Podcasts about Equivalence

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.

This talk was given by Gil Fronsdal on 2025.11.07 at the IMC Programs in IMC. ******* Equivalence of Ethics and Enlightenment (2025-10-01 00:00:00 -0700) ******* A machine generated transcript of this talk is available. It has not been edited by a human, so errors will exist. Download Transcript: https://www.audiodharma.org/transcripts/24193/download ******* For more talks like this, visit AudioDharma.org ******* If you have enjoyed this talk, please consider supporting AudioDharma with a donation at https://www.audiodharma.org/donate/. ******* This talk is licensed by a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License

In this podcast, Nicolas Badre, MD, and Eric Geier, MD, PhD, discuss their article, "Anticholinergic Equivalence in Psychotropic Medications: A Guide for Psychiatrists," which is published in the November-December 2025 issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. Anticholinergic side effects from psychotropic medications are common and can lead to significant adverse events, including cognitive impairment and falls, particularly in vulnerable populations like the elderly. The cumulative anticholinergic burden from multiple medications is a critical concern associated with poorer clinical outcomes. Quantifying this burden is essential for safer prescribing. For their article, they developed a table to provide a practical tool for psychiatrists to quantify and compare the anticholinergic potential of psychotropic medications. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000002073

Send us a textSupport the show⬇️ Subscribe on Patreon or Substack for full episodes ⬇️https://www.patreon.com/HughHendryhttps://hughhendry.substack.comhttps://www.instagram.com/hughhendryofficialhttps://blancbleustbarts.comhttps://www.instagram.com/blancbleuofficial⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Leave a five star review and comment on Apple Podcasts!

In this special episode, I take on probably the most controversial and emotionally fraught topic of the moment: the Israel-Hamas conflict.  I think war crimes have been committed on both sides. But that doesn't mean I think the two sides are morally equivalent. Today, I argue that there's a fundamental asymmetry between Israel and Hamas, one that's too often blurred or ignored by the mainstream media. Israel's actions, while sometimes flawed or tragic in consequence, are ultimately rooted in a defensive logic. Hamas, on the other hand, has explicitly genocidal goals. But where does that leave us when we see images of children starving and hear reports that Israel is responsible? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How can Problem Strings help build big ideas? In this episode Pam and Kim walk through a Problem String that helps students dig into area and multiplicative equivalence and helps you know how to expertly facilitate.Talking Points:Facilitating the stringTeacher moves during the stringModeling the stringEqual products means total area is the sameWhy we want students to have lots of experience with concepts rather than just direct teaching.Check out our social mediaTwitter: @PWHarrisInstagram: Pam Harris_mathFacebook: Pam Harris, author, mathematics educationLinkedin: Pam Harris Consulting LLC 

How does a Problem String look in front of real students? In this episode Pam and Kim give a play by play for how a Problem String could be facilitated.Talking Points:When to circulate and when to ask for choral responseHelping students communicate thinkingHow and when to engage students in conversationsWhen to anchor strategiesWhen to be intentionally curious to solidify thinkingCheck out our grade level Problem String books!Grade 1 Problem Strings: https://www.mathisfigureoutable.com/nps-1Grade 2 Problem Strings: https://www.mathisfigureoutable.com/NPS-2Grade 3 Problem Strings: https://www.mathisfigureoutable.com/nps-3Grade 4 Problem Strings: https://www.mathisfigureoutable.com/nps-4Grade 5 Problem Strings: https://www.mathisfigureoutable.com/nps-5Check out our social mediaTwitter: @PWHarrisInstagram: Pam Harris_mathFacebook: Pam Harris, author, mathematics educationLinkedin: Pam Harris Consulting LLC 

