alex Smereczniak— Serial entrepreneur, former CEO of 2ULaundry & Laundry Lab (over $100M valuation, 118 franchises sold), founder of Franzy (30,000+ monthly users, $3M+ raised to help people buy “cash-flowing” businesses). Early Hustles & First Big Win: Started with classic entrepreneurial pursuits: trading cards, washing cars as a kid, and then running a laundry delivery business (“Wake Wash”) in college, which he bought for $30,000 and sold for nearly $300,000 after systematizing and scaling it. Learned about discounted cash flow, buy/sell agreements, and the real value of recurring cash flow and business structure early on. Scaling, Strategy, and Differentiation: Moved from a student business to working for a Big Four consulting firm (Ernst & Young), but quickly realized he needed to build businesses—not just advise them. Launched 2ULaundry in 2016: delivered laundry/dry cleaning to homes and businesses, quickly scaling through tech and operations, later vertically integrating by building brick-and-mortar laundromats with Electrolux, and ultimately franchising the model for rapid growth. Grew Laundry Lab to 118 franchise awards and 30 locations open as of 2025. Laundromats as a Business Model: Low failure rate due to essential, “recession proof” services—people always need clean clothes—combined with cash-flow and passive income advantages. The “Power Play”: Buy from retiring owners, retool equipment over time, tap into durable local demand. Challenges, Automation & Venture Backing: Success meant more than cash-flow: his companies required operational discipline, vertical integration, and large capital outlays (laundromat builds exceed $1M). Venture capital was attracted by the “Uber for Laundry” home-delivery angle, but Alex's model matured into a blend of tech, local infrastructure, and scalable franchising. Why Franchising Needs Disruption — Enter Franzy: Traditional franchise placement is “Wild West,” with brokers sometimes pocketing up to 60% of franchise fees, influencing which opportunities new entrepreneurs see. Franzy's mission: Take a “Zillow for Franchising” approach—leverage AI for franchise matching (across 4000+ brands), standardized fees, and transparency to empower more everyday people to buy real businesses. Focuses on each buyer's risk profile, lifestyle, and goals; not just “make the most money,” but “fit the best business to the person.” Franchise Trends & Business Models to Watch: Still bullish on laundromats for certain profiles (cash-flow, de-risked, lifestyle), but now sees huge growth in health & wellness, home services, and viral consumer brands (e.g. PopUp Bagels, HRT clinics, anything innovating with AI or “cult” followings). Anticipates continued “displacement” of white-collar jobs by AI; business ownership, franchising, and “betting on yourself” are the safest long-term play for income and autonomy. Connect with Alex & Learn More: https://franzy.com/ https://www.instagram.com/alexfromfranzy/

In today's high-volume service environments, the smallest misstep can erode both efficiency and customer trust. In this episode, Eric Rivas, Director for Service Repair at Electrolux, joins Emerj Editorial Director Matthew DeMello to share how frontline data and technician expertise can be better captured, organized, and applied to deliver consistent, first-visit success. Rivas advises service leaders on best practices for approaching the challenges of tribal knowledge transfer, skill development, and diagnostic accuracy in large service organizations. He also breaks down the build-versus-buy dilemma facing many service leaders when it comes to new technology—and why effective partnerships often prove more valuable than internal development. Listeners will gain insights into balancing efficiency with reliability, empowering frontline teams, and building long-term trust with customers at scale. Want to share your AI adoption story with executive peers? Click emerj.com/expert2 for more information and to be a potential future guest on the ‘AI in Business' podcast! This episode is sponsored by Aquant. Learn how brands work with Emerj and other Emerj Media options at emerj.com/ad1.

