Podcasts about EPO

We removed all the cutlery from our house before this great episode! The main science discussion was on a new study looking at reproducibility of adaptations in individual athletes. The relatively surprising finding is that there was no significant correlation in how the same athlete responds to the same intervention across time. We discuss what that means for training science. The word “holistic” is coming in hot.We also talked about a new study on post-exercise ketones, finding a 15% increase in natural EPO levels. Even knowing that, we aren't recommending ketones to many athletes we coach. What's going on? The disclaimers will blot out the sun.And this one was full of fun topics! Other topics: when good butter knives go bad, Tom Evans doing the coolest downhill training on the treadmill, new trail supershoe data, a study on carb intake and bone health, and how collagen may impact bone health for female athletes. Plus questions on breathing, uphill treadmill miles, breakups, programming workouts, coaching communication, and more.We love you all! HUZZAH!-David and MeganClick "Get 40% Off" button for 40% off at The Feed here: thefeed.com/swapBuy Janji's amazing gear: https://janji.com (code "SWAP")20% flash deal for the Wahoo Kickr Run treadmill on Wednesday: https://www.wahoofitness.com/devices/running/treadmills/kickr-run-buy (code “SWAP”)For training plans, weekly bonus podcasts, heart rate zones, articles, and videos: patreon.com/swap

Join The Real Science of Sport Supporters club for ad-free listening and our exclusive weekly Applied Science show! A monthly donation is all takes!This week's Spotlight opens in Paris, where Roland Garros has delivered one of the most chaotic and compelling Grand Slams in recent memory, and ends on a Las Vegas track with a promise of $10 million unlikely to be fulfilled. Along the way, we explore retirements and comebacks, bike weight scandals, regulatory issues and a surprising way to boost your red blood cells.In today's Show:For the first time in the Open era, not a single former Grand Slam champion reached the men's round of 16. Ross and Gareth try to make sense of a tournament turned on its head by epically long five-set matches, multiple two-set-up defeats, and the emergence of potential new stars to challenge the duopoly atop men's tennisSinner is gone, Djokovic is gone, and the heat played a starring role. We revisit our applied show on heat adaptation to explain exactly why Sinner's implosion was both predictable physiologically, but surprising in its speed and persistenceSerena Williams has accepted a wildcard to play doubles at Queen's at 44. We explore the motivations for her return, and discuss why elite athletes retire in the first place? A thread on Discourse sparked by James gets us exploring the psychology and physiology of retirement, and why the grind we don't see is often the causeIn cycling, Lorena Wiebes was disqualified from the women's Giro after her bike allegedly weighed in 20 grams under the UCI's 6.8kg minimum. Was the punishment proportionate? Is the UCI's measurement process up to the required standard? Are SD Worx guilty of playing it too close to the limit? We discuss.A Belgian court has ruled against the UCI's attempt to impose gear ratio limits on the sport, finding the regulation neither necessary nor proportionate. We explore the implications well beyond cycling, and ponder how the UCI's failure to present a clear justification for the regulation was ultimately its undoingTilting your bed by six degrees could raise your EPO levels by 13% and increase hemoglobin mass by nearly 5%. Ross unpacks a genuinely fascinating new study, explaining why the mechanism is the same as altitude and heat training, whether the effect will be additive in athletes, and whether elite athletes are already quietly propping up their headboardsA carbohydrate question from supporter Tony ahead of his national canoe championships: does glycogen depletion in one muscle group affect availability elsewhere? Ross explains the elegant logic of local storage and use, the lactate shuttle, and why liver is the unsung hero of endurance fuellingAnd Finally, the Enhanced Games have announced a $10 million bonus for anyone who breaks Usain Bolt's 100m world record at their 2027 event. We discuss whether that will be enough to entice the truly fast man to race, doped or clean, and what it might mean for athlete's participation in the Olympics following an Enhanced Games Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Conductor Roger Kalia and Development Director Weston Whitehouse are here with a sneak peek at EPO's upcoming season (and yes, Star Wars is back!) Click for more!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Conductor Roger Kalia and Development Director Weston Whitehouse are here with a sneak peek at the upcoming EPO season! (Yes, Star Wars is back!) Click for all the details!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

L’Agenzia Europea dei brevetti ha da poco pubblicato un report che fa il punto sui trend di innovazione nel riciclo delle batterie, un settore in fortissima crescita date le prospettive di volumi sempre crescenti di batterie al litio che giungeranno a fine vita. Se per anni si è invocato l’avvento di filiere del riciclo, oggi i volumi di batterie esauste hanno raggiunto una massa critica sufficiente a giustificare i primi impianti di riciclo su grande scala; ma soprattutto, ci si prepara a quanto ci attende nei prossimi anni. A dimostrarlo c’è l’enorme crescita dei brevetti che coprono le varie fasi del riciclo, cresciuti del 43% in un anno. E se la Cina domina anche questa classifica, all’Europa è riconducibile il 20% delle famiglie dei brevetti del settore, concentrati soprattutto sulla raccolta delle batterie usate e sulla trasformazione chimica volta al recupero delle materie prime. Ne parliamo con Roberta Romano-Götsch, Chief sustainability officer dell'EPO.

Go check out our FREE Skool community, it's got amazing tools in there and a thriving community of cyclists - https://www.skool.com/roadman/aboutIn July 1998, a routine customs stop on a quiet road between Belgium and France cracked open the biggest scandal cycling had ever seen. Inside a team car heading to the Tour de France was enough EPO, testosterone, and syringes to expose a secret the sport had spent years hiding. But the drugs were only the beginning. What followed was chaos: police raids, rider strikes, shattered heroes, and a Tour de France collapsing in real time. The Festina Affair didn't just expose one team — it revealed an entire system. And the deeper you look, the stranger the story becomesOne of the tools you will have heard Anthony chat about in this podcast is Training Peaks. Without this platform we can't get into the detail required to pricesly train within zones. If you want to go and check out this incredible training tool go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4qWyEKK⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and use ROADMAN – 20% off an annual TrainingPeaks Premium subscription⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Parlee Cycles ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠"Whether it's a tough day, a gruelling training session, an epic road trip or sitting on the side of the road, exhausted and wondering how you'll get to the top... The answer is regularly to just get back in the saddle and ride. Ride The F...ing Bike. RTFB!"Go check out their amazing bikes at https://www.parleecycles.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠4Endurance⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Pro level fuel, made accessible. Myself and Sarah trust 4Endurance for all our fuelling needs. Their reange is HUGE and won't break the bank. Go check them out here https://4endurance.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠BIKMO⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bikmo protects you and your bike fromtheft, accidental damage, race-day disasters, and even baggage claim shenanigans. Yourhelmet, GPS, and other kit are covered too. Got more than one bike? Of course you do – you get 50% off each extra bike on the same policy.Protect your ride before it's too late – head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bikmo.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to get covered. 

In dieser Folge zu Gast: Professor Dr. Fritz Sörgel – Pharmakologe, Dopingexperte und einer der bekanntesten Kritiker der sogenannten „Enhanced Games“. Gemeinsam sprechen wir über eine Frage, die den Sport in den nächsten Jahren komplett verändern könnte: Was passiert, wenn Doping plötzlich erlaubt wird? Fritz Sörgel erklärt, wie Dopingmittel wie EPO, Anabolika, Wachstumshormone oder Asthmamittel wirklich im Körper wirken – und warum viele Menschen die Risiken massiv unterschätzen. Dabei geht es nicht nur um Leistungssport, sondern um Milliardeninvestoren, neue Medikamente, politische Interessen und die Frage, ob der Sport, wie wir ihn kennen, gerade vor einem historischen Wendepunkt steht. Besonders spannend: Fritz spricht offen darüber, warum viele Dopingmittel ursprünglich lebensrettende Medikamente waren, wie Athleten versuchen, Kontrollen zu umgehen – und weshalb manche Methoden selbst für Experten kaum noch nachweisbar sind. Außerdem erklärt er, warum die „Enhanced Games“ für ihn keine Sportveranstaltung sind, sondern Teil eines viel größeren Experiments. Dieses Interview ist Teil einer Dokumentation über die Enhanced Games in Las Vegas in 2026. Die ganze Dokumentation findest du hier: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5ArZyJ9bk0OV8WaYi1dMKB Schlüsselbegriffe: Enhanced Games, Doping, Fritz Sörgel, Olympia auf Steroiden, Leistungssport, Sportethik, Anabolika, EPO, Spitzensport, Anti-Doping #EnhancedGames #Doping #Sport #Dokumentation #Olympia Links: Supporte den Podcast auf Steady: https://steady.page/de/inspirierend-anders/about Zur Homepage: https://inspirierendanders.com Dein eigener Podcast: https://bakuba.eu

In dieser Folge zu Gast: Christoph Binkelmann – wissenschaftlicher Projektkoordinator an der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und Experte für die gesellschaftliche Dimension von Doping und Enhancement. Gemeinsam sprechen wir über die Enhanced Games und die Frage, ob sie wirklich nur ein Sport-Skandal sind – oder ein Spiegel unserer Gesellschaft. Christoph erklärt, warum Doping nicht nur als Betrug im Sport betrachtet werden sollte, sondern auch als Ausdruck einer Welt, in der Selbstoptimierung längst normal geworden ist. Ob KI in Prüfungen, Medikamente zur Leistungssteigerung oder der ständige Druck, besser, fitter und produktiver zu sein: Die Grenze zwischen Sport und Gesellschaft verschwimmt immer mehr. Dieses Interview ist Teil einer Dokumentation über die Enhanced Games in Las Vegas in 2026. Die ganze Dokumentation findest du hier: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5ArZyJ9bk0OV8WaYi1dMKB Schlüsselbegriffe: Enhanced Games, Doping, Christoph Binkelmann, Olympia auf Steroiden, Leistungssport, Sportethik, Anabolika, EPO, Spitzensport, Anti-Doping #EnhancedGames #Doping #Sport #Dokumentation #Olympia Links: Supporte den Podcast auf Steady: https://steady.page/de/inspirierend-anders/about Zur Homepage: https://inspirierendanders.com Dein eigener Podcast: https://bakuba.eu

Squirrel Hill Vinyl Club, your monthly journey across techno, trance, acid, downtempo and houzy stuff. EPO, founder and member of Mentalità (a Bologna-Italy based electronic crew), is a Selector and DJ who crossed the big United States to increase his vinyl collection, modify his taste, discover new sounds and come back to Europe with a lot of checked bags. ---------- Follow EPO ◊ https://soundcloud.com/epo40135 ◊ https://www.instagram.com/epo40135 ◊ https://www.facebook.com/Mentalitaa ---------- Follow MSYH.FM » http://MSYH.FM » http://x.com/MSYHFM » http://instagram.com/MSYH.FM » http://facebook.com/MSYH.FM » http://patreon.com/MSYHFM ---------- Follow Make Sure You Have Fun™ ∞ http://MakeSureYouHaveFun.com ∞ http://x.com/MakeSureYouHave ∞ http://instagram.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://facebook.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://youtube.com/@MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://twitch.tv/@MakeSureYouHaveFun

In dieser Folge wird es kontrovers, unbequem und vielleicht auch erschreckend. Zu Gast sind gleich mehrere Experten aus den Bereichen Dopingforschung, Sportethik und Gesellschaftsanalyse – darunter Pharmakologe Fritz Sörgel, Sportrechtler Martin Schimke und Wissenschaftler Christoph Binkelmann. Gemeinsam werfen wir einen Blick auf ein Thema, das den Sport für immer verändern könnte: die Enhanced Games. Was passiert eigentlich im Körper bei Doping? Warum nehmen Athleten trotz massiver Risiken leistungssteigernde Mittel? Und warum sorgt eine neue Sportbewegung, die Doping nicht nur erlaubt, sondern feiert, weltweit für Diskussionen? Wir sprechen über EPO, Steroide, Wachstumshormone und die medizinischen Folgen von Leistungssteigerung. Aber auch über die gesellschaftliche Frage dahinter: Warum akzeptieren wir Hochrisikosportarten, verurteilen aber gedopte Athleten? Ist der moderne Leistungssport überhaupt noch fair – oder war er das nie? Außerdem geht es um Fairness, Selbstbestimmung, Leistungsdruck, KI, Ritalin, Freizeitdoping und die Frage, wie weit Menschen gehen werden, um besser zu werden. Diese Folge wird deine Sicht auf Leistung, Gesundheit und modernen Sport verändern. Jetzt reinhören und selbst entscheiden: Sind die Enhanced Games die Zukunft des Sports – oder der Anfang seines Untergangs? Schlüsselbegriffe: Enhanced Games, Doping, EPO, Anabolika, Steroide, Leistungssport, Sportethik, Fairness im Sport, Leistungssteigerung, Biohacking, Sportmedizin, Gesellschaft und Leistung, Olympia, Sportskandale, Spitzensport #EnhancedGames #Doping #Leistungssport #Biohacking #Sportethik Links: Supporte den Podcast auf Steady: https://steady.page/de/inspirierend-anders/about Zur Homepage: https://inspirierendanders.com Dein eigener Podcast: https://bakuba.eu Link zur ganzen Folge mit Christoph Binkelmann: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6jokO7A3ihD2qnyPdHwS7i Link zur ganzen Folge mit Hajo Seppelt: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1rC60nVlFY69MCcI3LPcbA Link zur ganzen Folge mit Martin Schimke: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4g0zos6aHojkVK5FRbqFQY Link zur ganzen Folge mit Fritz Sörgel: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5q4ZZe4lTpQFwVhr2Y22e0