Anabell Acevedo, co-fundadora e CEO da Equivalence, admite que a sua plataforma não quer aumentar a imigração, mas sim melhorar a vida de quem cá esta.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Many enter marriage believing it will be effortless—a seamless fusion of two souls destined for harmony. But what if this belief is the very thing setting couples up for disappointment? What if the key to a thriving marriage lies not in ease, but in intentional effort and understanding? This week on Win Today, Gabe and Rebekah Lyons join us to dismantle pervasive myths about marriage and intimacy. Drawing from their 28 years together, they offer candid insights into: The biggest lie about intimacy that's sabotaging relationships. Why viewing your spouse as a 'problem to solve' undermines connection. Understanding the anatomy of an affair and how to safeguard your marriage. The concept of marrying your emotional equivalent and its impact on relational dynamics.   In a culture that often glamorizes the idea of effortless romance, Gabe and Rebekah present a refreshing narrative—one that champions resilience, mutual growth, and the beauty of navigating challenges together. Whether you're single, engaged, or have been married for years, this conversation offers invaluable perspectives to cultivate a relationship that not only endures but flourishes. Episode Links Show Notes Buy my NEW BOOK "Healing What You Can't Erase" here! Invite me to speak at your church or event. Connect with me @WINTODAYChris on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Part Two: Gratuitous Goods in a Free EconomyChapter 7 of Abundance, Generosity, and the State: An Inquiry into Economic Principles audiobook.From pp. 219–246 in the print edition.

Justice vs. Moral Equivalence ~ The injustice of blaming the victim - a short interview with Dr. Yaron Brook. Listen to caller's personal dramas four times each week as Dr. Kenner takes your calls and questions on parenting, romance, love, family, marriage, divorce, hobbies, career, mental health - any personal issue! Call anytime, toll free 877-Dr-Kenner. Visit www.drkenner.com for more information about the show.

Dr Nir Lahav PhD, is a Physicist from Bar-Ilan University, now at Cambridge University. His field of study is in Neuroscience and Consciousness studies. He uses network theory, non linear dynamics and chaos. He developed The Relativistic Theory of Consciousness - a new physical theory in order to solve the hard problem of consciousness. He is also developing a model for chaotic neural networks in collaboration with Zachariah Neemeh, his 2022 paper ("A Relativistic Theory of Consciousness") was chosen as one of the most influential articles of the year by Neuroscience News. TIMESTAMPS: (0:00) - Introduction (1:18) - Definition of Consciousness (5:44) - A Relativistic Theory of Consciousness (15:48) - The Equivalence Principle & the Zombie Argument (21:42) - Physicalism vs Reductive Materialism (28:56) - Nir's Exploration of Relativity & Consciousness (37:20) - How to test the Relativistic Theory (future experiments & predictions) (42:08) - Emergentism, Functionalism, & Cognitive Frames of Reference (53:25) - Cognitive Maps & Consciousness (1:00:00) - Animal/AI Consciousness (minimal conditions) (1:03:30) - Free Will & Determinism (1:12:55) - Is the Universe be Conscious? (from a Relativistic Approach) (1:22:18) - From Absolutism to Relativism (1:31:20) - Future work (1:33:10) - Conclusion EPISODE LINKS: - Nir's Website: https://www.lahavnir.com/ - Nir's Paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610723001128 - Nir's "GoFundMe": https://gofund.me/b37c00d5 CONNECT: - Website: https://tevinnaidu.com - Podcast: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/mindbodysolution - YouTube: https://youtube.com/mindbodysolution - Twitter: https://twitter.com/drtevinnaidu - Facebook: https://facebook.com/drtevinnaidu - Instagram: https://instagram.com/drtevinnaidu - LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/drtevinnaidu ============================= Disclaimer: The information provided on this channel is for educational purposes only. The content is shared in the spirit of open discourse and does not constitute, nor does it substitute, professional or medical advice. We do not accept any liability for any loss or damage incurred from you acting or not acting as a result of listening/watching any of our contents. You acknowledge that you use the information provided at your own risk. Listeners/viewers are advised to conduct their own research and consult with their own experts in the respective fields.