Det finns många intressanta aktier där ute, trots lågkonjunktur och annan oro. Vi går igenom rapportfloden, amerikanska teknikjättar samt vad vi tror om börshösten och den långa trenden. I podden kommer ett bokerbjudande.Aktierna vi nämner i podden är i tur och ordning Sandvik, Atlas Copco, Alfa Laval, Nelly, Dynavox, Note, Betsson, ABB, Hexagon, Tele2, Electrolux, Indutrade, Vitec, Novo Nordisk, Nvidia, Tesla, Apple, Microsoft, Broadcom, SEB, Nordea, Addtech. Lagercrantz. Lundin Mining, Bonesupport, Camurus, I-tech, Plejd, Zinzino, Hansa, Intellego, Coinshare, VNV, VEF, Arjo, Medcap och Linc. Börspanelens alla sajter hittar du här:shows.acast.com/tresmarta/aboutHernhag.seBorspsykologen.seSternersforlag.se Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lola Akinmade Åkerström is an award-winning visual storyteller, international bestselling author, and travel entrepreneur. She has dispatched from over 80+ countries and her work has been featured in National Geographic, New York Times, The Sunday Times, The Guardian, BBC, CNN, Travel Channel, Travel + Leisure, Lonely Planet, Forbes, and many more. She has collaborated with commercial brands such as Dove, Getty Images, Mercedes Benz, Intrepid Travel, Electrolux, ASUS, and National Geographic Channel, to name a few. As a storyteller, Lola was featured on Condé Nast Traveler's Women Who Travel Power List. She was named one of the Most Influential Women in Travel by Travel Pulse, a 2022 Hasselblad Heroine and Bill Muster Travel Photographer of the Year. She was also honoured with a MIPAD 100 (Most Influential People of African Descent) Award within media and culture and a Newsweek Future of Travel Storytelling Award.  Her book, Due North, received the Lowell Thomas Gold Award for Best Travel Book, and she is also the author of international bestselling "LAGOM: The Swedish Secret of Living Well" available in over 15 foreign language editions.  Her internationally-acclaimed novel, "In Every Mirror She's Black", was a Good Morning America (GMA) Buzz Pick, Apple Editors' Pick, Amazon Editors' Pick,  Independent UK "Best Thought-provoking Story", and was shortlisted for the Bad Form Review Book of the Year. Her novel, EVERYTHING IS NOT ENOUGH, is an NAACP Image Award Nominee for Outstanding Literature, Jennette McCurdy Book Club Pick, a Washington Post, Sunday Times, and Amazon Editors' Pick, amongst others. Her latest novel, BITTER HONEY, was published in May 2025. As an entrepreneur, she runs Stockholm-based creative storytelling agency Geotraveler Media and online academy, Geotraveler Media Academy, which runs photography experiences around the world and is dedicated to visual storytelling and helping the next generation of travel storytellers put the heart back into the craft. To learn more about Lola Akinmade Akerström: Links - Media Kit  |  Portfolio Director, Geotraveler Media Social - LinkedIn | Instagram

At the recent Treasury 360° Nordic 2025 conference in Stockholm, Eleanor Hill (TMI) sat down with Paulo Kubis (Electrolux Professional) to discuss how he built a treasury function from the ground up following the company's spin-off.  Paulo shares practical insights on simplifying processes, building a high-performance team, and delivering a standout debut in the Swedish debt capital markets.

Last year, Elon Musk's xAI set up its "Colossus" supercomputer in an old Electrolux manufacturing facility in Memphis, Tennessee. Now, the residents of nearby neighborhoods are pushing for facts and fair treatment as the company looks to expand its footprint amid questions about its environmental impact. Justin Hendrix considers the state of play with Dara Kerr, a reporter for The Guardian; Amber Sherman, a Memphis activist; and artifacts from local media reporting over the past year.