Former professional triathlete Colin Chartier joins Matt for a wide-ranging and controversial conversation about doping in endurance sport, the realities of EPO use and testing loopholes, and how his life changed after receiving a three-year suspension following a positive test in 2023. * We apologise for the poor audio quality in this podcast episode at times * Ground App: https://groundapp.live/ Collin Chartier Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/collinchartier/ Be coached by Matt: https://www.sweatelitecoaching.com/coaching-2026 Join the Shareholders Club / Private Podcast Feed: https://www.sweatelite.co/shareholders Matt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattinglisfox/ Matt Training Log - Strava: https://www.strava.com/athletes/6248359/ Contact Matt: matt@sweatelite.co Chartier was once ranked 11th in the world and won both Ironman Mont-Tremblant (2022) and the PTO US Open before his career came crashing down. He speaks openly about the pressure that narrowed his identity entirely around performance and winning, why he chose to dope, how easily substances can be sourced online and through clinics, and how many athletes likely understand testing loopholes far better than the public realizes. He details the day of his EPO test in Girona, Spain, including taking an out-of-hours call from testers while swimming and later realizing he could have avoided the test entirely. Colin also discusses the emotional aftermath, the advice he received to immediately accept responsibility, and an offer from the ITA for a reduced "silent ban" in exchange for substantial assistance that he says he was unable to provide. The conversation then shifts toward identity, shame, mental health, and rebuilding life after elite sport. Colin explains how a long solo bikepacking trip through Mexico, Central America, and Colombia eventually led him toward breathwork and nervous-system regulation practices that became transformative for him personally. Matt and Colin also discuss how widespread doping may actually be in recreational endurance sport, peptides and recovery technologies, the ethics of the Enhanced Games, and whether modern anti-doping systems are truly effective. Colin closes by discussing the launch of GroundApp - an iOS breathwork and nervous-system regulation app that integrates wearable data and emotional state tracking - as well as his upcoming 2,000-mile run from Denver to Washington, DC beginning June 10. Topics: 00:00 - Meet Colin Chartier 00:55 - Ban and Accountability 04:01 - Why He Chose Doping 05:41 - Bike Escape and Breathwork 07:54 - Sourcing EPO and Loopholes 12:26 - Test Day in Girona 15:58 - Aftermath and Silent Ban Offer 19:10 - How Widespread Is Doping 20:21 - How Much EPO Helps 22:01 - Recreational Doping and WADA Rules 25:56 - Peptides and Recovery Tech 28:50 - Running Across America Plan 29:24 - Marathon Record Doping Talk 30:35 - Enhanced Games Debate 31:06 - Backlash And Bike Escape 31:36 - Bikepacking Pain And Perspective 34:02 - Letting Go Of The Plan 35:46 - Breathwork Breakthrough 39:47 - Colombia And Coming Home 40:20 - Hero's Journey Lessons 43:30 - GroundApp Launch And Features 50:50 - Mindset Coaching For Athletes 55:11 - Wrap Up And Next Steps

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 174 of our podcast IP Fridays! In today's interview, Ken Suzan interviews Brian McGinnis, partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice, about why companies need to stop treating data privacy as a compliance burden and start treating it as a core business asset. McGinnis argues that data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability, with no middle ground. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! The EPO saw a Record Year with 200,000+ Patent Applications in 2025: German filings dropped 2.2% while China grew 9.7%, overtaking Japan for the first time. Germany remains Europe’s top patent nation but loses ground globally. SMEs and universities now account for nearly half of all Unitary Patents granted to European innovators. News from the UPC Court of Appeal: Non-Technical Features Count for Inventive Step. An April 17 ruling clarifies that all claim features must be evaluated in their combined effect, including non-technical ones. Companies with software-related or mixed-technology inventions pending at the EPO or UPC should reassess recent inventive step objections at the UPC in light of this decision. Nokia Withdraws UPC and Munich Suits After Global FRAND Settlement; Following a global FRAND rate-setting decision by the UK High Court, Nokia withdrew parallel suits against Warner Bros. and Paramount at the UPC and in Munich. One UK ruling resolved litigation spanning Germany, the UPC, the US, and Brazil simultaneously. China Abandons Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Disputes: After a WTO arbitration ruling from July 2025, China withdrew its practice of blocking SEP holders from filing suits abroad. The EU Commission continues monitoring compliance, since the former policy was largely informal rather than codified in statute. The Trump Administration has put 100% Tariffs on Imported Patented Pharmaceuticals: Based on Section 232, the Trump administration imposed 100% tariffs on patented drugs and biologics effective April 2, 2026, with a 120-day transition period until July 31. EU member states face a reduced rate of 15%. Generics and biosimilars are explicitly excluded. China Rejects 1.27 Million Trademark Applications in Three-Year Crackdown: China’s CNIPA rejected over 1.27 million trademark applications and invalidated more than 3,300 marks, targeting so-called edge-ball marks designed to mislead consumers about product quality or origin. The announcement was made at an official press conference on April 23, 2026. Now let's jump into the interview with Brian McGinnis! Brian McGinnis is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice. In this episode of IP Fridays, he argues that companies treating data privacy as a compliance burden are missing the point entirely and leaving significant value on the table. Data Is Either an Asset or a Liability Most companies still treat their data as invisible and costless. They do not manage it the way they would manage a patent portfolio or a trademark. That, McGinnis argues, is a fundamental strategic error. Data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability. There is no middle ground. When companies invest in understanding what data they collect, how it is used, and who has access to it, they unlock opportunities to drive real revenue and growth. Done right, a data governance program is not a cost center. It is a foundation for trust, operational efficiency, and competitive advantage. One Program, Not Twenty With more than 20 US state privacy laws now in effect, and major economies worldwide introducing their own frameworks, building separate compliance programs for each jurisdiction is neither practical nor smart. McGinnis recommends a single, comprehensive governance framework designed around the core purpose and intent of privacy law, flexible enough to absorb new requirements as they emerge. Companies that threw together a quick program when California’s CCPA came into force in 2020 are now overdue for an upgrade. The goal is to move from reactive compliance to a mature, proactive program that positions the company ahead of the regulatory curve rather than perpetually catching up. Website Tracking Tools: An Underestimated Risk One of the fastest-growing areas of privacy litigation involves tracking technologies built into company websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, and chat widgets. Legal teams are often entirely unaware of what IT or marketing has deployed. That gap is expensive. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are applying 1970s-era telephone wiretapping statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, to argue that collecting any personal information, including IP addresses, before a user has consented constitutes illegal interception. Demand letters are being sent at industrial scale, with settlements typically running between $10,000 and $20,000 per case. What makes this particularly difficult is that a company can be fully compliant with statutory privacy law and still face these wiretapping claims, because the legal theory turns on the timing of data collection rather than the existence of a privacy notice. Vendor Contracts: The Hidden Exposure Marketing and technology agreements are another major source of unmanaged data risk. When a company deploys a third-party tool that handles personal data, the underlying contract needs to define precisely who owns that data, what the vendor is permitted to do with it, and what obligations flow down to any sub-processors involved. McGinnis draws a direct parallel to IP licensing: owning valuable data and then handing it to a vendor under a poorly drafted agreement is the equivalent of signing a bad IP license. Data processing agreements need to cover ownership, use restrictions, sub-processor obligations, breach notification timelines, audit rights, and deletion obligations. Many companies simply do not have these terms in place. Without them, a vendor who suffers a breach of non-personal business information has no contractual obligation to disclose it. Consumer Rights Requests: Process Matters Privacy laws give individuals the right to access, correct, delete, and opt out of the use of their personal data. Responding to these requests effectively requires pre-built processes, trained staff, and the technical ability to locate and act on individual data across all systems and sub-processors. Most companies, before engaging in formal data mapping, are not in a position to do this reliably. Staff failing to recognize a deletion request as a legal data subject request and routing it through a standard customer service queue instead is one of the most common failures McGinnis sees. The consequences can include regulatory complaints and class action lawsuits, particularly when a company continues to send emails to someone who has already requested deletion of their data. A newer risk involves Global Privacy Controls: browser-level opt-out signals that regulators and courts are now treating as legally binding deletion and non-collection requests. Companies receiving these signals daily without acting on them face growing exposure under several state laws. AI Governance: Policy Before Tools Generative AI tools are now embedded across business functions, from contract review and customer service to content creation and internal search. McGinnis is direct: every company needs an AI acceptable-use policy, and the absence of one is not a neutral position. Without clear rules, employees will use unapproved or publicly available tools regardless, feeding proprietary and sensitive information into open models with no control over how that data is used or retained. He draws a precise parallel to patent law. Posting proprietary information into an open AI system carries the same risk as publishing it publicly, potentially destroying patentability. The distinction between closed, organization-specific AI systems and open, publicly accessible ones is something employees need to understand explicitly. Making compliance easier than non-compliance is the practical goal. The Regulatory Outlook: More Laws, More Enforcement McGinnis expects the regulatory landscape to continue expanding. The EU AI Act is already setting the direction, and several US states have introduced or are developing AI-specific legislation. The pattern mirrors what happened with data privacy: Europe leads, US states follow in a patchwork, and federal legislation remains uncertain. Enforcement of existing privacy laws is also intensifying. GDPR has been in force since 2018, CCPA since 2020, and regulators are now past the period of extended tolerance for companies that are still catching up. Companies with immature compliance programs should expect less patience from regulators going forward. McGinnis closes with a clear point of view: if you have to comply anyway, get credit for it. A well-built governance program is a trust signal to customers, a sales asset, and a foundation for responsible AI use. Compliance done right is not a tax. It is a differentiator. The Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Our guest today on the IP Fridays podcast is Brian McGinnis. Brian is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg and a founding member and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy law practice group. Brian serves as a member of the intellectual property department and the internet and technology practice. Brian is a Chambers Global and national ranked privacy and data security attorney, a certified information privacy professional, and the firm’s chief privacy officer. Brian brings nearly two decades of experience at the intersection of law and technology. Brian advises on a wide range of technology-driven legal matters, including privacy and data security, intellectual property, artificial intelligence, corporate transactions, software, and internet law. His deep understanding of privacy and technology law enables him to guide clients through rapidly evolving regulatory and operational challenges. Welcome Brian to the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Hey, thanks Ken. I appreciate it. Great to be here and thanks for having me. Ken Suzan: Excellent. Brian, the C-suite tends to treat data privacy as a compliance tax, something to hand off to legal and forget about. But when you see how companies actually get into serious trouble, what’s really going on? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, well, it’s a great place to start Ken and looking forward to the conversation today covering some of these privacy issues and AI issues, which I found in my own practice is really bled into the straight privacy stuff. Companies can’t really handle these things in a silo anymore. It’s really about managing and coming together as a coherent program for governance for the organization. I think if you do that right, the good news is we can become revenue generators and show growth for the company and not just compliance centers and a compliance tax. But I think the core problem that we face in working with most companies is that a lot of companies still treat their data as invisible, costless. They don’t treat it, in other words, like they would a patent portfolio or trademark or other IP portfolio. It’s just not managed as an asset in the ways that we’ve seen more sophistication around IP. And it really should be. Data is either a managed asset for the company or it’s an unmanaged liability. There’s really not an in between. And so for those companies that haven’t gotten their arms around all this data and what can be done with it, I think they’re really missing an opportunity. Having an understanding of what data the organization is collecting, how it’s being used, and having the proper governance around it really unlocks a lot of opportunity for use of that data in new ways — ways that can drive revenue and growth for the company. So I approach privacy not just about compliance, not just about avoiding penalties or doing it because some law out there says that we have to do it. It’s really about knowing and controlling one of the company’s core assets. And if you’re not doing that, you’ve got unmanaged data that you’re not getting value out of and that potentially could be a huge liability for the company. Managed well, it really supports trust, efficiency, and growth of the organization. Otherwise, I think it’s a missed opportunity. Ken Suzan: Yes, well said. Now let’s talk about state laws. With 20-plus state privacy laws now in effect, how should companies build a program that actually works across the board without starting over every time a new state law kicks in? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so the first answer is don’t build 20 separate programs. This really goes back to having a comprehensive, sophisticated, well thought out program that really takes into account not only the 20 state laws, but obviously we’ve got international exposure with laws like GDPR and upcoming privacy laws internationally. Most of the larger economies in the world have some form of laws around privacy and AI. So you can’t really anymore build programs that account for the one, two, three, four, five different laws that in the past we had experience with — where you could just treat California as its own thing, treat New York as something else, and treat Europe as something else. The laws and the pace of these have really forced companies into having comprehensive programs. I don’t expect to see fewer laws. You’re only looking at potentially additional state laws, additional federal laws here in the US, and then certainly additional laws throughout the world. So a lot of the strategy these days is not only where are we today with these laws, but how do we set up our governance program in a way that really cuts to the core of the purpose and intent behind these laws so that we can be better prepared when new laws come about in the future. Historically, at least in the US, most companies just haven’t had laws that force them into compliance postures. As these laws have started to come along, a lot of companies have been playing from behind and saying, oh, the California Consumer Privacy Act, I just read about it and it goes into effect next week — let’s throw something together and call that our compliance program. We’ve now got years of these laws being in place, CCPA came into effect in 2020, and what we’re seeing much more of are companies looking to get more sophisticated in their programs and stop feeling like they’re always rushing to catch up. The goal is to level up their program, going from level one — constantly playing from behind — to level two and then level three, so that they really feel like they’re on top of it and have a sophisticated program that not only accounts for all the various privacy requirements that come at them, but also positions them to take advantage of the data and all the things that come along with having a good governance program. Ken Suzan: Brian, there’s an explosion of litigation targeting something most companies barely think about — the tracking tools baked into their own websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, chat widgets, the list goes on and on. What’s happening, Brian, and what should companies do? