Podcasts about examiners

Send us Fan MailAbout Dr. Jeff BanasDr. Jeff Banas graduated from Roosevelt University in 2010, completing the Honors Program to earn his Bachelor of Science in Biology with a minor in Chemistry. He earned his Doctor of Optometry degree from the Illinois College of Optometry, the nation's first and oldest optometric program. His clinical training included rotations at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans, the Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary in Chicago, and the Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee.Dr. Banas is a Fellow of the American Academy of Optometry (FAAO) and a member of the Optometric Glaucoma Society. He also holds membership in the American Optometric Association, Wisconsin Optometric Association, and Milwaukee Optometric Society, and is certified by the National Board of Examiners in Optometry.His clinical practice focuses on ocular disease management, with particular expertise in glaucoma, diabetic eye disease, dry eye, age-related macular degeneration, cataracts, and refractive conditions. Dr. Banas also provides post-surgical care and is proud to be a part of an ophthalmology team recognized for its adoption of advanced technologies and innovative treatment approaches.

In this episode of Crime and the Courtroom, John Collins reflects on recent presentations at the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Symposium and the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners conference before turning his attention to the central themes of his new book, "Valid Comparisons: The Forensic and Judicial Examination of Stochastic Patterns." Collins examines how misunderstandings surrounding the 1993 Daubert decision shaped decades of debate within forensic science and contributed to what he describes as the "Daubert contagion"—a movement that fostered excessive doubt about the scientific foundations of many forensic disciplines. Drawing on his experience as a forensic scientist, laboratory director, and expert witness, Collins argues that pattern comparison disciplines such as firearm identification, toolmark examination, and latent print analysis remain scientifically valid despite their perception as being highly interpretive. He challenges the notion that instrument-based disciplines are somehow free from subjectivity, emphasizing that all scientific conclusions require interpretation and professional judgment. The episode offers a thoughtful discussion of scientific validity, expert testimony, error, confidence, and the continuing role of forensic science in helping courts answer difficult questions in the pursuit of justice. Season:   6 Episode:  113 Duration:  1:00:24 YOUTUBE CHANNELS Main Podcast Channel Highlights Channel REFERENCED RESOURCES None ABOUT YOUR HOST John Morrey Collins is a leadership and expertise coach specializing in working with clients in authoritative, high-stakes occupations, but with a primary emphasis on serving leaders, professionals, and organizations that support our complicated systems of criminal and civil justice. John started his private practice, Critical Victories, in 2013 after retiring his award-winning, 20-year career as a forensic laboratory scientist and executive administrator, having served as the Director of Forensic Science for the State of Michigan. His forensic technical expertise was in the examination and testing of firearms and firearm-related evidence, having provided expert courtroom testimony in approximately 130 criminal trials, including death penalty cases and Daubert hearings. John is also the author of three books on forensic science and criminal justice reform. In 2022, he released his fourth book, "The New Superior – A Better Way to Be the One in Charge," which is available in print and audio. John's many career highlights include his part in the forensic investigation of the Atlanta serial bombings, which included the bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, as well as his 2013 participation in a historic meeting with the US Attorney General and other firearm experts to discuss the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. John has a master's degree in organizational management and is formally certified as a Senior HR Professional by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). In 2012, John was trained as a professional coach by the College of Executive Coaching, and he became certified as a Gallup Strengths Coach in 2022. He lives and works near Detroit, Michigan. For more books and other information, please visit www.criticalvictories.com.

[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.