Japp, du läste rätt – den här veckan svarar vi även på en bonusfråga, och det är inte vilken fråga som helst. Hur gör man egentligen för att få till de där små beteendeförändringarna som ger stor effekt för en själv och andra? Och visste du att minimala ändringar i hur vi tvättar kan göra dramatisk skillnad till det bättre? I betalt samarbete med Electrolux. Vill du slippa reklamen? Prenumerera på Dumma Människor för 19 kr/månaden (ink moms). https://plus.acast.com/s/dummamanniskor. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@GenerativeAIMeetup   https://www.anthropic.com/news/the-anthropic-economic-index https://x.com/xai/status/1891699715298730482 - Grok 3 http://x.com/karpathy/status/1891720635363254772 https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/innovation/microsofts-majorana-1-chip-carves-new-path-for-quantum-computing/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88vEsL5tgDI Grok 3 -Elon Musk new model - Seems to be a very brute-force approach (which is working) - Definitely a state of the art model - 40 dollars a month now - https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/19/x-doubles-its-premium-plan-prices-after-xai-releases-grok-3/ - 100,000 GPUs Majorana - Uses a particle called the Majorana - https://www.howtopronounce.com/ettore-majorana - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana - Ettore Majorana disappeared soon after theorizing this particle in 1937 he disappeared in 1938 although thought to be alive - A majorana is a fermion that has its own antiparticle - this was originally theorized in 1937 - The particle has its own charge... and own antiparticle - it has a new topological state... which is a new state of matter - Has has 8 quibits - Is designed to scale to a million quibits - To break bitcoin you might need ~1500 to 5000 logical quibits - A quibit can be used to represent potentially infinite states Figure AI - Helix - https://www.figure.ai/news/helix - Vision-Language-Action (VLA) - Full-upper-body control - Multi Robot collaboration - Pick up anything - Single neural network to build this, no specific fine tuning - https://www.figure.ai/news/helix - Has a slow System 2 and a fast system 1 neural network - system 2 -- 7B - system 1 -- 80M   Get ready to explore the frontiers of technology in this exciting episode! We unpack the latest breakthroughs driving us toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and beyond, with a mix of mind-blowing advancements and thought-provoking discussions: Grok 3 Unveiled: Elon Musk's xAI has dropped Grok 3, a powerhouse AI model dominating benchmarks and redefining what large language models can achieve. We dive into its stellar performance, its bold “no-filter” approach to information, and how it stacks up against heavyweights like Claude 3.5, OpenAI's offerings, and Google's latest.   Quantum Leap Forward: Microsoft's Majorana-based quantum chip is here, promising to scale quantum computing to a million qubits. We simplify the tech behind it, explore its potential to transform everything from cryptography to drug design, and ponder what it means for simulating reality itself.   Robots in Action: Figure AI's Helix brings us two humanoid robots teaming up to tackle chores like grocery unpacking. We marvel at their teamwork, laugh at their quirky moves, and discuss the hurdles and possibilities of general-purpose robotics in our everyday lives.   But it's not all tech demos and breakthroughs. We wrestle with the big stuff too: Are we inching closer to AGI? How do quantum computing, AI, and robotics fuel each other's progress? And what happens when unrestricted AI or quantum tech shakes up ethics—like privacy or security? Perfect for AI buffs, tech pros, or anyone curious about tomorrow, this episode blends sharp insights, lively debates, and a dash of humor. Jump in to stay ahead in the fast-moving world of generative AI! Listen now and join the discussion! Chapters:   0:00 - Introduction: The AGI RevolutionOpening remarks about how close we are to AGI and the recent breakthroughs 2:15 - Grok 3: The New AI BenchmarkDiscussion of Grok 3's capabilities and performance compared to other models 7:30 - Elon's 122-Day Data CenterHow Elon Musk converted an old Electrolux factory into a massive AI data center 11:45 - The Computing Power Behind GrokDetails about the 100,000+ GPUs and diesel generators powering Grok's training 15:20 - Why Grok "Just Feels Better"Analysis of what makes Grok 3 outperform other models in real-world use cases 19:40 - AI Guardrails: Freedom vs. SafetyThe ethical debate around AI content restrictions and guardrails 25:15 - The Cat and Mouse Game of AI SafetyHow users bypass AI safety measures and what it means for regulation 30:00 - Anthropic's Economic IndexSurprising data about how people actually use AI tools in practice 36:30 - Programming: AI's Killer AppWhy coding dominates AI usage and how models excel at verifiable tasks 42:15 - The $40 AI RevolutionGrok's pricing strategy and why it's disrupting the AI market 47:00 - Microsoft's Quantum Computing BreakthroughThe Majorana One and the mysterious physicist behind it 53:45 - The Path to One Million QubitsHow Microsoft plans to scale quantum computing in the next few years 58:30 - The Future of AI: Multiple Paths to AGIConcluding thoughts on how different technologies are converging toward AGI 1:02:15 - Final Thoughts: Tuesday Will Be InterestingClosing remarks on the rapid pace of AI development  