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, and I think a lot of companies — the executives, the business teams — don’t even realize a lot of these tools are on their sites. IT deployed them years ago, the web team deployed them, marketing teams are constantly using them and certainly have a good understanding of it. But in a lot of cases, legal has never touched them and has no idea what’s happening on the website. We also see a lot of cases of companies who, even if they’re generally aware these tools are in use, aren’t aware what other teams are putting on the site or what those pieces of technology are tracking. And that gap can be really expensive. What we’re seeing right now — and this has been a trend for a number of months now and is really continuing to pick up steam — is a series of what I call gotcha lawsuits, where you have some enterprising plaintiffs’ counsel who have taken a look at some 1970s-era telephone wiretapping laws, including a law called CIPA, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, passed in the 70s with the idea that you shouldn’t be able to wiretap people’s telephone conversations. They’ve taken that and applied that theory to the internet. The way it works is: if a website has some sort of cookie, pixel, or other tracking technology on it that collects personal information about an individual — and that can be as simple as an IP address and device ID — and if that collection occurs as soon as the individual shows up at the website, prior to them being able to have notice provided to them or opt in and consent to that collection, then the theory under these lawsuits is that it constitutes wiretapping. We see a lot of this with the Meta pixel, with LinkedIn pixels, and the like. What they’re doing is effectively showing up and suing, threatening to sue, trying to take you to arbitration, depending upon what’s included in the company’s existing privacy notice. If you don’t have a cookie banner, if you don’t have a cookie notice, if you’re not getting opt-in on these things, they’re leaning on those failures and effectively trying to force you into a position where you are forced to make a settlement. Because the cost to litigate one of these to their conclusion would be expensive, whereas a lot of these cases will settle for $10,000 to $15,000 somewhere in that range. They’ve got technology crawling the internet looking for websites that don’t have these risks covered, sending demand letters and then collecting settlements, $10,000 to $20,000 at a time. It’s been very profitable for them and a very dangerous thing for our clients. And it’s a bit unusual because you can be fully compliant with the statutory privacy laws that require notification of the use of tracking technologies and cookies and banners — and still be subject to these lawsuits because of the wiretapping arguments being made. The timing wherein the data is collected from the individual could still subject you to these lawsuits. So it’s a tricky problem, one that I hate seeing companies get hit with and one that we spend a lot of time helping companies avoid. Ken Suzan: Yes, let’s talk about contracts, Brian, because I know you work with contracts probably on a daily basis. A lot of data risk lives inside vendor and technology agreements — the contracts companies sign with marketing platforms, analytics providers, cloud infrastructure, and SaaS tools. What should those agreements actually contain? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so there’s quite a lot of things. You’ve got a world where marketing is constantly under pressure to learn more about their customers. The way they can do that is through any number of different tools and data gathering techniques, and we have all this technology available to help marketing and sales do better at their jobs. But we, at least in this country, got to a position where people really felt like they lost control of their information and their data. And so these privacy laws came along and really started to provide more rights to individuals — to have an understanding of what data exists within various companies that they do business with, who they’re sharing it with, trading it with, selling it to for advertising purposes; to have the right to opt out; the right to delete their information. Not checking through the agreements by which these teams are implementing these tools is a huge issue for companies. As part of an overall compliance program, having some kind of process where people who are aware of the growing numbers of privacy laws are reviewing these marketing contracts to make sure they are aligned with that program and aligned with those laws is absolutely critical. To talk about IP, given the IP Fridays audience: it’s kind of the equivalent of having really bad IP licenses. In other words, you own and control this information and data, and you need to control what the other side can do with one of your most valuable assets — or you’ve effectively given it away. So thinking about it in that way could be useful. In terms of more specifics: a big one is ownership of the data. The agreement itself may or may not have anything that addresses data. If there’s personal information involved, you probably need what we call a data processing agreement or addendum — a DPA — that specifically controls what that third party is able to do with that data, how they’re able to use it, whether they’re able to share it, whether they’re able to get value out of it on their own, or if they’re only allowed to be what we call a service provider, just providing services to the business that hired them. There needs to be explicit prohibition on retaining, using, and disclosing personal information for any purpose other than performing the exact services in the contract. Whether or not they’re permitted to sell or share data under CCPA terms is another key point. Certification that the provider will comply with any restrictions and security requirements you have on your data, and making sure those obligations flow down to any sub-processors they might use. You hire Company A, but Company A works with Company B and C to provide parts of their service. You’re effectively responsible for the protection of personal information throughout its lifecycle. A couple of other key provisions: breach notification triggers and timeline. It’s very possible under a lot of agreements that one of your vendors can suffer the world’s worst hacker breach and have no legal obligation to tell the company that hired them about it — unless there’s personal information involved. State data breach laws apply to personal information, not to other types of sensitive business information. Unless you have a contract that explicitly requires notification, there’s a good chance that vendor may not want to disclose it. And then other things like audit rights and deletion obligations go in there as well. Ken Suzan: Certainly a lot to cover. Let’s talk about privacy laws and consumer rights. Privacy laws give consumers real rights — to access their data, correct it, delete it, and opt out of how it’s being used. Most companies have a process for this on paper. What does it actually take to get it right, and what happens when it breaks down? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, it takes pre-planning. It takes a process. Some companies receive many more of these requests than others — some B2B companies receive none or a couple per year, while companies heavily involved in marketing to consumers might receive tens or hundreds a day. To be able to respond to these effectively and efficiently requires some forethought. It requires policy and procedure internally to be set up, and it requires the education of the team. Some of the common ways we see this go wrong: staff isn’t trained to know the difference between what we call a DSR — data subject request — versus a regular customer service inquiry. Maybe somebody submits what would be construed by law to be a deletion request and you just put it into your normal customer service response flow — and then you’re potentially missing timelines and the like. There also need to be systems in place to respond in accordance with the individual’s rights. Somebody submits a request saying, you have my information — what information do you have about me? Can your company determine that right now? Can you look through all your systems and down the line to all the processors and sub-processors you’ve worked with and hired, and identify what information you have about that individual? Most companies, until they engage in a governance program and data mapping, are at a real disadvantage to be able to do that. Why is that a problem? Because two weeks from now your company could be sending emails to the individual who just told you to delete their data, and they get really upset. That’s when they go and complain to regulators or start class action lawsuits. The lack of planning can be really, really expensive for a lot of companies. Making sure you’ve got some kind of process to understand what’s coming in, that the people receiving those requests know the difference between a regular customer service request and a data subject request, and that it gets to the appropriate parties for action — all of that is really, really key. Another one that we’re seeing pop up is what we call GPC, or Global Privacy Controls. It used to be that people would say “do not track” in their browser and most companies would ignore those signals. Now we’ve got advancements in law and browser technology where the browser you’re using to visit a company’s website sends a signal saying, opt me out of this. Regulators and courts are construing those as deletion requests, as opt-out requests that companies are now required to respond to. If your company hasn’t gone through an exercise to understand that, and is probably receiving GPC opt-out requests on a daily basis without acting on them, there’s some exposure there. At the end of the day, a lot of this really is about getting the appropriate people from across the organization — really each department — around a table, figuring out what data you collect, how you use it, who you share it with, where it comes from. That starts the process of your data map. Then you set about mapping that to the various legal requirements and figuring out how to respond, how to make it easy for people to exercise their rights so they’re not complaining, not suing, not going to regulators. Letting these squeaky wheels out of the process — the ones who don’t want you to be processing their information any longer — is really key. Ken Suzan: Let’s switch gears a bit and talk about AI. I know we’re hearing about it every day. Generative AI tools are now embedded in how companies work — contract review, customer service, content creation, internal search. Before employees start using these tools with customer data, confidential business information, or proprietary content, what has to be in place first? Brian McGinnis: Yeah. I think we’re long past the days when companies provided individuals access to corporate technology — computers, devices, and the like — without having some kind of acceptable use policy that governs that. We don’t want you downloading stuff that could harm our network or create security issues. We don’t want you using our technology in certain ways, whether that’s a BYOD policy or just general use of company internet or company devices. An AI acceptable use policy is really a continuation of those. Every company needs to have an AI acceptable use policy. Period. In my opinion, things like that are as important as the fire escape policy out in the hallways for these companies. I can tell you with absolute certainty: if your organization has not provided rules to your employees and personnel about the use of AI, what they can and can’t use — or if you’ve said you can’t use any AI — the personnel is still using AI. They’re just not using any approved tools. They’re probably using their own private tools that they subscribe to, or even worse, tools they don’t pay for, in which case they’re putting company information into a wide open public model. The more companies can do to think through this ahead of time, reduce it to policy, and then train and educate people on that company’s particular policy, the better. You need to make it easier for people to comply than not comply. An acceptable use policy should talk about: here’s how we can and can’t use it, here’s the data that should and should not go into the system, here’s some proper uses of AI, here’s some data that’s on the fringe that we need to keep out — more sensitive information, proprietary information, etc. Making sure you’re funneling and educating people about the difference between closed systems and open systems. In other words, this is a tool that only looks at our organization, only uses the data within a certain box, and is not publicly available — the AI system is not training on our data. You have more leeway to put more sensitive information into those types of systems than you do with open systems which potentially lose control of your data. It’s almost like a patent consideration in terms of keeping information secret. If something potentially has some patentability that you want to seek to file in the future, you can’t just go out and post it publicly and use public search engines and all this other stuff at the risk of exposing it. Similar concepts here — really getting a handle and control over what tools people can use and providing some education to them about how the company wants to think about what’s acceptable and what’s not in those uses is really the key starting point. Ken Suzan: Very useful information. Indeed, we’re coming towards the end of today’s episode. One final question for you, Brian. Where do you think we’ll be two years from now in this developing field, and how best for companies to stay ahead of the curve? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, this kind of takes us full circle, Ken. I think it’s kind of back to the beginning comments about the privacy space — and we’ve only got more of these laws coming. It’s still a developing field. We’re still really in the early days of enforcement. I mean, GDPR has been around since 2018, CCPA in the US really kicked us off in about 2020, and so there’s been a settling-in period as companies adjust and get used to having these laws and get compliance programs in place at various levels — from not at all prepared to highly sophisticated. We’re still pretty early on in terms of enforcement of these things. We’re already starting to see enforcement of more egregious violations of these various laws, and we’ll only continue to see more enforcement as the laws exist currently and as they continue to come along. The days of not having to pay attention to this are kind of over. And I always tell clients: if you’re going to have to do these things, you’re going to have to be compliant — you might as well get credit for it. By which I mean, let’s put all the policies in place, let’s do all the compliance activities, let’s have a sophisticated governance program, but then let’s also use that as a sales tool, as a way to help grow the company, as a way to sell new products and gain trust and earn trust with our customers — so that they know when they’re doing business with us, or when they’re giving us information, or when they’re using our AI tool, that we respect that and are going to take care of their information and have the structure in place internally to be able to do that. With respect to AI, what I’m seeing is very similar to what we have seen with the growth of privacy law — again led by Europe, with the EU AI Act in this case. Now you’ve got a handful of states in the US that already have AI laws, and others that are interested in continuing to roll those out. There’s friction with the federal government around whether there’s going to be a comprehensive law there. Like the privacy space, you’ve got varying factions — some of which want to develop really quickly with very little guardrails, others which say we’re threatening the future of humanity if we don’t get those guardrails in place. I think ultimately, at least in the US, we’re going to end up with another patchwork of AI laws for the foreseeable future that we’ll have to navigate. So really having a company position, a company philosophy of how do we handle all these various laws, how do we treat people’s data, how do we get our arms around it, how do we respond to whatever legal rights they currently have, and what principles do we put in place so that we can adapt for the future — and then, once we’ve done those things, how do we actually get value out of this and move the business forward. So it’s not a compliance tax, but a benefit to the business. That’s the end goal here, and I think the North Star for us. Ken Suzan: Fantastic, Brian. This has certainly been a very comprehensive interview. Really appreciate you taking the time to talk about it with us here on the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Happy to do it, Ken. Thanks for asking me and good to see you. Thank you.