Greg (@GregBradyTO) speaks with Michael Kerzner, Ontario's solicitor general and MPP for York Centre, about how many in the province are on high alert following bomb threats made to 100s of Jewish institutions and doctors Wednesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

ESGfitness.co.uk/commit Chapters 00:00 Accuracy of Body Analyzer Scales and Body Composition 01:26 The Role of Running in Weight Loss 02:47 Exercise for Mental Health and Mood Improvement 05:24 Focus on Feeling Good First 08:39 Equivalence of Treadmill and Outdoor Walking 09:39 Balancing Steps and Calorie Intake 10:25 Electric Muscle Training and Strength Training 13:17 Estimating Maintenance Calories and Weight Loss 15:03 Managing Fatigue on Medication 17:31 Overcoming Plateaus in Strength Training 18:56 Tracking Food: Before or After Cooking? 20:05 Static vs. Dynamic Stretching

Episode No. 665 features curator Cathleen Chaffee and critic Elisabeth Kirsch.  Chaffee is the curator of "Marisol: A Retrospective," which is at the Buffalo AKG Art Museum (formerly the Albright-Knox Art Gallery) through January 6, 2025. The exhibition presents work Marisol, sometimes remembered as 'the forgotten star of pop art,' made between the 1950s and the early 2000s. It builds on an extraordinary collection of works that Marisol left to the Buffalo AKG Museum upon her death. The museum and DelMonico Books have published a superb catalogue. Amazon and Bookshop offer it for $40-70. Chaffee curated the exhibition with the assistance of Julia Vázquez.  Kirsch is the author of "Handmade Papers, 1980-2005," an essay in the catalogue for "Virginia Jaramillo: Principle of Equivalence," a retrospective now at the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago. The catalogue was edited, and the exhibition curated, by Erin Dziedzic. At the MCA, where "Jaramillo" is on view through January 5, 2025, its presentation was organized by René Morales and Iris Colburn. The exhibition's middle gallery presents an extensive mini-survey of Jaramillo's paper-constructed works. Amazon and Bookshop offer the catalogue for about $50. Instagram: Cathleen Chaffee, Tyler Green.

Audio, eng_t_rav_2024-07-26_lesson_rb-0332-ishtavut-tzura_n1_p2. Lesson_part :: Daily_lesson 1

Video, eng_t_rav_2024-07-26_lesson_rb-0332-ishtavut-tzura_n1_p2. Lesson_part :: Daily_lesson 1

Audio, eng_t_rav_2024-07-26_lesson_rb-0332-ishtavut-tzura_n1_p2. Lesson_part :: Daily_lesson 1

Video, eng_t_rav_2024-07-26_lesson_rb-0332-ishtavut-tzura_n1_p2. Lesson_part :: Daily_lesson 1

President Biden confronted NBC host Lester Holt, a registered Republican, for making a false equivalence between political rhetoric, emphasizing the dangers of misleading comparisons in media. Subscribe to our Newsletter: https://politicsdoneright.com/newsletter Purchase our Books: As I See It: https://amzn.to/3XpvW5o How To Make America Utopia: https://amzn.to/3VKVFnG It's Worth It: https://amzn.to/3VFByXP Lose Weight And Be Fit Now: https://amzn.to/3xiQK3K Tribulations of an Afro-Latino Caribbean man: https://amzn.to/4c09rbE

Flashback to the Beginning of Season 10!Today, we respond to a listener who asked the important question of what to do and say when someone has just experienced trauma, tragedy, or some other massive thing (TMT).Scripture: Romans 12:15Books Mentioned: This is Hard by Jon Swanson, Walking with God Through Pain and Suffering by Timothy Keller, Hope Is the First Dose by meMy Advice When Speaking to Others after TMT:1. Show up and shut up (I stole this from Jon Swanson)2. Tears over talking3. Empathy over equivalence4. Theology is like salt: it needs to be correctly applied in tiny amounts, and of high quality, or it can hurt more than it helps.Leave a voicemail with your question or comment!Five Ways You Can Support this show:Pray for us!Subscribe, like, and share it with your friends! (We even have a YouTube channel!)Leave reviews and comments wherever you listen to podcasts!You can become a paid partner of the podcast and get special bonus episodes and lots more content by clicking here. Visit one of our affiliate partners and consider using their products (we use them every day):Support and boost your immune system with Armra! Use DRLEEWARREN code at checkout for a discount!Improve your gut health, immune system, and protect your brain with Pique!Other Helpful Links:Click here to access the Hope Is the First Dose playlist of hopeful, healing songs!Be sure to check out my new book, Hope Is the First Dose!Here's a free 5-day Bible study on YouVersion/BibleApp based on my new book!Sign up for my weekly Self-Brain Surgery Newsletter here!All recent episodes with transcripts are available here! (00:01) - Introduction (06:51) - Understanding Romans 12:15 (09:37) - Empathy over Equivalence (12:26) - Theology is Like Salt (16:30) - Practical Tips for Helping Others (19:12) - Actions for the Acute Phase