"...if we could put people in the water and teach them to surf, we'd actually have to force them to suck at something again...In business, you don't teach people to fail because failure is not an option. But our best learnings come from failure..." Chapters: 00:00 Introduction to Brian Formato and Groove Management 06:31 Innovative Learning Approaches in Leadership Development 15:01 Feedback and Impact of Leader Surf Program 20:54 Patience and Intensity in Leadership 27:04 Finding Your Groove 35:27 Rapid Fire Insights Episode Summary: In this conversation, Shannon Cassidy interviews Brian Formato, founder of Groove Management and creator of Leader Surf. Brian shares his journey from a challenging corporate career to establishing a unique leadership development program that combines surfing with personal growth. He emphasizes the importance of selfless leadership, the need for innovative learning approaches, and the impact of generosity in creating a ripple effect in leadership. The discussion also explores the parallels between surfing and leadership, highlighting the significance of patience, intensity, and celebrating success. In this conversation, Brian Formato discusses the significance of creating a culture of generosity within leadership and organizations. He emphasizes the importance of feedback, self-awareness, and the impact of small gestures in leadership. The discussion also touches on the value of time as a resource and how it can be used to foster relationships and personal growth. Brian shares personal anecdotes and insights on thriving in both personal and professional life, culminating in a rapid-fire segment that reveals his thoughts on various topics. R.O.G. Takeaway Tips: Groove Management focuses on what's right rather than what's wrong. Generosity in leadership creates a ripple effect that benefits others. Patience and intensity are crucial traits for effective leaders. Celebrating successes is vital for team morale and motivation. Learning to fail gracefully is an important part of growth. Finding one's groove is a personal and professional journey.   Creating a culture of generosity starts with intentionality. Time is a valuable resource that should be invested in others. Vulnerability in leadership is a strength, not a weakness. Investing in relationships is key to living a fulfilling life. Guest Bio: Brian Formato is the founder of Groove Management, an executive coaching, strategic planning and human capital consulting firm, and the creator of LeaderSurf, an adventurous development program for business leaders of all backgrounds, industries and corners of the world who want to break old habits and create lasting change. Brian has 25+ years of experience developing leaders and organizational capabilities inside of companies in a variety of industries including financial services, software, digital marketing, telecommunications, industrials, construction equipment and publishing as well as non-profit organizations. He has served in diverse roles including HR management, leadership and organizational development, corporate communications, and digital marketing. He launched Groove Management in 2014 to help first time CEOs step into new and uncharted waters inherent with their unique roles. He is known for his work with executive teams, taking them outside of their four walls to address tough business challenges, and create new experiences that build trust and prompt change. His practice offers executive coaching, leadership effectiveness and development, organizational development, behavior-based leader branding, and alignment during change (early change company growth, post-merger integration and venture capital) services. Brian pairs appreciative inquiry with a balanced leadership approach rooted in science, service and self to help leaders find their groove, learn to fail in order to succeed and adopt leadership practices centered on service to others and oneself. He often “sees the simple” that we can't see when we are too close, and turns the simple into actionable insights with questions like “Would I thrive working for me?” Brian coaches senior leaders and CEOs in a wide range of companies and industries. Coaching client organizations include Starbucks, Workday, Circle K, Electrolux, Propel, Toast, VisLink, Reltio, Databricks and several others. Brian earned a bachelor's degree in business administration from Eckerd College and a master's in organization development from American University. He is certified in REACH Quotient, Myers Briggs, Birkmann, TKI, Conflict Dynamics Profile, and Brand You. Resources: GrooveManagement.com www.leadersurf.com Where to find R.O.G. Podcast: R.O.G on YouTube R.O.G on Apple Podcasts R.O.G on Spotify How diverse is your network?  N.D.I. Network Diversity Index What is your Generosity Style?  Generosity Quiz Credits: Brian Formato, Sheep Jam Productions, Host Shannon Cassidy, Bridge Between, Inc. Coming Next: Please join us next week, Episode 213, Host, Shannon Cassidy.