Squirrel Hill Vinyl Club, your monthly journey across techno, trance, acid, downtempo and houzy stuff. EPO, founder and member of Mentalità (a Bologna-Italy based electronic crew), is a Selector and DJ who crossed the big United States to increase his vinyl collection, modify his taste, discover new sounds and come back to Europe with a lot of checked bags. ---------- Follow EPO ◊ https://soundcloud.com/epo40135 ◊ https://www.instagram.com/epo40135 ◊ https://www.facebook.com/Mentalitaa ---------- Follow MSYH.FM » http://MSYH.FM » http://x.com/MSYHFM » http://instagram.com/MSYH.FM » http://facebook.com/MSYH.FM » http://patreon.com/MSYHFM ---------- Follow Make Sure You Have Fun™ ∞ http://MakeSureYouHaveFun.com ∞ http://x.com/MakeSureYouHave ∞ http://instagram.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://facebook.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://youtube.com/@MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://twitch.tv/@MakeSureYouHaveFun

EPO's Roger Kalia is back with the last show of this remarkable season! Click to hear Roger describe A Night of Symphonic ROCK! One awesome show Saturday night with a full rock bank and the full philharmonic!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Conductor Roger Kalia is our special guest describing the ambitious final classical concert of the season for the EPO! Click to hear all about it and how to get tickets to a show that's sure to be a sell out at the Victory this Saturday April 11! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Mike Hart interviews elite runner Brady Holmer about endurance training, VO2 max physiology, and common misconceptions. Holmer explains that zone 2 builds the aerobic base and enables high training volume with less fatigue, notes heart-rate zones are ideally defined by lactate thresholds, and says he primarily uses perceived exertion rather than lactate or heart rate during training. He advises against guiding workouts by wearable HRV scores, arguing accurate HRV requires standardized morning measurements and that wearable data can create a nocebo effect; trends may be informative, but subjective feel should come first. They discuss polarized vs pyramidal training and typical 80/20 intensity distributions, effective session durations, mechanisms limiting VO2 max (central vs peripheral), and why Norwegian 4x4 intervals work by maximizing time near 85–90% max heart rate. They cover breathing/nose breathing, inspiratory muscle training, sauna/hot baths as performance adjuncts, nutrition timing of carbohydrates, and supplements including beetroot, beta-alanine, urolithin A, and post-exercise ketones. Brady Holmer is an endurance-focused performance expert and elite runner whose work explores the science and practice of aerobic fitness, VO2 max, recovery, and smarter cardio training. In this episode, he explains how zone 2 training builds the foundation for endurance, why HRV and wearable data should be interpreted carefully, and how protocols like Norwegian 4x4 can improve performance when used in the right context. Through a blend of long-term training experience, research literacy, and practical coaching insight, Holmer helps listeners better understand how to train harder, recover smarter, and think more clearly about what actually improves cardiovascular fitness.   Training & Cardio Zone 2 Cardio Overview (Cleveland Clinic): https://health.clevelandclinic.org/zone-2-cardio   Lactate / Threshold-Based Training Threshold zones review (PMC): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6537749/   Lactate-guided threshold interval training (PMC): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10000870/   Norwegian 4x4 Classic VO2 max paper (PubMed): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17414804/   4x4 protocol heart-rate response study (PMC): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7399937/   Polarized Training Meta-analysis / review (PubMed): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38717713/   Older landmark paper (PubMed): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24550842/   Pyramidal Training Pyramidal vs. polarized study (PMC): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9299127/   HRV & Wearables   Marco Altini Official site: https://www.marcoaltini.com/ HRV4Training: https://www.hrv4training.com/   HRV Measurement / Use HRV4Training article with Marco Altini: https://www.hrv4training.com/blog2/heart-rate-variability-hrv-training-with-dr-marco-altini-how-to-exercise-using-hrv   Oura Ring Official: https://ouraring.com/   WHOOP Official: https://www.whoop.com/   Experts & Writing   Dr. Andy Galpin Official site: https://www.andygalpin.com/   Brady Holmer Substack profile: https://substack.com/@bradyholmer   Physiologically Speaking: https://www.physiologicallyspeaking.com/   Supplements & Recovery Exercise / Performance Supplements NIH overview: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/ExerciseAndAthleticPerformance-HealthProfessional/   Creatine Cleveland Clinic overview: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/17674-creatine   Beta-Alanine NIH consumer overview: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/ExerciseAndAthleticPerformance-Consumer/   ISSN position stand (PMC): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4501114/   Beetroot / Dietary Nitrate Review (PMC): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4008816/   Meta-analysis (PubMed): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23580439/   Urolithin A Mitopure / official: https://www.mitopure.com/   Altitude training camp study (PMC): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12628386/   Exogenous Ketones Ketone-IQ official: https://ketone.com/   Post-exercise ketone monoester and EPO study (PubMed): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36449571/   Post-exercise ketones improved endurance training adaptations study (PubMed): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41757674/   Show Notes 00:00 HRV Training Myth 00:59 Zone Two Benefits 02:11 Finding True Zone Two 03:59 RPE Over Wearables 06:27 HRV Done Right 12:06 80 20 Training Split 15:23 Zone Two Session Length 18:37 Cardio Adaptation Science 24:03 Norwegian 4x4 Explained 30:30 Sports Versus Machines 32:54 Leg Day Timing Tips 34:58 Best Leg Exercises 38:21 Nordic Curl Reality Check 39:11 Portable Nordic Setup Tips 39:51 Biggest Running Mistake 40:18 Nose Breathing Zone Two 42:16 Breathing Tools And Myths 43:08 Inspiratory Muscle Training 44:51 How Much Benefit Really 46:27 Sauna For VO2 Max 48:35 Heat Mimics Altitude 50:59 Sauna Fertility Debate 52:54 Red Light Therapy Reality 54:30 Carbs Fuel The Work 56:25 Timing Carbs Around Training 57:52 Best Carb Food Choices 59:41 Supplements For Cardio 01:00:20 Creatine Beta Alanine Beetroot 01:02:16 Urolithin A Breakthrough 01:05:01 Ketones After Training 01:07:31 Other Supplements And Caffeine 01:09:07 SARMs Peptides And Doping 01:10:10 VO2 Max And Longevity 01:10:49 Wrap Up And Where To Follow   The Hart2Heart podcast is hosted by family physician Dr. Michael Hart, who is dedicated to cutting through the noise and uncovering the most effective strategies for optimizing health, longevity, and peak performance. This podcast dives deep into evidence-based approaches to hormone balance, peptides, sleep optimization, nutrition, psychedelics, supplements, exercise protocols, leveraging sunlight, and de-prescribing pharmaceuticals — using medications only when absolutely necessary. Beyond health science, we explore the intersection of public health and politics, exposing how policy decisions shape our health landscape and what actionable steps people can take to reclaim control over their well-being. Guests range from out-of-the-box thinking physicians such as Dr. Casey Means (author of "Good Energy") and Dr. Roger Sehult (Medcram lectures) to public health experts such as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dr. Marty Mckary  (Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and high-profile names such as  Zuby and Mark Sisson (Primal Blueprint and Primal Kitchen). If you're ready to take control of your health and performance, this podcast is for you.We cut through the jargon and deliver practical, no-BS advice that you can implement in your daily life, empowering you to make positive changes for your well-being.   Connect with Dr. Mike Hart Instagram: @drmikehart Twitter: @drmikehart Facebook: @drmikehart

Squirrel Hill Vinyl Club, your monthly journey across techno, trance, acid, downtempo and houzy stuff. EPO, founder and member of Mentalità (a Bologna-Italy based electronic crew), is a Selector and DJ who crossed the big United States to increase his vinyl collection, modify his taste, discover new sounds and come back to Europe with a lot of checked bags. ---------- Follow EPO ◊ https://soundcloud.com/epo40135 ◊ https://www.instagram.com/epo40135 ◊ https://www.facebook.com/Mentalitaa ---------- Follow MSYH.FM » http://MSYH.FM » http://x.com/MSYHFM » http://instagram.com/MSYH.FM » http://facebook.com/MSYH.FM » http://patreon.com/MSYHFM ---------- Follow Make Sure You Have Fun™ ∞ http://MakeSureYouHaveFun.com ∞ http://x.com/MakeSureYouHave ∞ http://instagram.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://facebook.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://youtube.com/@MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://twitch.tv/@MakeSureYouHaveFun

This week on History's Greatest Idiots (Featuring Peter of In The Wheels), we explore two Scottish success stories: cyclist David Millar's fall from grace and redemption, and comic writer Mark Millar's controversial rise to Hollywood riches.Born 4th January 1977 in Malta, David Millar burst onto cycling's scene in 2000, winning the Tour de France prologue and wearing the yellow jersey. He won four Tour stages and became the first British rider to wear the leader's jersey in all three Grand Tours.On 23rd June 2004, whilst dining in Biarritz, French police arrested Millar. They found empty EPO phials and syringes. Millar confessed to doping in 2001 and 2003. He was banned for two years, stripped of his 2003 World Championship, and fired by Cofidis.Returning in 2006, Millar transformed into cycling's most vocal anti-doping advocate. He served on WADA's Athlete Committee, became peloton spokesperson during Operación Puerto, and proved he could win clean with stages in the Vuelta, Giro, and a 2012 Tour victory. He achieved almost identical results in both halves of his career, retiring in 2014.Born 24th December 1969 in Coatbridge, Mark Millar became one of comics' most successful and divisive figures. After The Authority and The Ultimates (Time's "comic book of the decade"), Millar created Millarworld, designing properties to sell to Hollywood. Wanted, Kick-Ass, and Kingsman became films before issues appeared. Netflix purchased Millarworld in 2017.Critical reception has been harsh. Old Man Logan was called "grotesque" and "without substance", Kick-Ass criticised for undermining its premise, Nemesis dismissed as shock value. When asked about using assaults as a plot device, Millar said: "The ultimate act that would be the taboo, to show how bad some villain is..."Politically, Millar supported Brexit as a path to Scottish independence, then resigned from Labour in 2025, calling Keir Starmer's government "nightmarish, totalitarian."Two Millars. One rebuilt his reputation through honesty. The other built a Hollywood empire on controversy.David Millar: From Yellow Jersey to Prison CellMark Millar: Comics, Controversy and Self-Promotion⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/HistorysGreatestIdiots⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/historysgreatestidiots⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/historysgreatestidiots⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Artist: Sarah Chey⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.fiverr.com/sarahchey⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Squirrel Hill Vinyl Club, your monthly journey across techno, trance, acid, downtempo and houzy stuff. EPO, founder and member of Mentalità (a Bologna-Italy based electronic crew), is a Selector and DJ who crossed the big United States to increase his vinyl collection, modify his taste, discover new sounds and come back to Europe with a lot of checked bags. ---------- Follow EPO ◊ https://www.instagram.com/epo40135 ◊ https://www.facebook.com/Mentalitaa ◊ https://soundcloud.com/epo40135 ---------- Follow MSYH.FM » http://MSYH.FM » http://x.com/MSYHFM » http://instagram.com/MSYH.FM » http://facebook.com/MSYH.FM » http://patreon.com/MSYHFM ---------- Follow Make Sure You Have Fun™ ∞ http://MakeSureYouHaveFun.com ∞ http://x.com/MakeSureYouHave ∞ http://instagram.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://facebook.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://youtube.com/@MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://twitch.tv/@MakeSureYouHaveFun

I'm back with another fortnightly In My Opinion episode - sharing running observations, Q&A and personal updates. Train with Matt: https://sweatelitecoaching.com/matt-fox/ Private Podcast Feed + Discord: https://www.sweatelite.co/shareholders/ Contact: matt@sweatelite.co Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattinglisfox/ Strava Training Log: https://www.strava.com/athletes/6248359 I wished friends luck at Osaka and Tokyo and spoke about returning to YouTube to document a marathon comeback despite not running yet and feeling imposter syndrome. I explained why I moved away from pro-athlete travel content - doping concerns, COVID restrictions, visa limits and tax complications. The channel is shifting toward my own journey. On training, I addressed the effort vs pace debate. Context matters. Effort leads, especially when fatigued. I spoke about avoiding the anxiety spiral by focusing on sensation and adaptation rather than numbers and judgment. I touched on influencer culture, unnecessary products, and doping speculation - urging caution without proof. I discussed coaching as an optional performance tool, like super shoes, and may use a coach in an advisor role. I'll likely train mostly in standard shoes and race in super shoes. Current context: I'm around 79 kg and believe 65-66 kg aligns with a 2:12-2:15 goal. I reflected on running 2:20 off ~105 km per week in 2021. I'm considering cycling and stair climbing to maintain fitness while reducing impact and avoiding ego-driven mileage. I also covered my 10-year Japan ban, alcohol vs cannabis culture, pre-race nerves, speed after 40, Australia's social media ban for under-16s, and moving Workouts of the Week into a paid Supporters Club to build a healthier community. Closed with plans for stairs, weights and a cold plunge. Topics 00:00 - Welcome Back to 'In My Opinion' (Format, cadence, and what to expect) 00:54 - Race Week Shoutouts + Osaka Marathon Feelings 02:16 - Carb-Loading Stories & Filming a Marathon Comeback Series 03:17 - Why I Stepped Away From the 'Pro Athlete Training' Travel Life 04:45 - COVID-Era Australia, Visas, and Getting Stuck at Home 07:26 - US Immigration Reality Check + A Detour Into Money, AI, and the Future 09:37 - Q&A Starts: Training by Effort vs Pace (Ben's tempo run 'contradiction') 11:52 - Email/Inbox Mindset + Running Content Creator Fatigue 14:15 - Brands, Influence, and What Running Really Needs (Nutrition & authenticity) 15:55 - Make It About You: Imposter Syndrome, YouTube strategy 18:33 - More Listener Mail: Helsinki banter + Switching to new questions 19:49 - Fraser's Big Idea: Sensation vs Measurement (escaping the anxiety spiral) 21:53 - Truett/Luke 'hate' discourse: Entertainment vs negativity in the pod 23:53 - Osaka Marathon Q: Can I watch? Japan ban, cannabis vs alcohol, and moving on 26:12 - When Do You Actually Need a Coach? (Ken Rideout example) 26:52 - Supplements, ketones & super shoes: what you actually need 28:33 - Why chase a faster marathon: goals, weight loss & the reset mindset 29:45 - Coaching plans and past drama: finding the right advisor 30:46 - Train in trainers, race in supers? Injury risk & adaptation 32:34 - Influencers, supplements & doping gray zones (L-carnitine, EPO, T) 37:58 - Supporters club + Discord: keeping the community clean and paid 40:46 - Quick-fire training Qs: cycling/stairs, bathroom nerves, speed after 40 52:47 - Wrap-up: more questions, today's workout & how to reach out

Preliminary results from the Feb. 10 Special Election show Washougal School District's EPO and Capital levies passing with roughly 58 percent approval, with district leaders saying the renewal measures will continue student program support and maintain school facilities. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/washougal-school-district-epo-levy-capital-levy-passing-in-preliminary-results/ #Washougal #WashougalSchoolDistrict #EPOLevy #CapitalLevy #SpecialElection #ClarkCountyWA

In this episode, investigative journalist Gardner Harris discusses his book 'No More Tears,' which exposes the dark secrets of Johnson & Johnson. He reveals the company's history of fraud, including the baby powder scandal, the deadly EPO drug, and the antipsychotic Risperdal. Harris emphasizes the role of whistleblowers in uncovering these truths and calls for significant reforms in drug regulation to prevent future tragedies.Fraud in America is made possible by the generous donation of Getnick Law, a boutique Manhattan law firm dedicated to fighting fraud and promoting business integrity.------------------Fraud in America Social Links

Episodio número 39 de Cuéntame Más Ciencia con Nuria Lafuente Gómez, madrileña, farmacéutica y actualmente investigadora postdoctoral financiada por la fundación CRIS Contra el Cáncer en la Universidad de Harvard.Nuria investiga en el campo de la nanotecnología y la inmunoterapia. Estudió farmacia en Madrid y realizó un doctorado en química orgánica. Durante su carrera, ha trabajado en proyectos innovadores que utilizan nanopartículas magnéticas para el diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer. Además, ha realizado estancias en Helsinki y Harvard, lo que le ha permitido ampliar su experiencia internacional y colaborar con líderes en su campo.Durante la conversación, abordamos temas cruciales como el uso de la nanotecnología en la medicina, específicamente en terapias oncológicas avanzadas como las CAR-T y TIL. También discutimos los desafíos políticos y económicos que afectan la investigación científica en Estados Unidos, y la importancia de la colaboración internacional. Nuria comparte su pasión por la divulgación científica, especialmente a través de actividades educativas para niños como chair de la comisión de EPO en ECUSA.Episodio grabado por ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Fernando de Miguel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Cuéntame Más Ciencia es un podcast financiado por la Fundación Ramón Areces y elaborado por el programa E-Visibility de la Comisión de Comunicación de ECUSA. Visita nuestra web ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.ecusa.es⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ y síguenos en las redes sociales⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Las opiniones y declaraciones expresadas en Cuéntame Más Ciencia representan el punto de vista de cada participante y no de ECUSA como asociación, ni de cualquier otra institución.