Someone once held a patent on the swing. A piece of wood. Two ropes. The US Patent Office granted it. How often does that actually happen, and what does it cost when the system gets it wrong? Or, how often is a valid patent claim rejected?Until now, no one knew. Tim Phillips talks to Mark Schankerman of LSE and CEPR, who with co-authors William Matcham spent eight years building the tools to find out. Using natural language processing across a dataset of around one million patent applications, twenty million claims, and fifty-five million examiner decisions, they measure how similar each incoming claim is to the hundred million claims that preceded it, going back to 1976. They find that 81% of initial patent claims fall below the patentability threshold; examiners must negotiate that figure down round by round. And they do a pretty good job. But around a third of all abandoned applications contain at least one valid claim the system failed to protect. You don't see patents that aren't awarded, so those errors have, until now, been invisible.The research behind this episode:Matcham, William, and Mark Schankerman. Forthcoming. "Screening Property Rights for Innovation." Econometrica. Available as CEPR Discussion Paper DP18334 (gated). Current version dated January 2026.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, and Mark Schankerman. 2026. “How “well does patent screening work? VoxTalks Economics (podcast). Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.About the guestMark Schankerman is Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, where his research spans innovation, intellectual property, and the economics of technology. His work has examined how patent rights shape R&D incentives, the market for technology, and the behaviour of innovative firms, with particular attention to the institutions that govern how property rights are allocated and enforced.Research cited in this episodePrior art. In patent law, prior art is any publicly available knowledge that predates a patent application. Examiners are required to search prior art and reject claims insufficiently distinct from it. The concept defines the outer boundary of what can be granted protection; the closer a claim is to prior art, the weaker the case for granting it.Type I and Type II errors in patent screening. A Type I error occurs when an examiner grants a claim that should have been rejected, typically because it is too similar to prior art. This allows the holder to charge royalties and, in the US context especially, to bring litigation. A Type II error occurs when a valid claim is refused or abandoned, depriving the applicant of protection they deserve and reducing future incentives to innovate. Schankerman argues that Type II error is systematically under-discussed in public debate: you can point to a patent that should not have been granted; you cannot point to the invention that was never protected.Structural model. The paper uses a dynamic structural model, meaning it models the actual institutional rules, incentives, and decision sequences that govern patent prosecution at the USPTO. Structural models allow researchers to run counterfactual experiments, asking what would happen if specific rules or incentives were changed, without running those experiments for real. This is the methodological basis for the paper's policy analysis.Patent distance measure. The paper's key methodological innovation is a quantitative measure of how similar a patent claim is to existing claims, constructed using natural language processing. The algorithm is trained on existing patent documents and compares the textual content of each incoming claim against all prior claims, covering roughly a hundred million filings going back to 1976. This produces a scalar distance figure that can be compared against an estimated patentability threshold.Deadweight loss. The standard economic term for the welfare cost created when prices are raised above competitive levels. In the patent context, a wrongly granted claim allows its holder to charge higher licensing fees than the market would otherwise bear, generating a cost for users without a corresponding social benefit.Request for Continued Examination (RCE). A procedural mechanism in the US patent system that allows applicants to re-open a finally rejected application in exchange for a fee. Unlike the European Patent Office or China's patent system, the USPTO places no hard limit on how many times an applicant can return. Schankerman's counterfactual analysis finds that restricting rounds to one substantially reduces screening costs and discourages strategic padding of claims.Unified Patent Court (UPC). A specialised European court that began operating in June 2023. Its remit covers the enforcement of patent rights across participating EU member states; it does not conduct patentability examinations. Schankerman argues that by reducing the cost of enforcement, the UPC raises the stakes of the upstream screening process: a wrongly granted patent becomes cheaper and easier to assert.Amazon one-click patent. Amazon received a US patent on the one-click online purchasing process. Schankerman uses the case to illustrate the core economic argument: the relevant question is not whether an invention is valuable, but whether patent protection was necessary to induce its development. If the invention would have occurred regardless, the grant creates costs without providing the intended innovation incentive.Intrinsic motivation. The tendency for individuals to pursue a task for its own sake rather than for external rewards. Schankerman's model estimates that USPTO examiners exhibit substantial intrinsic motivation and that this is the primary driver of screening quality. In counterfactual simulations, removing intrinsic motivation causes outcomes to deteriorate markedly; removing the credit-based extrinsic incentive system has a much smaller effect.Padding. Schankerman's term for the strategic behaviour in which patent applicants include claims that are broader than what is strictly novel, hoping some will survive examiner scrutiny and expand the scope of their eventual property right. The paper measures the extent of padding directly from the distance data and confirms it is widespread.More VoxTalks Economics episodesPatent pools for generic drugs, Mark Schankerman talks about how diffusion of new drugs is painfully slow in low-income countries. Do patent pools accelerate the process, and how we could still do a better job of licensing life-saving medicines?Related reading on VoxEUPatent screening, innovation, and welfare, Florian Schuett and Mark Schankerman, 6 Nov 2020. Critics of the patent system claim that patent rights are becoming an impediment to innovation, and an instrument to extract rents through patent litigation. This column develops a framework to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of the current US patent system and the welfare impact of reforms.