On this Live Greatly podcast episode, Kristel Bauer sits down with Willie Pietersen, author of  Leadership—The Inside Story: Time-Tested Prescriptions for Those Who Seek To Lead. Willie shares stories, experiences and the secret sauce of leadership learned from his time being CEO of multibillion-dollar businesses, a professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business, and a consultant to some of the world's biggest and best-known organizations.  Tune in now! Key Takeaways From This Episode How leadership is all about people Some big lessons Willie learned amid his leadership journey How to get better at receving feedback and why it is important Stories about what makes a great leader About Willie Pietersen: Willie Pietersen was raised in South Africa, and received a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University. After practicing law, he embarked on an international business career. Over a period of twenty years he served as the CEO of multibillion-dollar businesses such as Lever Foods, Seagram USA, Tropicana and Sterling Winthrop's Consumer Health Group. In 1998, Willie was named Professor of the Practice of Management at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business. He specializes in strategy and the leadership of change, and his methods and ideas, especially Strategic Learning, are widely applied within Columbia's executive education programs, and also in numerous corporations. He has served as a teacher and advisor to many global companies, including Aviva, Bausch & Lomb, Boeing, Chubb Corp., Deloitte, DePuy, Electrolux, Ericsson, ExxonMobil, Henry Schein, Inc., Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, Novartis, Salt River Project, SAP, UGI, United Nations Federal Credit Union and also the Girl Scouts of the USA. Willie is the author of three books and numerous articles. His latest book is Leadership—The Inside Story: Time-Tested Prescriptions for Those Who Seek to Lead. Connect with Willie: Website: https://williepietersen.com/  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/willie-pietersen-286b149/  Get Willie's Book: https://williepietersen.com/books/leadership-the-inside-story-time-tested-prescriptions-for-those-who-seek-to-lead/  About the Host of the Live Greatly podcast, Kristel Bauer: Kristel Bauer is a corporate wellness expert, popular keynote and TEDx speaker, and the host of top-rated self-improvement podcast “Live Greatly”.  Kristel is an Integrative Medicine Fellow & Physician Assistant with clinical experience in Integrative Psychiatry, giving her a unique perspective into optimizing mental well-being and attaining a mindset for more happiness and success in the workplace and beyond. Kristel decided to leave clinical practice in 2019 when she founded her wellness platform “Live Greatly” to share her message around well-being and success on a larger scale.  With a mission to support companies and individuals on their journeys for more happiness, success, and well-being, Kristel taps into her unique background in healthcare, business, and media, to provide invaluable insights into high power habits, leadership development, mental well-being, peak performance, resilience, sales, success, wellness at work, and a modern approach to work/life balance.  Kristel is the author of Work-Life Tango: Finding Happiness, Harmony and Peak Performance Wherever You Work (John Murray Business November 19, 2024).  Kristel is a contributing writer for Entrepreneur and she is an influencer in the business and wellness space having been recognized as a Top 10 Social Media Influencer of 2021 in Forbes. A popular speaker on a variety of topics, Kristel has presented to groups at APMP, Bank of America, Commercial Metals Company, General Mills, Northwestern University, Mazda, Santander Bank and many more. She has been featured in Forbes, Forest & Bluff Magazine, Authority Magazine & Podcast Magazine, has contributed to CEOWORLD Magazine & Real Leaders Magazine, and has appeared on ABC 7 Chicago, WGN Daytime Chicago, Fox 4's WDAF-TV's Great Day KC and Ticker News. Kristel lives in the Chicago area with her husband and their 2 children.  She can be booked for speaking engagements worldwide. To Book Kristel as a speaker for your next event, click here. Website: www.livegreatly.co  Follow Kristel Bauer on: Instagram: @livegreatly_co  LinkedIn: Kristel Bauer Twitter: @livegreatly_co Facebook: @livegreatly.co Youtube: Live Greatly, Kristel Bauer To Watch Kristel Bauer's TEDx talk of Redefining Work/Life Balance in a COVID-19 World click here. Click HERE to check out Kristel's corporate wellness and leadership blog Click HERE to check out Kristel's Travel and Wellness Blog Disclaimer: The contents of this podcast are intended for informational and educational purposes only. Always seek the guidance of your physician for any recommendations specific to you or for any questions regarding your specific health, your sleep patterns changes to diet and exercise, or any medical conditions.  Always consult your physician before starting any supplements or new lifestyle programs. All information, views and statements shared on the Live Greatly podcast are purely the opinions of the authors, and are not medical advice or treatment recommendations.  They have not been evaluated by the food and drug administration.  Opinions of guests are their own and Kristel Bauer & this podcast does not endorse or accept responsibility for statements made by guests.  Neither Kristel Bauer nor this podcast takes responsibility for possible health consequences of a person or persons following the information in this educational content.  Always consult your physician for recommendations specific to you.