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 171 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is the president of the German Patent and Trademark Office Eva Schewior! But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you: The US Supreme Court has taken up an important patent law case concerning so-called “skinny labels” for generic drugs. Specifically, the highest US court is reviewing a case in which Amarin accuses generic drug manufacturer Hikma of inciting doctors to use the cholesterol drug Vascepa in violation of patents by providing a limited package insert. In two landmark decisions, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified the criteria for inventive step and essentially confirmed the EPO’s typical “problem-solution” approach (Amgen v Sanofi and Meril v Edwards). However, experts are not entirely sure whether the Court of Appeal’s decisions, particularly those relating to the determination of the closest prior art, deviate from EPO practice. As a result of Brexit, mutual recognition of trademark use between the EU and the UK will cease to apply from January 1, 2026. Use of a trademark only in the UK will then no longer count as use of an EU trademark for the purpose of maintaining rights – and conversely, EU use will no longer count for British trademarks. Bayer is attacking several mRNA vaccine manufacturers in the US (Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, and J&J separately). The core allegation: patent infringements relating to old (Monsanto) patents on mRNA stabilization; Bayer is seeking damages, not sales bans. DISCO Pharmaceuticals from Cologne signs an exclusive license agreement with Amgen (potentially up to USD 618 million plus royalties) for novel cancer therapies targeting surface structures. Relevant from an IP perspective: license scope, milestones, data/know-how allocation. And now let's jump into the interview with Eva Schewior! The German IP System in Transition: Key Insights from DPMA President Eva Schewior In an in-depth conversation on the IP Fridays podcast, Eva Schewior, President of the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA), outlined how Germany's IP system is responding to rising demand, technological change, and a fundamentally altered European patent landscape. The interview offers valuable insights for innovators, companies, and IP professionals navigating patent, trademark, and design protection in Europe. Sustained Demand and Procedural Efficiency Despite the introduction of the Unitary Patent system, national German IP rights continue to see strong and growing demand. According to Schewior, application numbers at the DPMA have been increasing for years, which she views as a strong vote of confidence in the quality and reliability of German IP rights. At the same time, this success creates pressure on examination capacity. The average duration of patent proceedings at the DPMA is currently around three years and two months from filing to grant, provided applicants request examination early and avoid extensions. Internationally, this timeframe remains competitive. Nevertheless, shortening procedures remains a strategic priority. Search requests alone have risen by almost 50% over the past decade, yet the DPMA still delivers search reports on time in around 90% of cases. To better reflect applicant needs, the DPMA distinguishes between two main user groups: applicants seeking a rapid grant, often as a basis for international filings, and applicants primarily interested in a fast, high-quality initial assessment through search or first examination. Future procedural adjustments are being considered to better serve both groups. The Role of Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence already plays a practical role at the DPMA, particularly in patent search, classification, and the translation of Asian patent literature. Schewior emphasized that the office is closely monitoring rapid developments in AI to assess where these tools can further improve efficiency. However, she made clear that AI will remain a supporting technology. In public administration, and especially in IP examination, final decisions must always be taken and reviewed by humans. AI is seen as a way to relieve examiners of routine tasks so they can focus on substantive examination and quality. Maintaining and Monitoring Examination Quality Quality assurance is a central pillar of the DPMA's work. Schewior reported consistently positive feedback from users, but stressed that maintaining quality is a continuous task. The office applies systematic double checks for grants and refusals and uses internal quality management tools to randomly review searches and first office actions during ongoing proceedings. External feedback is equally important. The DPMA's User Advisory Board, which includes patent attorneys, startups, and patent information centers, plays a key role in identifying issues and suggesting improvements. Several of its recommendations have already been implemented. Trademark Filings and Bad-Faith Applications The trademark side of the DPMA has experienced particularly strong growth. In 2025, the office received around 95,000 trademark applications, an increase of approximately 18% compared to the previous year. Much of this growth came from abroad, especially from China. While new trademark types such as sound marks, multimedia marks, and holograms have so far seen only moderate uptake, word marks and figurative marks remain dominant. A growing challenge, however, is the rise in bad-faith trademark filings. The DPMA has responded by intensively training examiners to identify and handle such cases. Procedural reforms following EU trademark law modernization have also shifted competencies. Applicants can now choose whether to bring revocation and invalidity actions before the courts or directly before the DPMA. While courts may act faster, proceedings before the DPMA involve significantly lower financial risk, as each party generally bears its own costs. Accelerated Examination as a Practical Tool Despite rising filing numbers, the DPMA aims to avoid significant delays in trademark proceedings. Organizational restructuring within the trademark department is intended to balance workloads across teams. Schewior highlighted the option of accelerated trademark examination, available for a relatively modest additional fee. In practice, this can lead to registration within a matter of weeks, without affecting priority, since the filing date remains decisive. New Protection for Geographical Indications A major recent development is the extension of EU-wide protection for geographical indications to craft and industrial products. Since late 2025, the DPMA acts as the national authority for German applications in this area. The first application has already been filed, notably for a traditional German product. Under the new system, applications undergo a national examination phase at the DPMA before being forwarded to the EUIPO for final decision. Products eligible for protection must originate from a specific region and derive their quality or reputation from that origin, with at least one production step taking place there. The EU estimates that around 40 German products may qualify. Outreach, SMEs, and Education Schewior underlined the DPMA's statutory duty to inform the public about IP rights, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises. The office has significantly expanded its presence on platforms such as LinkedIn and YouTube, offering accessible and practical IP content. Studies show that fewer than 10% of European SMEs use IP rights, despite evidence that IP-owning companies generate higher revenues. To address this gap, the DPMA is expanding outreach formats, strengthening cooperation with educational institutions, and publishing new empirical studies, including a forthcoming analysis of patenting behavior among innovative German startups conducted with WIPO. Strategic Challenges Ahead Looking forward, Schewior identified several key challenges: insufficient awareness of IP protection among SMEs and startups, a tendency in some sectors to rely solely on trade secrets, and the growing problem of product and trademark piracy linked to organized crime. From an institutional perspective, the DPMA must remain attractive and competitive in a European system offering multiple routes to protection. This requires legally robust decisions, efficient procedures, qualified staff, and continuous investment in IT and training. Careers at the DPMA Finally, Schewior highlighted recruitment as a strategic priority. The DPMA recently hired around 50 new patent examiners and continues to seek experts in fields such as electrical engineering, e-mobility, IT, and aerospace, as well as IT specialists, lawyers, and staff in many other functions. She emphasized the DPMA's role as Europe's largest national patent office and a globally significant, stable, and family-friendly employer at the forefront of technological development. German and European Patents as Complementary Options In her closing remarks, Schewior addressed the post-UPC patent landscape. Rather than competing, German and European patent systems complement each other. For many SMEs, a German patent alone may be sufficient, particularly where Germany is the core market. At the same time, the possibility of holding both a European patent and a national German patent offers strategic resilience, as national protection can survive even if a European patent is revoked. Her key message was clear: the range of options has never been broader, but making informed strategic choices is more important than ever. If you would like, I can also adapt this article for a specialist legal audience, condense it for a magazine format, or rework it as a thought-leadership piece for LinkedIn or your website. Rolf Claessen: Today's interview guest is Eva Schewior. If you don't know her yet, she is the President of the German Patent and Trademark Office. Thank you very much for being here. Eva Schewior: I'm very happy that you're having me today. Thank you, Mr. Claessen. Rolf Claessen: Shortening the length of procedures has been a stated goal since you took office. What is the current situation, and which measures are in place to achieve this goal? Eva Schewior: First of all, I'm very glad that German IP rights are in high demand. Even though applicants in Europe have multiple options today to obtain protection for their innovations, we have seen increasing application numbers for years at my office, even after the introduction of the Unitary Patent system. I see this as very positive feedback for our work. It is clear, however, that the high number of applications leads to a constantly increasing workload. At the same time, we want to remain attractive for our applicants. This means we must offer not only high-quality IP rights but also reasonable durations of proceedings. Ensuring this remains a central and permanent objective of our strategy. The average duration of proceedings from filing to grant is currently about three years and two months, provided that applicants file an examination request within the first four months after application and do not request extensions of time limits. In other cases, the average duration of proceedings is admittedly longer. With these three years and two months, we do not have to shy away from international comparison. Nonetheless, we strive to get better. In the last few years, we were able to improve the number of concluded proceedings or to keep them at a high level. In some areas, we were even able to shorten durations of proceedings a bit, though not yet to the extent that we would have wished for. Our efforts are often overtaken by the increasing demand for our services. Just to give you an example, in the last ten to fifteen years, search requests increased by nearly fifty percent. Despite this, we managed to deliver search reports in ninety percent of all cases in time, so that customers have enough time left to take a decision on a subsequent application. I have to admit that we are not equally successful with the first official communication containing the first results of our examination. Here, our applicants need a bit more patience due to longer durations of proceedings. But I think I do not have to explain to your expert audience that longer processing times depend on various reasons, which are in no way solely to be found on our side as an examination office. To further reduce the length of proceedings, we need targeted measures. To identify them, we have analyzed the needs of our applicants. It has been shown that there are two main interests in patent procedures. About three quarters of our applicants have a very strong interest in obtaining a patent. They mainly expect us to make fast decisions on their applications. Here we find applicants who want to have their invention protected within Germany but often also wish for subsequent protection outside Germany. The remaining quarter consists of applicants that are solely interested in a fast and high-quality first assessment of the application by means of a search or a first official examination. We observe that these applicants use our services before they subsequently apply outside Germany. This latter group has little interest in continuing the procedure before my office here in Germany. We are currently considering how we can act in the best interest of both groups. What I can certainly say is that we will continue to address this topic. And of course, in general, it can be said that if we want to shorten the duration of proceedings, we need motivated and highly skilled patent examiners. Therefore, we are currently recruiting many young colleagues for our offices in Munich and Jena, and we want to make our procedures more efficient by using new technical options, thus taking workload from patent examiners and enabling them to concentrate on their core tasks and on speedy examination. Rolf Claessen: Thank you very much. I also feel that the German Patent and Trademark Office has become quite popular, especially with the start of the UPC. Some applicants seem to find that it is a very clever option to also file national patents in Germany. Eva Schewior: I think you're perfectly right, and I think we will come to this point later. Rolf Claessen: In 2023, you mentioned artificial intelligence as an important tool for supporting patent examiners. What has happened regarding AI since then? Eva Schewior: Of course, we are already successfully using AI at our office. For instance, in the field of patent search, we use AI-based tools that make our examiners' work easier. We also use AI quite successfully for classification and for the translation of Asian patent literature into English. In the meantime, we have seen a rapid development of AI in the market. I think it is strategically imperative to get an overview and to make realistic assessments of what AI is capable of doing to make our procedures more efficient. Therefore, we are observing the market to find out where AI can perform tasks so that we enable examiners to concentrate on their core business. There are many ideas right now in our office where artificial intelligence can help us tackle challenges, for instance demographic change, which certainly also affects our office, and maintaining our quality standards. We will strategically promote new tools in this field to cope with these challenges. But this much is also clear: humans will always stay in our focus. Especially in public administration, I consider it a fundamental principle that in the end, decisions must be taken and reviewed by humans. AI may help us reach our goals in a more efficient way, but it can never replace patent or trademark examiners. Rolf Claessen: You have made quality improvements in patent examination a priority and have already implemented a number of measures. How would you describe the current situation? Eva Schewior: I often receive positive feedback from different sides that our users are very satisfied with the quality of our examination, and I'm very glad about that. But maintaining this quality standard is a permanent task, and we must not become careless here. For years, for instance, we have established double checks for all grants and rejections. In addition, we have introduced a quality management tool that enables us, even during the examination process, to randomly check the quality of first office communications and searches. This helps us detect critical trends and take appropriate countermeasures at a very early stage. What is also very important when it comes to patent quality is to actively ask our customers for their feedback. We do this in different ways. Just to give you an example, we have a User Advisory Board, which is a panel of external experts implemented a couple of years ago. Discussing questions of quality is regularly on the agenda of this board. We carefully listen to criticism, ideas, and suggestions, and we have already implemented some of them for the benefit of the office and our users. Rolf Claessen: The German Patent and Trademark Office, as the largest patent and trademark office in Europe, records very high numbers of trademark applications. What are you currently especially concerned with in the trademark area? Eva Schewior: In 2025, we saw around ninety-five thousand trademark applications. This is an increase of eighteen percent compared to the previous year, and I have to say that this took us by surprise. Especially applications from outside Germany, and above all from China, have risen significantly. It is of course challenging to cope with such a sudden increase on an organizational level. Another challenge is dealing with trademark applications filed in bad faith, which we are currently seeing more and more of. We have thoroughly trained our trademark examiners on how to identify and handle such applications. As regards the new types of trademarks, the rush has been moderate so far. Sound marks, multimedia marks, or holograms are apparently not yet common solutions for the majority of applicants. The key focus remains on word marks and combined word and figurative marks. Nevertheless, I believe that the new trademark types are a meaningful supplement and may play a greater role as digitization advances. The most significant changes, however, concern procedures. Applicants can now choose whether to file revocation or invalidity actions with the courts or with our office. While courts may proceed somewhat faster, the financial risk is higher. Before the DPMA, each party generally bears its own costs, apart from exceptional cases. Rolf Claessen: How does this dynamic filing development impact the duration of trademark proceedings? Eva Schewior: This is indeed a major organizational challenge. For a long time, our trademark department managed to keep durations of proceedings very short, especially with regard to registration. Despite the recent increases in applications, especially in 2025, we hope to avoid a significant extension of processing times. We have restructured the organization of the trademark department to distribute applications more equally among teams. Applicants should also be aware that it is possible to request accelerated examination for a relatively moderate fee of two hundred euros. This often leads to registration within a very short time. The filing date, of course, always determines priority. Rolf Claessen: Since December 2025, the EU grants protection not only for agricultural products but also for craft and industrial products through geographical indications. Has your office already received applications? Eva Schewior: Yes, we have received our first application, and interestingly it concerns garden gnomes. Protected geographical indications are an important topic because they help maintain traditional know-how in regions and secure local jobs. The DPMA is the competent authority for Germany. Applications go through a national examination phase at our office before being forwarded to the EUIPO, which takes the final decision on EU-wide registration. Eligible products must originate from a specific region and derive their quality, reputation, or characteristics from that origin, with at least one production step taking place there. Rolf Claessen: The DPMA has expanded its outreach activities, including social media. What else is planned? Eva Schewior: Raising awareness of IP rights, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises, is part of our statutory duty. We currently use LinkedIn and YouTube to communicate IP topics in an understandable and engaging way. We also plan dedicated LinkedIn channels, for example for SMEs. Studies show that fewer than ten percent of European SMEs use IP rights, even though those that do earn significantly more on average. In 2026, we will further expand outreach activities, cooperate more closely with universities and educational institutions, and publish new studies, including one on the patenting behavior of innovative German start-ups conducted together with WIPO. Rolf Claessen: Where do you see the biggest future challenges in IP? Eva Schewior: Germany depends on innovation, but awareness of IP protection is still insufficient, particularly among SMEs and start-ups. Some companies deliberately avoid IP rights and rely on trade secrets, which I consider risky. Another growing concern is the increase in product and trademark piracy, often linked to organized crime. For our office, remaining attractive and competitive is crucial. Applicants have many options in Europe, so we need fast procedures, legally robust decisions, qualified staff, and modern IT systems. Rolf Claessen: The DPMA is currently recruiting. Which areas are you focusing on? Eva Schewior: Our focus is on patent examination and IT. We recently hired fifty new patent examiners and are particularly looking for experts in fields such as electrical engineering, e-mobility, IT, and aerospace. We are Europe's largest national patent office and offer meaningful, secure jobs with fair compensation and strong development opportunities. Rolf Claessen: Is there a final message you would like to share with our listeners? Eva Schewior: The Unitary Patent system has created many new options. German and European patent systems do not compete; they complement each other. For many SMEs, a German patent may already be sufficient, especially where Germany is the core market. Holding both European and national patents can also be a strategic advantage. My key message is: be aware of the options, stay informed, and choose your IP strategy deliberately. Rolf Claessen: Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Eva Schewior: Thank you for having me. It was a pleasure.