Accusations of false equivalencies have flown from both sides of the conflict in the Middle East, and this week was no exception with the International Criminal Court's Chief announcing their intention to apply for arrest warrants for top leadership in the Israeli Government and those working for Hamas. Joining Tina Quinn to discuss this latest development is the ABC's Geraldine Doogue, Network Ten's Hugh Riminton and former Middle East Correspondent-turned-Human Rights campaigner, Sophie McNeill. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An analysis of latest twist in Philippine politics.

Decency was on the ballot. Remember that? Now, Biden cannot seem to find the words when it's time to condemn anti-Semites or violent protestors.

In the one hundred and forty seventh episode we take another look at the Moral Equivalence Fallacy, starting with Trump comparing January 6 insurrectionists with BLM protestors, Dinesh D'Souza comparing Trump to Navalny, and Matthew Dowd comparing sexual assault to mishandling emails.In Mark's British Politics Corner we look at Shelagh Fogarty comparing silence over ministerial misdeeds to hiding in a fridge, and Rishi Sunak and Sam Armstrong equating pro-Palestinian protestors with war criminals, and .In the Fallacy in the Wild section, we check out examples from Halt and Catch Fire, Criminal Minds, and The I.T. Crowd.Jim and Mark go head to head in Fake News, the game in which Mark has to guess which one of three Trump quotes Jim made up.Then we talk about Trump's insane Presidential Records Act defense in his Florida trial.And finally, we round up some of the other crazy Trump stories from the past week.The full show notes for this episode can be found at https://fallacioustrump.com/ft147 You can contact the guys at pod@fallacioustrump.com, on Twitter @FallaciousTrump, or facebook at facebook.com/groups/fallacioustrumpSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/fallacious-trump/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In this episode, Dr. T. Michael W. Halcomb ( @tmichaelwhalcomb ) looks at “Red Herring, Bandwagon, and Moral Equivalence”. Tune in! ***GlossaHouse resources are available at our website! - https://glossahouse.com/ ✏️ ***Sign up for classes with GlossaHouse U - https://glossahouse.com/pages/classes

Kate Middleton released a video announcing her cancer diagnosis and Bryan plays some audio from it. Democrats are up in arms over NBC hiring former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel. Jill Biden thinks the United States is becoming Nazi Germany because of parental rights bills and schools getting porn out of their libraries. // A checking of the texting. // A deputy in Florida says he prefers when homeowners shoot wannabe robbers who break into residences. Woman sentenced to life in prison for toddler's death. 

We explore the chemical similarities and key differences between brand-name and generic drugs. Learn about:Equivalence in active ingredients, as approved by the FDA.Exceptions: Narrow Therapeutic Index drugs and inactive ingredients.When to consult a doctor before switching brands.Listen to find out if you can save money without sacrificing quality!

The DOL recently issued new guidance on the long-standing contraceptive coverage mandate, and this time they took a different approach. Instead of clarifying prior guidance or issuing novel interpretations of the law, the DOL is giving health plans an alternative way to comply with the contraceptive coverage mandate: either follow the prior guidance issued in 2022… or don't! The DOL introduced the “therapeutic equivalence” approach, whereby plans can comply with the law in a different, potentially less-burdensome way. Join The Phia Group's Kendall Jackson and Jon Jablon as they discuss this “therapeutic equivalence” approach to compliance, what it means for consumers, and what it means for health plans.

This show was recorded 22 February 2024. We encourage you to download the supplemental PDF content for this session by completing the form on this page. Please join us live for future shows and ask your own questions! We hold one RQM+ Live! panel discussion per month and you can sign up at the ⁠Knowledge Center⁠ or ⁠Events⁠ pages at RQMplus.com. Thank you for tuning in.