If you are preparing for the DELE C1 exam, understanding the assessment criteria is absolutely essential. Many candidates focus only on grammar, but the truth is that DELE C1 is much more than that. In this guide, you will learn: By the end, you will have a clear idea of what is expected at C1 […]

In this episode of the RIA Edge Podcast, host David Armstrong speaks with Randy Morris, founder and CEO of Summit Wealth Group, about the firm's transition from a long-standing broker/dealer affiliate to launch its own independent RIA platform. He explains how the decision was shaped by a desire for greater autonomy, improved client experience and long-term growth potential. Randy also shares how leadership structure, internal ownership and a minority capital partnership are helping guide the firm forward, along with how digital marketing, acquisitions, expanded services and technology are each playing a role in building the next phase of the business. Key takeaways: What drove the firm's leaders to leave a 20-year tenure as a hybrid affiliate of an independent broker/dealer to launch “Summit 2.0” as a fully independent RIA The succession calculations that fueled many of the structural changes Summit made in recent years The importance of organic growth and how Summit has landed some of its largest clients via SEO and Google What drives the firm's M&A strategy, and the types of firms it is looking to add to the mix in the future How Summit executives decided on an executive organizational structure to formalize and streamline decision-making processes, and how they deliberately created internal career pathways for employees The reasons the firm accepted an investment from Constellation Wealth, beyond simply access to operating capital How the firm feels about balancing unified branding with localized identities for its geographically diverse advisors Resources: Listen to the RIA Edge Podcast on Wealth Management Listen and Subscribe to the RIA Edge Podcast on Apple Podcasts Listen and Subscribe to the RIA Edge Podcast on Spotify Connect With David Armstrong: Wealth Management LinkedIn: Wealth Management LinkedIn: David Armstrong Twitter: David Armstrong LinkedIn: Informa Connect With Randy Morris: LinkedIn: Randy Morris LinkedIn: Summit Wealth Group Website: Summit Wealth Group About Our Guest: Randy Morris' early career helped prepare him as a financial planning pioneer. After graduating from the University of Colorado in 1982 with a degree in business and organizational management, he worked for two years as Vice President of Executive Economic Services, Inc., in Denver, Colorado. In 1985, Randy founded Executive Financial Planning, Inc. (EFP), one of Mississippi’s first financial planning firms. In 2002, he created Summit Wealth Group (SWG) out of a desire to provide additional wealth management services for clients. Randy serves as the firm’s CEO. In March 2025, Summit Wealth Group, LLC, registered with the SEC as a registered Investment Advisor and filed notice with six states.  Peers in the financial industry have recognized Randy's skills and accomplishments by electing him as a past President of the Mississippi Chapter of the Financial Planning Association (FPA). Randy is a Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC-1985), and a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER® Practitioner (1987). He is also a Registered Representative, an Investment Adviser Representative, and a Registered Securities Principal. Additionally, he has assisted the CFP® Board of Examiners as an exam reviewer.  Randy has served on numerous boards, including Barge Timberlands International, Camp Lake Forest Ranch, Southeast Regional Committee for Young Life, Military Community Youth Ministries (MCYM), and the World Vision Leadership Council. Randy lives with his wife, Nancy, in Scottsdale, Arizona, where they attend Scottsdale Bible Church. They have six children: Joy, Jesse, Hannah, Scott, Randy, and Ryan, as well as 12 grandchildren. Randy's accolades include being recognized by Forbes Magazine in each of the past 8 years, making its “Best-In-State Wealth Advisors” list for the state of Arizona. 