Squirrel Hill Vinyl Club, your monthly journey across techno, trance, acid, downtempo and houzy stuff. EPO, founder and member of Mentalità (a Bologna-Italy based electronic crew), is a Selector and DJ who recently moved to Pittsburgh with his bag full of european records and found a second home in the vinyl stores of the Steel City. Only vinyls selecta, hidden gems from the secondhand stores of Berlin, Amsterdam, London, Rome and the finest last releases. ---------- Follow EPO ◊ https://www.instagram.com/epo40135 ◊ https://www.facebook.com/Mentalitaa ◊ https://soundcloud.com/epo40135 ---------- Follow MSYH.FM » http://MSYH.FM » http://x.com/MSYHFM » http://instagram.com/MSYH.FM » http://facebook.com/MSYH.FM » http://patreon.com/MSYHFM ---------- Follow Make Sure You Have Fun™ ∞ http://MakeSureYouHaveFun.com ∞ http://x.com/MakeSureYouHave ∞ http://instagram.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://facebook.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://youtube.com/@MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://twitch.tv/@MakeSureYouHaveFun

Why Traditional Healthcare Falls Short—and How The Lanby Is Fixing ItClick On My Website Below To Schedule A Free 15 Min Zoom Call:www.Over40FitnessHacks.comOver 40 Fitness Hacks SKOOL Group!Get Your Whoop4.0 Here!Chloe Harrouche - The Lanby - Health Conciergewww.thelanby.comPodcast: Get Well, BetterIn this episode of Over 40 Fitness Hacks, Brad Williams sits down with Chloe Harrouche, founder of The Lanby, a modern, patient-led concierge healthcare practice redefining what proactive, preventive medicine can look like.Chloe shares her deeply personal journey into healthcare innovation, beginning with her background in bioengineering and healthcare consulting, and shaped profoundly by her experience being diagnosed with breast cancer at just 23 years old. Despite receiving standard-of-care treatment, Chloe was left with little guidance on how to truly optimize her long-term health. That gap—between traditional medicine and personalized, proactive wellness—became the catalyst for founding The Lanby.Throughout the conversation, Brad and Chloe unpack the shortcomings of conventional healthcare and even traditional concierge and Direct Primary Care (DPC) models. Chloe explains how The Lanby goes beyond access to care by offering trusted guidance, ongoing accountability, and true personalization, integrating functional medicine, nutrition, longevity science, and wellness into primary care.Listeners learn how The Lanby's team-based model works, combining physicians trained in prevention and functional medicine, registered dietitians, and dedicated member advocates who coordinate care and ensure patients feel heard and supported. Chloe details how The Lanby emphasizes proactive monitoring, including extensive baseline lab testing (100+ biomarkers), quarterly progress check-ins, and optional advanced diagnostics like genetics, gut microbiome testing, and biological age assessments—without pushing unnecessary add-ons.Brad relates the model to his own experience navigating cash-based healthcare, DPC, and self-directed biohacking, highlighting how overwhelming it can be to interpret data without expert guidance. Chloe explains how The Lanby helps turn complex health data into clear, actionable insights, reducing confusion and burnout for motivated, health-conscious individuals—especially those over 40.The episode also explores how The Lanby works alongside insurance (favoring PPO, EPO, or alternative cost-sharing plans), why HMOs are challenging, and how the model supports both day-to-day health optimization and coordination during acute issues.Finally, Chloe shares what's ahead for The Lanby, including:A nationwide metabolic health program using continuous glucose monitors“Just the Labs” and “Just the Genes” standalone offerings for non-membersPlans to expand into pediatric care with a holistic, family-centered approachChloe also highlights The Lanby's educational ecosystem—community talks, wellness presentations, newsletters, and her podcast Get Well Better—designed to empower patients with knowledge while providing expert context.If you're interested in online personal training or being a guest on my podcast, "Over 40 Fitness Hacks," you can reach me at brad@over40fitnesshacks.com or visit my website at:www.Over40FitnessHacks.comAdditionally, check out my Yelp reviews for my local business, Evolve Gym in Huntington Beach, at https://bit.ly/3GCKRzV

03 23-12-25 LHDW Jairo Fdez nos alerta del nuevo dopaje que viene de China y que se parece a la EPO. Rusía y Bielorrusia. La trampa siempre está por delante

Squirrel Hill Vinyl Club, your monthly journey across techno, trance, acid, downtempo and houzy stuff. EPO, founder and member of Mentalità (a Bologna-Italy based electronic crew), is a Selector and DJ who recently moved to Pittsburgh with his bag full of european records and found a second home in the vinyl stores of the Steel City. Only vinyls selecta, hidden gems from the secondhand stores of Berlin, Amsterdam, London, Rome and the finest last releases. ---------- Follow EPO ◊ https://www.instagram.com/epo40135 ◊ https://www.facebook.com/Mentalitaa ◊ https://soundcloud.com/epo40135 ---------- Follow MSYH.FM » http://MSYH.FM » http://x.com/MSYHFM » http://instagram.com/MSYH.FM » http://facebook.com/MSYH.FM » http://patreon.com/MSYHFM ---------- Follow Make Sure You Have Fun™ ∞ http://MakeSureYouHaveFun.com ∞ http://x.com/MakeSureYouHave ∞ http://instagram.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://facebook.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://youtube.com/@MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://twitch.tv/@MakeSureYouHaveFun

Full Show Notes: https://bengreenfieldlife.com/lnraw03/ Welcome to a no-holds-barred, behind-the-scenes edition. You’re getting an exclusive replay from my Life Network’s RAW series—a solo deep dive where I share straight-up, sometimes controversial truths you won’t always hear on the main show. In this episode, I peel back the curtain on a recent mastermind weekend at my home, where I observed over 20 high-performing men up close: we’re talking morning routines, meal habits, biohacking practices, tech usage—you name it. What did I see? Even the “healthy” folks slip into patterns that sabotage fat loss, disrupt sleep, tank metabolic health, and kill mobility. I lay it all out: how “healthy” snacks sneak in hundreds of mindless calories, why evening stimulant use is wrecking your sleep, the truth about EMF and laptop exposure, the game-changing power of post-meal movement, and the essential daily mobility practice my body swears by. Episode Sponsors: BIOptimizers Magnesium Breakthrough: The 7 essential forms of magnesium included in this full spectrum serving help you relax, unwind, and turn off your active brain after a long and stressful day so you can rest peacefully and wake up feeling refreshed, vibrant, and alert. Go to bioptimizers.com/ben and use code ben15 for 15% off any order. Health Lighting: If you want to see and feel the difference better light can make in your life, give Chromalux® full spectrum light bulbs a try. Go to healthlighting.com and use code Ben10 at checkout to save 10% off your order. Ketone-IQ: Ketone-IQ delivers science-backed performance fuel that increases power output by 19%, reduces fatigue by 10%, and naturally boosts EPO production for better oxygen delivery—trusted by elite athletes like Jon Jones and Olympic champions. Save 30% on your subscription plus get a free gift with your second shipment at Ketone.com/BENG. Quantum Upgrade: Recent research has revealed that the Quantum Upgrade was able to increase ATP production by a jaw-dropping 20–25% in human cells. Unlock a 15-day free trial with the code BEN15 at quantumupgrade.io. Truvaga: Balance your nervous system naturally with Truvaga's vagus nerve stimulator. Visit Truvaga.com/Greenfield and use code GREENFIELD30 to save $30 off any Truvaga device. Calm your mind, focus better, and recover faster in just two minutes.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.

Squirrel Hill Vinyl Club, your monthly journey across techno, trance, acid, downtempo and houzy stuff. EPO, founder and member of Mentalità (a Bologna-Italy based electronic crew), is a Selector and DJ who recently moved to Pittsburgh with his bag full of european records and found a second home in the vinyl stores of the Steel City. Only vinyls selecta, hidden gems from the secondhand stores of Berlin, Amsterdam, London, Rome and the finest last releases. ---------- Follow EPO ◊ https://www.instagram.com/epo40135 ◊ https://www.facebook.com/Mentalitaa ◊ https://soundcloud.com/epo40135 ---------- Follow MSYH.FM » http://MSYH.FM » http://x.com/MSYHFM » http://instagram.com/MSYH.FM » http://facebook.com/MSYH.FM » http://patreon.com/MSYHFM ---------- Follow Make Sure You Have Fun™ ∞ http://MakeSureYouHaveFun.com ∞ http://x.com/MakeSureYouHave ∞ http://instagram.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://facebook.com/MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://youtube.com/@MakeSureYouHaveFun ∞ http://twitch.tv/@MakeSureYouHaveFun

In the latest episode of The Brian D. O'Leary show, we sat down with Yaron Weitzman in a wide-ranging interview that dove into the modern Lakers dynasty, the lasting imprint of the Buss family, and the evolving career of LeBron James. *** Featured Guest Yaron Weitzman: Author, NBA journalist, and insider on all things basketball, discussing his new Lakers book and the deeper drama surrounding LeBron, the Buss family, and team culture. Find Yaron on social media: · X/Twitter (@YaronWeitzman) · Instagram (@yaronweitzman) · TikTok (@yaronweitzman) *** Books Mentioned A Hollywood Ending: The Dreams and Drama of the LeBron Lakers (Doubleday, October 21, 2025) | Yaron Weitzman | A behind-the-scenes account of the recent Lakers' journey, focusing on the politics, personalities, and tensions that have shaped the LeBron-era Lakers. Tanking to the Top: The Philadelphia 76ers and the Most Audacious Process in the History of Professional Sports | Yaron Weitzman | A deep dive into the inner workings of "The Process," chronicling how the 76ers undertook an unapologetic rebuild to become a contender. Giannis: The Improbable Rise of an NBA MVP | Mirin Fader | A New York Times Bestseller tracing Giannis Antetokounmpo's journey from poverty in Greece to world stardom—a nuanced look at his off-court and on-court evolution. Blood in the Garden: The Flagrant History of the 1990s New York Knicks | Chris Herring | The definitive story of Pat Riley's Knicks—physical, controversial, beloved, and often chaotic throughout the NBA's golden era. Three-Ring Circus: Kobe, Shaq, Phil, and the Crazy Years of the Lakers Dynasty | Jeff Pearlman | The inside story of the Lakers' 1996–2004 dynasty, documenting the unforgettable drama and cultural change led by Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, and Phil Jackson. I do not recommend any of Pearlman's work, as I believe him to be a disingenuous, sanctimonious jerk … Oh, and a liar. But I'm dutifully giving you the resources. –BO'L *** Key News Stories Discussed The Luka Doncic Trade to the Lakers (February 2025): Lakers landed Luka Doncic, Maxi Kleber, and Markieff Morris in a three-team blockbuster trade, sending Anthony Davis to the Mavericks—a move that shifted the balance of power in the West. For full details and quotes from both the Lakers and Mavericks front offices: See ESPN: “Luka Doncic to Lakers, Anthony Davis to Mavs in 3-team trade” (February 2025). https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/43659380/sources-mavericks-trading-doncic-lakers-anthony-davis Dallas Mavericks Fire GM Nico Harrison (November 2025): Following the controversial Luka trade and mounting pressure from fans, the Mavericks fired GM Nico Harrison at a dramatic team meeting. For the backstory, front-office statements, and Harrison's reasoning at the time of the trade: See ESPN: “Mavericks fire GM Nico Harrison amid continued fan angst” (November 2025). https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/46928742/sources-mavericks-expected-fire-general-manager-nico-harrison *** Chael Sonnen on LeBron – The "Same Guy" Allegation Viral Video/Podcast Segment: Former UFC fighter Chael Sonnen claimed on the Flagrant 2 podcast that he and LeBron James “have the same drug guy.” Sonnen alleged LeBron uses EPO and other PEDs, a claim that's made waves online but is unsupported by any formal evidence or NBA violations to date. For the podcast segment, see: https://x.com/MavsStan41/status/1633276225442521088? also … https://heavy.com/sports/nba/los-angeles-lakers/shocking-claims-about-lakers-lebron-james-revealed/ *** If you have a Substack or want to get started on that platform, I just put together a 31-page guide about how to do it. Properly. It's called Your Substack Success Blueprint. We talk about Magic Johnson in this podcast, so to pay homage to one of the game's true greats, the first 32 people to buy Your Substack Success Blueprint will get a sweet $32 discount. Use code SUBSTACK at checkout. Deal expires after the first 32 purchases, or at the end of the calendar year, whichever comes first. https://briandoleary.gumroad.com/l/blueprint/ *** For press, sponsorship, or guest inquiries, contact brian at briandoleary dot com (you know the drill…).

US Olympic Marathon Trials champion Fiona O'Keeffe joins us at 55:03 to break down her 4th-place finish at the NYC Marathon, how she rebounded from Olympic heartbreak, and what it's like training under Amy and Alistair Cragg. She opens up about her workouts, recovery from injury, and her long-term goals for 2026 and beyond. Before that, we dive into a wild week in track and field: USADA quietly banned Marvin Bracy, the 2022 World 100 m silver medalist, for nearly four years after he provided "substantial assistance" in a federal doping investigation involving the AIU and the DEA. The story first broke through former sprinter Rae Edwards (RaesTake), who claimed Bracy had been serving a secret suspension and said Bracy's then-coach Dennis Mitchell tipped off the authorities after Bracy confided in him about using a PED. The case has sparked major questions about transparency, informants, and how far USADA should go in keeping suspensions hidden. Plus, the IOC bans males from women's sports, Conner and Kylie Mantz headline the Two Cities Marathon, Elise Cranny may be training with Keely Hodgkinson in the UK, and much more.