In this episode, Keone Hon dives deep on Monad, a high-performance Ethereum-compatible layer 1 blockchain focused on delivering high performance and drastically lower transaction costs. We discuss Monad's key technical innovations like MonadBFT consensus, parallel execution, and a custom database enabling 10,000+ TPS. Keone explains how these breakthroughs allow complex 100K gas transactions costing just a fraction of a cent, 100x cheaper than even leading Layer 2s. We also explore how Monad achieves this while maintaining decentralization and a rich developer experience via full EVM equivalence. Tune in to learn why Monad could be a game changer for builders and users looking maximize performance and minimize costs. Key Links Monad: https://www.monad.xyz Socials Keone's Twitter Monad's Twitter Tommy's Twitter Follow Delphi Digital Website: ⁠⁠https://members.delphidigital.io/home⁠⁠ Twitter: ⁠⁠https://twitter.com/Delphi_Digital⁠⁠ Youtube: ⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@Delphi_Digital⁠ Disclosures Disclosures: This podcast is strictly informational and educational and is not investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any tokens or securities or to make any financial decisions. Do not trade or invest in any project, tokens, or securities based upon this podcast episode. The host and members at Delphi Ventures may personally own tokens or art that are mentioned on the podcast. Our current show features paid sponsorships which may be featured at the start, middle, and/or the end of the episode. These sponsorships are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to use any product, service or token. Delphi's transparency page can be viewed ⁠⁠here⁠⁠. As an additional disclosure, Tom Shaughnessy the host is an angel investor in Monad. Keywords Monad, Keone Hon, EVM, Layer 1, high performance, low cost transactions, Ethereum Virtual Machine, EVM compatible, parallel execution, consensus, decentralization, developers, Monad xyz, Tommy Shaughnessy, Delphi Digital, Delphi, Crypto, Cryptocurrency, Ethereum, --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/the-delphi-podcast/message

Can we equate the struggle of the Jewish people with the struggle of the Palestinians? Can we justify within ourselves that a bus full of fathers, mothers, and children being blown up in Jerusalem is the same as an apartment complex collapsing and killing fathers, mothers, and children in Gaza? Can we equate rape, infanticide, and torture with Israel's retaliatory airstrikes? Are rocks thrown at passing motorists displaying Israeli plates in Judea and Samaria the same as targeted killings of Jihadi terrorist leaders? Former President Barack Obama seems to think so, as do many of his supporters. This entire idea of “moral equivalency”, or simply put - the idea that when Israel acts in self-defense, they must only respond “proportionally”, is a monstrous, ill-informed idea, and if not done away with, could very well be the downfall of the Western World, as we know it.

If you want the quintessential GRE Verbal question, Sentence Equivalence questions might take the cake. Clay Daniel, founder of Clayborne Test Prep and Tutoring, has been tutoring the GRE for decades. In this podcast, Clay walks you through five new Sentence Equivalence problems to help you practice this tricky question type. Achievable is a modern test prep platform for the GRE exam - get a free trial at https://achievable.me

Brent oil price at $74 is $8 too cheap vs our model-derived fair value of $82 for December. Given our optimistic view on demand next year, we see Brent oil trading in the low $80s by March and high $80s by May. We find current oil prices in the lower range of the trading band and see the recent sell-off as a potential buying opportunity—even with thinning liquidity ahead of the holiday period—given our divergence with consensus on fundamental factors affecting oil market dynamics in 2024. Given our outlook on demand, we argue that there is no need for further OPEC cuts were the alliance to accept lower oil prices in the mid-$70s to mid-$80s range. Instead, we believe, the alliance should unwind some of the voluntary reductions in order to gain operational flexibility when demand growth takes a step down in 2025 (and potentially 2026), when most of the post-COVID demand normalization is behind us and decarbonization policies begin to cut into demand for some products. Speaker: Natasha Kaneva, Head of Global Commodities Research  This podcast was recorded on 15 December 2023. This communication is provided for information purposes only. Institutional clients can view the related report at https://www.jpmm.com/research/content/GPS-4582283-0 for more information; please visit www.jpmm.com/research/disclosures for important disclosures. © 2023 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved. This material or any portion hereof may not be reprinted, sold or redistributed without the written consent of J.P. Morgan. It is strictly prohibited to use or share without prior written consent from J.P. Morgan any research material received from J.P. Morgan or an authorized third-party (“J.P. Morgan Data”) in any third-party artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems or models when such J.P. Morgan Data is accessible by a third-party. It is permissible to use J.P. Morgan Data for internal business purposes only in an AI system or model that protects the confidentiality of J.P. Morgan Data so as to prevent any and all access to or use of such J.P. Morgan Data by any third-party.