In this message, Pastor Clay NeSmith challenges us to embrace the Great Commission and actively share the Good News of the Kingdom. Drawing from Matthew 13 and Romans 10, he explains the biblical tension between God's sovereignty and our responsibility.We can't control the "soil" of someone's heart, but we are called to scatter the seed of the Gospel faithfully. Watch to learn how to partner with God, pray with faith, and step out to bring the life-changing message of Jesus to your world.

Good day ladies and gentlemen, this is IRC news, and I am Joy Stephen, an authorized Canadian Immigration practitioner bringing out this Canada Work Permit application data specific to LMIA work permits or employer driven work permits or LMIA exempt work permits for multiple years based on your country of Citizenship. I am coming to you from the Polinsys studios in Cambridge, OntarioNova Scotia issued work permits between 2015 and 2024 for Insurance adjusters and claims examiners under the former 4 digit NOC code 1312, currently referred to as NOC 12201.A senior Immigration counsel may use this data to strategize an SAPR program for clients. More details about SAPR can be found at https://ircnews.ca/sapr. Details including DATA table can be seen at https://polinsys.co/dIf you have an interest in gaining assistance with Work Permits based on your country of Citizenship, or should you require guidance post-selection, we extend a warm invitation to connect with us via https://myar.me/c. We strongly recommend attending our complimentary Zoom resource meetings conducted every Thursday. We kindly request you to carefully review the available resources. Subsequently, should any queries arise, our team of Canadian Authorized Representatives is readily available to address your concerns during the weekly AR's Q&A session held on Fridays. You can find the details for both these meetings at https://myar.me/zoom. Our dedicated team is committed to providing you with professional assistance in navigating the immigration process. Additionally, IRCNews offers valuable insights on selecting a qualified representative to advocate on your behalf with the Canadian Federal or Provincial governments, accessible at https://ircnews.ca/consultant.Support the show

Thank you to Amicus: Search and Recruitment for Sponsoring this episode. To find your next Finance or Accounting Role, head to https://amicus.ie/ and tell them that we sent you!In this episode of Study for Tax in Your Coffee Break, I'm going through the December 2025 ACCA Irish Advanced Tax Examiner's Report — and honestly, it's gold dust. The examiner has given us a clear window into what went well, what didn't, and where valuable marks were left behind. Whether you're preparing for your first sitting or reflecting on a recent attempt, this report is packed with insight that you simply cannot afford to ignore.We walk through all three questions on the paper, including the 50-mark Question 1 with its mix of ethics, financial distress, share disposals and PRSA contributions. I highlight where students slipped up — from VAT on property (you know he loves it!) to gift splitting rules and, most importantly, failing to read the requirements properly. We also unpack Question 2's specified intangible assets and permanent establishment issues, and Question 3's termination payments, FED relief and close company transactions with a strong focus on the examiner's repeated message: "know your conditions and know how to apply them!"A major theme throughout this paper was professional marks — commercial acumen, skepticism, and real-world thinking. The examiner has clearly raised the bar here, and I share practical advice on how you can prepare for that. If you're serious about passing this exam, this episode will help you understand exactly what the marking team is looking for — and how to avoid a “bloodbath” in the next sitting.Resources mentioned in this Episode:December 2025 ACCA Irish Advanced Tax Examiner's ReportACCA ATX Examiner's Reports Portal"Ep040 Ethics"Thank you for listening to Study For Tax in your Coffee Break! If you enjoyed the episode, make sure to leave a rating and review on your Podcast platform and share it with others to let them know you enjoyed the podcast.To improve your study for the ACCA ATX Exams this year, head to Paula Byrne's website to purchase the ACCA ATX IRL Revision Book for Exams in 2025 and Tax Conditions - the Spoken Word for audio-based revision.Thank you to Matthew Bliss for editing and production of this episode. If you'd like him to edit your podcast, send an email to business@mbpod.com or head to https://www.mbpod.com/.

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.