Show Notes: https://bengreenfieldlife.com/stemcells2025/ In this episode, I sit down in Park City, Utah, with two trailblazers in the regenerative medicine space (and repeat guests): Dr. Harry Adelson and Dr. Amy Killen. They dive deep into the world of the Full Body Stem Cell Make-Over®—exploring what sets their innovative procedures apart, what actually happens during this intensive experience, and why you don’t need to cross any borders to get world-class stem cell treatments. Together, they unravel common myths about stem cell therapy, clarify the legal landscape in the U.S. versus international clinics, and shed light on how these therapies could impact everything from joint recovery and longevity to skin, sexual health, and even brain function. You’ll also get a behind-the-scenes look at the safety protocols, sourcing, and advanced technologies—like laser activation and extracellular vesicles—that elevate their practice above the rest. Episode Sponsors: LeelaQ: Not only do LeelaQ’s products neutralize EMFs, increase ATP production, optimize HRV, and improve blood flow, but they've been third-party proven to do so in placebo-controlled double-blind studies. Visit leelaq.com and use code BEN10 for 10% off. LVLUP Health: I trust and recommend LVLUP Health for your peptide needs as they third-party test every single batch of their peptides to ensure you’re getting exactly what you pay for and the results you’re after! Head over to lvluphealth.com/BGL and use code BEN15 for a special discount on their game-changing range of products. Truvaga: Balance your nervous system naturally with Truvaga's vagus nerve stimulator. Visit Truvaga.com/Greenfield and use code GREENFIELD30 to save $30 off any Truvaga device. Calm your mind, focus better, and recover faster in just two minutes. Ketone-IQ: Ketone-IQ delivers science-backed performance fuel that increases power output by 19%, reduces fatigue by 10%, and naturally boosts EPO production for better oxygen delivery—trusted by elite athletes like Jon Jones and Olympic champions. Save 30% on your subscription plus get a free gift with your second shipment at Ketone.com/BENG. Pique: Pique Teas is where plants and science intersect to produce teas and supplements of unrivaled efficacy, purity, and convenience. Go to Piquelife.com/Ben to get 20% off for life, plus a free starter kit with a rechargeable frother and glass beaker to elevate your ritual. Boundless Bar: Fuel your body and brain with Boundless Bar—the world’s first goBHB®-powered protein bar designed for sustained energy, mental focus, and metabolic health. Made with collagen protein, nut butters, and clean ketones, it supports performance, recovery, and all-day vitality. Grab yours now at boundlessbar.com—and enjoy 10% off when you subscribe.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Full Show Notes: https://bengreenfieldlife.com/lnamie/ Low libido... brain fog... and decreased muscle mass — many women face these issues without realizing they could be linked to hormone imbalances, particularly low testosterone levels. As you navigate through perimenopause or menopause, the overlapping symptoms can be confusing and frustrating, making it difficult to pinpoint the root cause and find effective solutions. In this episode, Dr. Amie Hornaman and I dive deep into the often-overlooked aspects of hormone management, with a special focus on testosterone's pivotal role in women's health. From understanding the complex interactions between testosterone and thyroid levels to exploring the best methods for hormone testing, you'll receive a comprehensive guide to optimizing your hormone balance. You'll also gain insights into various testosterone replacement methods, strategies to manage side effects, and tips on integrating peptide therapy for enhanced recovery and growth hormone levels. Whether you're seeking to boost your libido, enhance cognitive function, or maintain muscle mass, this episode offers practical advice to help you achieve your health goals. Dr. Amie is a certified functional medicine practitioner, a women's hormone specialist, and has a doctorate in clinical nutrition. Dr. Amie helps patients navigate thyroid and hormone supplements and provides thyroid support resources. Dr. Amie's patients are located around the world, including the US, UK, and Australia, and she uses telehealth to help thousands of patients each year. Episode Sponsors: Ketone-IQ: Ketone-IQ delivers science-backed performance fuel that increases power output by 19%, reduces fatigue by 10%, and naturally boosts EPO production for better oxygen delivery—trusted by elite athletes like Jon Jones and Olympic champions. Save 30% on your subscription plus get a free gift with your second shipment at Ketone.com/BENG. Muse: Muse S Athena combines clinical-grade EEG and fNIRS technology to train your brain in real time while tracking sleep with 86% expert-level accuracy. Get 15% off at choosemuse.com/BENGREENFIELD or use code BENGREENFIELD at checkout. Pique: Pique Teas is where plants and science intersect to produce teas and supplements of unrivaled efficacy, purity, and convenience. Go to Piquelife.com/Ben to get 20% off for life, plus a free starter kit with a rechargeable frother and glass beaker to elevate your ritual. ZBiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic: The world's first genetically engineered probiotic that helps break down the toxic byproduct of alcohol, Zbiotics Pre-Alcohol allows you to enjoy your night out and feel great the next day. Order with the confidence of a 100% money-back guarantee and 15% off your first order at zbiotics.com/BEN15. Our Place: Upgrade to Our Place today and say goodbye to forever chemicals in your kitchen. Go to fromourplace.comand enter my code BEN at checkout to receive 10% off sitewide. Boundless Bar: If you’re ready to fuel workouts, sharpen your focus, and support whole-body vitality, grab your Boundless Bars now at boundlessbar.com —and save 10% when you sign up for a Boundless Bar subscription. Want to Hear More from Dr Amie and Other Leading Health Experts?Click Here to Join LIFE Network for FreeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Gary Brecka is a leading expert in human biology and longevity with over 20 years of experience in biohacking and functional medicine. As the former Chief Human Biologist and co-founder of 10X Health System, he developed innovative wellness protocols that optimize performance and restore balance in the body. Now, through The Ultimate Human brand (you can check out our podcast together here), Gary continues his mission to help people take control of their biology using measurable, science-based methods. Specializing in serum blood and genetic biomarkers, he enhances human performance through personalized nutrition, advanced supplementation, movement protocols, and technologies such as oxygen therapy and red light treatments. Gary works with a hand-picked clinical team of board-certified physicians (M.D.s), Ph.D. researchers, business leaders, functional medicine experts, motivators, and scientists—all united by one mission: to discover and deliver the safest, fastest ways to optimize the mind, body, and spirit through modern science.Full show notes: https://bengreenfieldlife.com/podcast/lngary/ Episode Sponsors: Gameday Men’s Health: Gameday Men's Health offers science-backed, physician-led men's health optimization with personalized protocols for testosterone, peptide therapy, ED treatment, and more—helping you perform at your best whether you're training hard or keeping up with life. Visit gamedaymenshealth.com/bengreenfield for a free testosterone test and consultation at a clinic near you. Timeline Nutrition: Give your cells new life with high-performance products powered by Mitopure, Timeline's powerful ingredient that unlocks a precise dose of the rare Urolithin A molecule and promotes healthy aging. Go to shop.timeline.com/BEN and use code BEN to get 20% off your order. Ketone-IQ: Ketone-IQ delivers science-backed performance fuel that increases power output by 19%, reduces fatigue by 10%, and naturally boosts EPO production for better oxygen delivery—trusted by elite athletes like Jon Jones and Olympic champions. Save 30% on your subscription plus get a free gift with your second shipment at Ketone.com/BENG BEAM Minerals: If you want to up your mineral game, give BEAM Minerals a try. Go to beamminerals.com and use code BEN at checkout for 20% off your order. Quantum Upgrade: Recent research has revealed that the Quantum Upgrade was able to increase ATP production by a jaw-dropping 20–25% in human cells. Unlock a 15-day free trial with the code BEN15 at quantumupgrade.io.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join Discourse and contribute to the Spotlight, and join the conversation - a small monthly donation gets you membership to our community, and that allows you to drive discussion around these shows, and get even more value and insight from what other listeners are sharing.Show notesIn Spotlight this week, we look back at a packed weekend of sports action and offer insights on the big events. We kick it off with the AFL (1:39), where the Grand Final was played, and where listener Josh sent in an article exploring how the body shape and size of players have evolved over the years. Gareth wonders whether the players adapt to the game, or whether the game adapts to the athleticism of its players, and Ross explains the physiological equivalent of 'form follows function'.Then we move to Rugby (9:56), where England were crowned World Champions at the weekend, crowing an unbeaten World Cup cycle in which they've averaged 50 points a match and not lost a single match. The final wasn't exactly smooth sailing, and Gareth and Ross share some thoughts on what impressed us, and where Canada may have fallen short, with hopes for continued growth in the game.From Rugby to cycling for a brief last look back at the Rwanda World Champs (23:10), but where off-bike news in the form of the UCI back-pedal on handlebar widths and other policy changes are the main focus of conversation.Cycling gives way to golf (38:48), and the Ryder Cup, which looked like a foregone conclusion until it wasn't, and one of the year's great sports spectacles unfolded in New York. We learn how Europe used data analytics and simulations to optimize its foursome and fourball combinations, and wonder when data becomes a hinderance as opposed to a helper in sport?In response to a spate of serious ACL injuries in the NFL and in football (51:58), Gareth wonders whether something is happening, perhaps related to the training and conditioning of athletes, or the turf, to increase ACL injury risk? Ross is less sure, explaining how rare injuries can throw up misleading 'patterns', compounded by media bias.We wrap up with some doping stories (55:52), including the CAS decision in the case of Erriyon Knighton, who was initially cleared of doping when he was able to show contamination of an oxtail meal he consumed. But CAS didn't see it the same way, and he got a four year ban because of their interpretation of the pharmacokinetics and the relative levels of the banned substance in the oxtial compared to in his urine. We also go to Kenya, where an athlete admitted not only to taking EPO, but explaining how he obtained it. Whether it's a truthful account is anyone's guess.And finally (1:03:16), the NFL came to (Dublin) town last weekend, and the juxtaposition of some high profile rugby players and the NFL kicked off a conversation comparing the two sports. We end with a semi lighthearted look at the helmet and pad culture of American Football, and offer thoughts on why rugby's lack of protective equipment doesn't necessarily make it more dangerous.LinksTaller, leaner, faster AFL playersYou can read the Knighton CAS decision hereNo Laying Up Golf Analytics Podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we dive into a hotly debated topic: should you eat meat or not? Ben is joined by two powerhouse guests with decades of experience in nutrition and health—Dr. Shawn Baker, best-selling author of The Carnivore Diet and leading carnivore advocate, and Joel Greene, creator of The Immunity Code and champion of dietary diversity. In this spirited debate, Dr. Baker highlights the benefits of a strict carnivore approach—meat, eggs, some dairy, and minimal plant foods—not only for himself but also for patients managing chronic health issues. He explains why animal-based nutrition can be so effective, breaks down the science of ketosis and gut health, and responds to concerns about long-term effects of fiber-free diets. Meanwhile, Joel Greene makes the case for dietary variety, drawing from evolutionary biology, clinical research, and personal experience. He explores the synergies of combining animal and plant foods, the role of fiber in gut and immune health, and the ancestral rhythms of scarcity and feasting. Joel argues that even small amounts of diverse foods can offset downsides of strict elimination diets. Dr. Baker is a physician, athlete, and author known for his straightforward, meat-focused approach to nutrition and his background in strength sports. Joel is the creator of Veep Nutrition, a program targeting gut communities to improve health, used by major employers and featured on the Dr. Phil Show. Author of The Immunity Code, Joel has devoted 50 years to health and anti-aging, pioneering practices like MCTs in the ’80s, keto in the ’90s, and AMPK activation by 2009. At 55, he remains a 100% natural athlete. Full show notes: bengreenfieldlife.com/diversityorcarnivore Episode Sponsors: Unmatched: Outlier by Unmatched is the world's first pre-workout featuring Paraxanthine instead of caffeine, delivering sustained energy and focus without the crash, plus premium ingredients like Cognizin for cognitive enhancement and NO3-T for incredible muscle pumps. Try it at unmatchedsupps.com/bengreenfield with special bulk discounts: 15% off one, 20% off two, or 25% off three. Xtendlife: Future-proof your health with Xtendlife’s Total Balance—100+ bio-active ingredients in a gender-specific formula designed for longevity and complete daily support. Use code BEN15 at www.xtend-life.com/ben for 15% off sitewide, plus free shipping. IM8: Ditch the cabinet full of supplements—IM8 packs 92 powerhouse ingredients into one delicious scoop for all-day energy, gut health, and cellular support. Go to IM8Health.com and use code BEN for an exclusive gift—fuel your body the right way! LMNT: Everyone needs electrolytes, especially those on low-carb diets, who practice intermittent or extended fasting, are physically active, or sweat a lot. Go to DrinkLMNT.com/BenGreenfield to get a free sample pack with your purchase! Ketone-IQ: Ketone-IQ delivers science-backed performance fuel that increases power output by 19%, reduces fatigue by 10%, and naturally boosts EPO production for better oxygen delivery—trusted by elite athletes like Jon Jones and Olympic champions. Save 30% on your subscription plus get a free gift with your second shipment at Ketone.com/BENG.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this fascinating episode with Will Ahmed, founder of WHOOP (you can click here to get 1 month free on your membership), you’ll get to discover how his company is redefining health tracking through continuous 24/7 physiological monitoring, actionable coaching, and innovations like ECG readings and noninvasive blood pressure insights. Will Ahmed is the Founder and CEO of WHOOP, which has developed next-generation wearable technology for optimizing human performance and health. WHOOP members include professional athletes, Fortune 500 CEOs, fitness enthusiasts, military personnel, frontline workers, and a broad range of people looking to improve their performance. Ahmed is a member of the Board of Fellows of Harvard Medical School, where he provides counsel to the Dean and faculty on topics related to the strength and health of the institution. Ahmed was named to the 2021 Sports Business Journal 40 Under 40 list as well as 2020 Fortune 40 Under 40 Healthcare list and previously named to the Forbes 30 Under 30 and Boston Business Journal’s 40 Under 40. Ahmed founded WHOOP as a student at Harvard College, where he captained the Men’s Varsity Squash Team and graduated with an A.B. in government. WHOOP, the human performance company, offers a wearable health and fitness coach to help people achieve their goals. The WHOOP membership provides best-in-class wearable technology, actionable feedback, and recommendations across recovery, sleep, training, and health. WHOOP serves professional athletes, Fortune 500 CEOs, executives, fitness enthusiasts, military personnel, frontline workers, and anyone looking to improve their performance. Discount Codes: You can click here to get 1 month of WHOOP for free (membership only). Full show notes: bengreenfieldlife.com/WHOOP5 Episode Sponsors: LVLUP Health: I trust and recommend LVLUP Health for your peptide needs as they third-party test every single batch of their peptides to ensure you’re getting exactly what you pay for and the results you’re after! Head over to lvluphealth.com/BGL and use code BEN15 for a special discount on their game-changing range of products. Ketone-IQ: Ketone-IQ delivers science-backed performance fuel that increases power output by 19%, reduces fatigue by 10%, and naturally boosts EPO production for better oxygen delivery—trusted by elite athletes like Jon Jones and Olympic champions. Save 30% on your subscription plus get a free gift with your second shipment at Ketone.com/BENG. Quantum Upgrade: Recent research has revealed that the Quantum Upgrade was able to increase ATP production by a jaw-dropping 20–25% in human cells. Unlock a 15-day free trial with the code BEN15 at quantumupgrade.io. MASA Chips: Introducing the best guilt-free snack on the market: classic, seed oil free tortilla chips with only 3 natural ingredients. Go to masachips.com/greenfield and get 25% off your first order! Timeline Nutrition: Give your cells new life with high-performance products powered by Mitopure, Timeline's powerful ingredient that unlocks a precise dose of the rare Urolithin A molecule and promotes healthy aging. Go to shop.timeline.com/BEN and use code BEN to get 20% off your order.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What does it take to keep running strong from your teens into your 90s? In this fifth episode of The Aging Athlete series, Krissy Moehl co-hosts as we sit down with Jeff Browning—coach, ultrarunner, and one of the sport's most consistent and ageless performers. Jeff shares how he has adapted his training across decades, balancing intensity with recovery to stay competitive deep into his 50s. He talks about the importance of nutrition, mindset, and smart planning as the body changes, offering practical lessons that apply at any age. His story is proof that aging doesn't mean slowing down—it means evolving. Tune in for insights on how to adjust your training and embrace the long game on the trail. Learn More about Bronco Billy at: giddyupultra.com Instagram YouTube Episode Sponsors: Janji, Use code TRAILRUNNER for 10% off Ketone IQ, Used by Tour de France champions—Ketone-IQ naturally boosts EPO, recovery, and endurance. Get 30% off your first subscription order Tifosi Optics 20% off with code TRN JAMBAR: 20% off with code TRN20 Get our new "1 > 0" technical running hat - THEY'RE on SALE!