U.S. warship shot down drones over the Red Sea which were fired from Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. Hawaiian Airlines joins forces with Alaska Airlines and Bryan speculates as to what this might mean for both companies. Rep. Pramila Jayapal's shameful moral equivalence about the Israel-Hamas war. // Thurston County candidate who didn't vote for himself lost by one vote. Hot conservative sports takes about the college football playoff.  // Nicaragua's Miss Universe franchise owner charged with conspiracy. Communist dictators gonna dictate.  

“The Rise in Mental Health Issues with Tara and Lee” “Moral Equivalence and Mental Health” “The WEF and Net Zero for Food” “Nikki Haley comes Pre-Owned”

Moral Equivalence and Mental Health https://www.audacy.com/989wordThe Tara Show Follow us on Social MediaJoin our Live StreamWeekdays - 6am to 10am Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/989wordRumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-2031096X: https://twitter.com/989wordInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/989word/ "Red Meat, Greenville." 12/04/23

On today's episode of BOOST U! Maddie Duke and Corey Robertson break down stimulus equivalence and RFT for students preparing to take the exam. Students frequently ask questions and express concern about these areas, so we hope this episode answers some of your questions! For more information about BOOST products: boostexamprep.com  If you have feedback or suggestions, please contact us! Maddie: mduke@abatechnologies.com Corey: crobertson@abatechnologies.com Join the BOOST Facebook group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/boostabaexamprep To submit questions for future episodes: https://forms.gle/vYT38jTvPBnfLWuK8

This week, Eliana and Chris talk about a family member jumping into the political spotlight and no, its not Mike Johnson. We're looking at the latest narratives to come from the Israel-Hamas conflict, 2024, a celebrity's attempted cancellation and our hosts have a healthy debate around the Speaker's developing strategy. Time Stamps:  3:38 Front Page 50:32 Obsessions  56:45 Reader Mail  58:29 Favorite Items  Show Notes: Wapo: Biden's dismissal of the reported Palestinian death toll  National Review: New York Times: Will Iran Ever Get Around to Killing the Jews Like They Say They Will?  NYT: Penn Donors Are Revolting Over Israel-Hamas, DEI, Trans Rights and Other Issues The Atlantic: The Decolonization Narrative Is Dangerous and False  Power Line: My cousin Dean WaPo: Opinion | Dean Phillips, who's challenging Biden, answers our top 5 questions  NYT: Trump's Verbal Slips Could Weaken His Attacks on Biden's Age WSJ: Why Trump's Drastic Plan to Slash the Government Could Succeed Politico: ‘He Seems to Be Saying His Commitment Is to Minority Rule' Politico: Speaker Johnson taps veteran GOP operative as chief spokesperson  Free Beacon: How New Speaker Mike Johnson Can Silence Liberal Critics and Win Back the Mainstream Media  WaPo: Years into a climate disaster, these people are eating the unthinkable WSJ: ‘Sorry' for Being So Blunt  WFB: Big Yikes, Fam: Taylor Lorenz's New Influencer Book Is Mid. It's Giving Cringe, Does Not Slap, on God. Obsessions: Free Beacon: I Said Hamas Raped and Beheaded. The Yale Daily News Issued a Correction. The Dispatch: Pence Runs Away From the Circus - Chris Stirewalt Favorite Item:  Tablet: The George Kennan Who Wasn't WSJ: The Astrophysicist Who Has a Better Way to Board Airplanes

Yael Bar Tur, Tal Fortgang, and Martin Gurri join Brian C. Anderson to discuss anti-Israel sentiment and the role of information in the Israel–Hamas war.  The audio for this episode is adapted from a recent virtual event (watch here). anti-Israel-sentiment role-of-information-in-Israel–Hamas-war

Yesterday saw a dramatic protest at the US Capitol complex which the political Right equated to the protests on January 6, 2021. We talk about the similarities and where they end. And how any attempts to align such events with the history of Dec 7, 1941 and Sept 11, 2001 fall absurdly short. ____________________________________________________ SUSPENDABLES MERCH: http://The-Suspendables.com Visit http://PatriotCoolers.com/discount/KYLE and use Promo code "KYLE" for 10% off and free shipping over $50. Today's podcast supported by https://CatholicVote.Org If you are interested in supporting the going litigation against the FBI over religious liberties, you can visit https://CatholicVote.Org.