Protecting your ideas can be the difference between building momentum and watching someone else run with your work. In this episode of Unstoppable Mindset, I sit down with patent attorney and entrepreneur Devin Miller to explore what founders and business owners really need to know about patents, trademarks, and intellectual property. Devin shares how his background in engineering, startups, and law shaped his approach to innovation, and he breaks down the real differences between provisional and non-provisional patents in clear, practical terms. We talk about common mistakes entrepreneurs make, how legal protection supports growth instead of slowing it down, and why understanding intellectual property early can help you compete with confidence. I believe this conversation will give you clarity, direction, and a stronger foundation for protecting what you work so hard to create. Highlights: 00:01:18 – Hear how growing up in a small town shaped Devin's approach to problem-solving and business.00:12:53 – Learn why Devin combined engineering, business, and law instead of choosing a single career path.00:19:32 – Discover how a student competition turned into a real wearable technology startup.00:30:57 – Understand the clear difference between patents, trademarks, and copyrights.00:33:05 – Learn when a provisional patent makes sense and when it does not.00:53:52 – Discover what practical options exist when competitors copy or knock off your product. About the Guest: Devin Miller is the founder of Miller IP, a firm launched in 2018 that helps startups and small businesses protect their inventions and brands without breaking the bank. He's overseen over a thousand patent and trademark filings with a 95 percent success rate on patents and an 85 percent success rate on trademarks, making sure garage inventors and side hustlers get the same high-quality service as big tech. Before starting his firm, Devin spent years at large law firms working with clients like Intel and Amazon, but he found his true passion in helping scrappy entrepreneurs turn ideas into assets. He blends legal know how with an entrepreneur's mindset, offering flat fee packages, DIY legal tools, and hosting webinars and a podcast series to demystify IP. A lifelong runner who knocks out 10+ miles a day and 30-40 miles daily biking (except Sunday), Devin listens to audiobooks and podcasts while training for marathons. When he's not drafting office action responses or co-hosting Inventive Journey, you might catch him brainstorming the next Inventive Youth program or sipping coffee while sketching partnership agreements. Ways to connect with Devin**:** If you'd like to talk strategy or swap running playlist recs, feel free to schedule a chat at http://strategymeeting.com LinkedIn profile  https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawwithmiller/ Firm website [https://www.lawwithmiller.com](https://www.lawwithmiller.com "https://www.lawwithmiller.com") About the Host: Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog. Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards. https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/ accessiBe Links https://accessibe.com/ https://www.youtube.com/c/accessiBe https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibe/mycompany/ https://www.facebook.com/accessibe/ Thanks for listening! Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below! Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can subscribe in your favorite podcast app. You can also support our podcast through our tip jar https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/unstoppable-mindset . Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts. Transcription Notes: Michael Hingson  00:00 Access Cast and accessiBe Initiative presents Unstoppable Mindset. The podcast where inclusion, diversity and the unexpected meet. Hi, I'm Michael Hingson, Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe and the author of the number one New York Times bestselling book, Thunder dog, the story of a blind man, his guide dog and the triumph of trust. Thanks for joining me on my podcast as we explore our own blinding fears of inclusion unacceptance and our resistance to change. We will discover the idea that no matter the situation, or the people we encounter, our own fears, and prejudices often are our strongest barriers to moving forward. The unstoppable mindset podcast is sponsored by accessiBe, that's a c c e s s i capital B e. Visit www.accessibe.com to learn how you can make your website accessible for persons with disabilities. And to help make the internet fully inclusive by the year 2025. Glad you dropped by we're happy to meet you and to have you here with us. Well, hello to all of you, wherever you happen to be today, you are listening to or watching or both unstoppable mindset and I am your host. Mike hingson, our guest today is Devin Miller, who founded the company, Miller IP, and he'll tell us all about that and what that means and so on as we go through this. But I will tell you that he is a lawyer. He deals with patents and other things and a lot of stuff relating to startups. I think that's going to be a lot of fun to talk about. So without any further ado, as it were, Devin, welcome to unstoppable mindset. We're really glad you're here. Thanks for having me on. Excited to be here. Well, we're glad. We're glad you're here. Can you hear me? Okay, now I hear you. Devin Miller  02:06 Well, we're sorry for the delay, but I said I'm excited to be here and looking forward to chatting. Michael Hingson  