In this episode with repeat guest Jordan Rubin, you’ll uncover a holistic plan for building strength, health, and longevity from one of the world’s most recognized natural health experts. Jordan shares how his family tradition of reciting Psalm 91 and insights from his new book, The Biblio Diet, reveal timeless biblical wisdom for vibrant living. He also highlights his groundbreaking research on “healing leaves” from fruit trees—their potential to fight cancer, balance blood sugar, reduce inflammation, and support longevity—and how to turn them into a daily healing tea. Jordan Rubin is the founder of Garden of Life, Beyond Organic, and Ancient Nutrition, and the New York Times bestselling author of The Maker’s Diet and over 30 other titles, including The Biblio Diet. An eco-entrepreneur and global lecturer, he has shared his message of natural health worldwide, formulated nearly 1,000 bestselling supplements and functional foods, and operates Regenerative Organic Certified farms in Missouri and Tennessee. Full show notes: https://bengreenfieldlife.com/biblio Episode Sponsors: MASA Chips: Introducing the best guilt-free snack on the market: classic, seed oil free tortilla chips with only 3 natural ingredients. Go to masachips.com/greenfield and get 25% off your first order! Quantum Upgrade: Recent research has revealed that the Quantum Upgrade was able to increase ATP production by a jaw-dropping 20–25% in human cells. Unlock a 15-day free trial with the code BEN15 at quantumupgrade.io. Ketone-IQ: Ketone-IQ delivers science-backed performance fuel that increases power output by 19%, reduces fatigue by 10%, and naturally boosts EPO production for better oxygen delivery—trusted by elite athletes like Jon Jones and Olympic champions. Save 30% on your subscription plus get a free gift with your second shipment at Ketone.com/BENG. Fatty15: Fatty15 is on a mission to optimize your C15:0 levels and help you live healthier, longer. You can get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription Starter Kit by going to fatty15.com/BEN and using code BEN at checkout. LVLUP Health: I trust and recommend LVLUP Health for your peptide needs as they third-party test every single batch of their peptides to ensure you’re getting exactly what you pay for and the results you’re after! Head over to lvluphealth.com/BGL and use code BEN15 for a special discount on their game-changing range of products. ZBiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic: The world's first genetically engineered probiotic that helps break down the toxic byproduct of alcohol, Zbiotics Pre-Alcohol allows you to enjoy your night out and feel great the next day. Order with the confidence of a 100% money-back guarantee and 15% off your first order at zbiotics.com/BEN15.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, we sit down with Ben Rosario, Head Coach and Executive Director of Hoka Northern Arizona Elite Team, aka Hoka NAZ Elite, to uncover how professional runners train—and how everyday runners can apply the same strategies. Ben shares why success isn't only about big workouts, but also about the fundamentals: getting enough sleep, fueling properly, and building strength without needing a fancy gym. He emphasizes the importance of stretching and mobility, as well as truly respecting easy days to allow the body to recover and adapt. Listeners will also learn how pros approach pacing and why managing effort can make the difference between struggle and breakthrough. No matter your age, background, or ability level, these simple yet powerful habits can help you run stronger, faster, and further. This episode shows that elite training principles aren't reserved for pros—they're tools that anyone can use to reach their goals. Learn more in the book he co-authored with Matt Fitzgerald, In their new book, Run Like a Pro (Even If You're Slow): Elite Tools and Tips for Runners at Every Level,  they help us understand that we can reach our potential if we include some of these training techniques and strategies. Janji, Use code TRAILRUNNER for 10% off Ketone IQ, Used by Tour de France champions—Ketone-IQ naturally boosts EPO, recovery, and endurance. Get 30% off your first subscription order Tifosi Optics 20% off with code TRN JAMBAR: 20% off with code TRN20 Get our new "1 > 0" technical running hat- THEY'RE on SALE!

What if one simple idea could transform the way athletes fuel their bodies? In this episode, we explore the birth of the very first sports nutrition bar back in the 1980s—a product that forever changed performance and recovery. Can you guess what it is? You'll hear the story behind its creation from one of its creators, Jennifer Maxwell, from the spark of inspiration to the trial-and-error experiments that nearly derailed it. Along the way, the creators faced unexpected setbacks that tested their resolve, but ultimately paved the way for a groundbreaking innovation. More than just a snack, this bar reshaped the entire sports nutrition industry and sparked a wave of creativity that continues today. Join us for a story of grit, vision, and the power of an idea that fueled athletes worldwide. Jennifer continues to share the reason why she is back in the business with a yummy and healthy NEW product, JamBar! Episode Sponsors: Janji, Use code TRAILRUNNER for 10% off Ketone IQ, Used by Tour de France champions—Ketone-IQ naturally boosts EPO, recovery, and endurance. Get 30% off your first subscription order Tifosi Optics 20% off with code TRN Visit Electrokare before September 5th to get your spot Oikos Triple Zero Get our new "1 > 0" technical running hat

I’m always on the lookout for a good book on sleep, and I recently read one of the better titles I’ve found in the past few years: How to Sleep Like a Caveman: Ancient Wisdom for a Better Night's Rest—Based on the Evolutionary Science of Sleep from Saber-Toothed Tigers to Modern Insomnia. Written by today’s podcast guest, Dr. Merijn van de Laar, one of the world’s leading sleep scientists, it is a bit like Sapiens meets Why We Sleep in an evolutionary romp through the science of sleep—and how you can get better rest. If you’re curious about the science of sleep, what our evolutionary past can teach you, and actionable ways to wake up truly rested, this episode is for you. Full show notes: https://bengreenfieldlife.com/cavemansleep Episode Sponsors: CAROL Bike: The science is clear—CAROL Bike is your ticket to a healthier, more vibrant life. And for a limited time, you can get $100 off yours with the code BEN. Don't wait any longer, join over 25,000 riders and visit carolbike.com/ben today. Gameday Men’s Health: Gameday Men's Health offers science-backed, physician-led men's health optimization with personalized protocols for testosterone, peptide therapy, ED treatment, and more—helping you perform at your best whether you're training hard or keeping up with life. Visit gamedaymenshealth.com/bengreenfield for a free testosterone test and consultation at a clinic near you. Just Thrive: For a limited time, you can save 20% off a 90-day bottle of Just Thrive Probiotic and Just Calm at justthrivehealth.com/ben with promo code BEN. That’s like getting a month for FREE—take control today with Just Thrive! Calroy: Head on over to calroy.com/ben and save over $50 when you purchase the Vascanox (a breakthrough product providing nitric oxide support for up to 24 hours with a single dose) and Arterosil (a premier supplement to support the endothelial glycocalyx—the fragile inner lining of the entire vascular system) bundle at calroy.com/ben. Plus, you'll receive a free canister of 2-in-1 Nitric Oxide Test Strips with a 3-pack bundle purchase. Ketone-IQ: Ketone-IQ delivers science-backed performance fuel that increases power output by 19%, reduces fatigue by 10%, and naturally boosts EPO production for better oxygen delivery—trusted by elite athletes like Jon Jones and Olympic champions. Save 30% on your subscription plus get a free gift with your second shipment at Ketone.com/BENG.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Trail Runner Nation, we reflect on the evolution of trail running and the Trail Runner Nation podcast over the past 14 years. We reflect on some clips from our very first episode, Podcast Numero Uno, published in November of 2011.  We discuss the changes in trail running gear, the importance of community and knowledge sharing, and the technological advancements that have shaped the TRN podcasting journey. The conversation highlights the significance of creating a gathering place for runners and the role of the podcast in fostering a sense of belonging within the trail running community. Episode Sponsors: Janji, Use code TRAILRUNNER for 10% off Ketone IQ, Used by Tour de France champions—Ketone-IQ naturally boosts EPO, recovery, and endurance. Get 30% off your first subscription order Tifosi Optics 20% off with code TRN Liquid IV, get 20% off your first order with code TRAILRUNNER Oikos Triple Zero Get our new "1 > 0" technical running hat

Geoff, Gavin and Andrew talk about Imhotep, vaseline, dry rub, circumcision, hairline, animal hair, Turkey assumptions, EPO tent, Lance Armstrong, 100% ankles, intestines, ebikes, dogged out, off the dog?, The Edge, Bart the Bear, Bronson Pinchot, Hitman Map, the radio, santa claus demons, Greg the Bunny, bear disease, slug lifespan, bats, organized animals, mosquitos, slug redemption, Changing Lanes, and picture posting. Support us directly at https://www.patreon.com/TheRegulationPod Stay up to date, get exclusive supplemental content, and connect with other Regulation Listeners. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What if the key to becoming a stronger, more resilient runner isn't about pushing harder, but moving smarter? In this episode, we're joined by Samuel Stow, ultramarathoner and movement coach behind Pop Running. With a background in aerospace engineering, Sam blends biomechanics, breathwork, and mindfulness to help runners reconnect with their core, activate their glutes, and move with intention. We explore how awareness, not intensity, leads to pain-free and efficient movement, both on and off the trail. Sam shares practical tips for posture, breathing, and body alignment that can transform your running experience.  Find out more about Pop Running and the book, Engineering Flow State Follow Samuel on Instagram  Episode Sponsors: Janji, Use code TRAILRUNNER for 10% off Ketone IQ, Used by Tour de France champions—Ketone-IQ naturally boosts EPO, recovery, and endurance. Get 30% off your first subscription order Tifosi Optics 20% off with code TRN Shokz, Use code TRN10 for 10% off Oikos Triple Zero Get our new "1 > 0" technical running hat

Join us as we have an insightful conversation with renowned coach Ian Sharman. We discuss how to navigate the world of running advice with a critical eye and how his coaching philosophy has evolved.  How to identify credible running advice and avoid misinformation. Find out more about Ian at Sharman Ultra Coaching Episode Sponsors: Janji, Use code TRAILRUNNER for 10% off Ketone IQ, Used by Tour de France champions—Ketone-IQ naturally boosts EPO, recovery, and endurance. Get 30% off your first subscription order Tifosi Optics 20% off with code TRN Bear Mattress, get 40% off your first order with code TRAIL Oikos Triple Zero Get our new "1 > 0" technical running hat

What does it mean to be a trail runner in your 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s—or even your 70s? How do years of pounding dirt, chasing summits, and chasing goals shape our bodies, minds, and identities? Welcome to The Aging Athlete, a new Trail Runner Nation mini-series co-hosted by ultrarunning icon Krissy Moehl. Every 5 to 6 weeks, we'll dive into what it looks like to grow older in this sport we love—exploring how to train smarter, fuel better, recover more intentionally, and stay motivated through the decades. In this second episode of the Aging Athlete Series, we speak with Dr. Scott Drum, an exercise physiologist and lifelong endurance athlete. We explore how training, VO₂ max, heart health, sleep, and social connection evolve as we age—and how understanding these changes can help runners continue performing and thriving for decades. Dr. Drum explains how we can maintain (and even improve) cardiovascular fitness into our 50s and beyond, and shares his personal experience with AFib as a cautionary but hopeful tale. The conversation blends science, personal insight, and practical strategies to help runners of all ages stay motivated, train smart, and run for life. Check out Krissy's book in it's second edition, Running Your First Ultra Episode Sponsors: Janji, Use code TRAILRUNNER for 10% off Ketone IQ, Used by Tour de France champions—Ketone-IQ naturally boosts EPO, recovery, and endurance Get 30% off your first subscription order Tifosi Optics 20% off with code TRN Amazfit - T-Rex 3: Get 15% off Oikos Triple Zero Get our new "1 > 0" technical running hat