Join Dr. Erez Soref and Dr. Seth Postell as we discuss the error of ‘Bothsidesism' or Moral Equivalence when approaching the Israeli conflict we're facing today. You can join us in this historic effort! Please give now to offer vital assistance to Israelis in crisis, including: https://www.oneforisrael.org/israelis-relief-2023/ Emergency Food: Providing nourishment to those in immediate need. Essential Supplies: Ensuring families have access to critical items. Trauma Support: Offering comfort and care to those traumatized by the events. Funding for Evacuation Accommodations: Helping families find safe shelter during this crisis.

If the Making Sense podcast logo in your player is BLACK, you can SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes at samharris.org/subscribe.

Dennis highlights a column in the City Journal by Juliana Geran Pilon… the efforts of mainstream media, government officials, and elite universities to avoid outright condemnation of Hamas reveal a West at war with itself.  Dennis also analyzes NYT's Bret Stephens' latest column: The Anti-Israel Left Needs to Take a Hard Look at Itself.  Can a husband tell his overweight wife that she should lose weight? Callers weigh in.  Dennis is joined by Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire… they analyze the ongoing dispute in the Middle East.  Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast. To hear the entire three hours of my radio show as a podcast, commercial-free every single day, become a member of Pragertopia. You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as daily show prep. Subscribe today at Pragertopia dot com.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode No. 609 of The Modern Art Notes Podcast is a summer clips episode featuring artist Virginia Jaramillo. The Kemper Museum of Contemporary Art in Kansas City is presenting "Virginia Jaramillo: Principle of Equivalence," the first retrospective of Jaramillo's work. The exhibition includes 73 paintings and handmade paper works extending back over 70 years. The exhibition was curated by Erin Dziedzic and will be on view through August 26. A catalogue is forthcoming. This episode was recorded on the occasion of  “Virginia Jaramillo: The Curvilinear Paintings, 1969-74” which was at the Menil Collection in 2020. The show was the first solo museum exhibition of Jaramillo's career. Curated by Michelle White, it featured a series of paintings that Jaramillo made featuring the joining of line to color against mostly monochromatic backgrounds. See Episode No. 469 for images.

This talk was given by Gil Fronsdal on 2023.03.26 at the Insight Meditation Center in Redwood City, CA. ******* Video of this talk is available at: https://youtube.com/live/l8lshxaASUY . ******* For more talks like this, visit AudioDharma.org ******* If you have enjoyed this talk, please consider supporting AudioDharma with a donation at https://www.audiodharma.org/donate/. ******* This talk is licensed by a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License

This talk was given by Gil Fronsdal on 2023.03.26 at the Insight Meditation Center in Redwood City, CA. ******* Video of this talk is available at: https://youtube.com/live/l8lshxaASUY . ******* For more talks like this, visit AudioDharma.org ******* If you have enjoyed this talk, please consider supporting AudioDharma with a donation at https://www.audiodharma.org/donate/. ******* This talk is licensed by a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License

A new peer-reviewed study in the journal Science shows that not only did Exxon scientists suspect climate change driven by the burning of fossil fuels was a growing problem that would lead to crisis if nothing changed, but they were terrifyingly accurate in their modeling and predictions. Alongside this special re-broadcast of Season 1 of Drilled, all about the origins of climate denial and Exxon's role in it, we speak with the study's lead author Geoffrey Supran about its importance. In this episode, the industry's role in creating and then weaponizing false equivalence on climate—the idea that the opinions of a handful of contrarians are equally valid to those of the majority of peer-reviewed studies on the topic.