02:11 Well, perfect. Well, let's start. I love to always do this. Let's start kind of at the beginning. Why don't you tell us about the early Devon, growing up and all that? Devin Miller  02:21 You know, I I'm happy to do. I don't know there's anything that probably stands out. I was probably fairly typical. So I was raised in a religious family, so we're attended church regularly every week. And I had a couple sisters, an older and a younger one, and was went through, went through schooling and or studied, probably the typical course. So I don't know there's anything stands out. I was in a small town, so grew up as, probably not as small as I'd like it to be anymore, but a small farming town, and it was, it was kind of always enjoyed the small town fill, and actually am back to being in that same hometown where I live now with my family. But yeah, so I did that, and I did probably the at the time, the typical thing with the it's growing up with kids and sports and doing things, and went through high school and and after that, jumped or went off to college. But I don't know if there's anything in particular that stands out in my mind, other than probably, at least in my mind, a pretty typical childhood and upbringing, but enjoyed it nonetheless. But happy to provide any details or I can jump into a bit about college. Michael Hingson  03:38 Well, where did you go to college? Devin Miller  03:40 Yeah, so I went to Brigham, young university, just or BYU, just out here in Utah. So I went off to so, or I graduated high school and I went off to a year of college. So I went off to BYU, kind of intending to go into electrical engineering, which is what I or one of the degrees I ended up studying with, and then I did that for a year, and after which I went off and did a served a religious mission for my church, so Church of Jesus Christ, or Latter Day Saints, otherwise nicknamed Mormon. So I went off and went to Taiwan for about two years. So didn't have any idea, even at that point where Taiwan was and certainly didn't know the language, but when studied that, or they have a training center where you get an opportunity to study it for about three months. So I studied it and then went off to Taiwan and served that religious mission for my church for a couple years before coming back to the high school, or good, not the high school to college to continue my studies. Michael Hingson  04:43 I several, several comments. One, I know what you mean about small hometowns. We moved from Chicago, where I was born, to California when I was five, we moved to a town called Palmdale, and it was a very small rural town about 60. Five miles north of Los Angeles. I don't know what the population was when we first moved there, but it couldn't have been more than 1000 or 1500 people spread out over a little bit of a distance. For me, it was great, because without there being a lot of traffic, I was able to do things I might not have done nearly as well in Chicago things like riding a bike, learning to ride a bike and walking to school and and not ever fearing about walking to school for any reasons, including being blind. But oftentimes I once I learned how to do it, I rode my own bike to school and locked it in the bike rack and then rode home and all that. But then Palmdale started to grow and I'm not quite sure what the population is today, but I live in a town about 55 miles east of Palmdale called Victorville, and as I described Victorville growing up, it was not even a speck on a radar scope compared to the small town of Palmdale, but we we moved down to Southern California from the Bay Area my wife and I to be closer to family and so on. In 2014 we wanted to build a house for Karen, because she was in a wheelchair her whole life. So we wanted to get a a house that would be accessible. And my gosh, the only place we could find any property was Victorville. And at that time, in 2014 it had 115,000 people in it. It has grown. Now it Devin Miller  06:31 has grown. And it tends to be that, you know, it feels like everybody's always kind of chasing the small town then, or people find out about it. Everybody moves in. It's no longer a small town, and then you're off to chasing the the next small town, wherever that might be. So it's kind of a perpetual cycle of of chasing that small or at least for the people to like it. Not everybody loves it, but I'm certainly a proponent of chasing that small town feel from from place to places, as you're trying to or trying to find or recreate what you probably grew up with. So it is a it is a cycle that everybody I think is chasing, Michael Hingson  07:09 yeah, well, for me now, my wife passed away in 2022 we were married 40 years. And so the thing about it is that there are probably advantages for me living alone, being in a place that has a few more people and a few more of the kind of amenities that at least somewhat larger towns have, like a Costco and some some restaurants. We actually live in a homeowner's development, a homeowner's association called Spring Valley Lake, and I live within walking distance of the Country Club, which has a nice restaurant, so I'm able to go to the to the restaurant whenever I choose, and that's kind of nice. So there's value for me and being here and people say, Well, do you ever want to move from Victorville now that your wife died? And why do I want to do that? Especially since I have a 3.95% mortgage? You know, I'm not going to do that, and I'm in a new house that. Well, relatively new. It was built in 2016 so it's pretty much built to code. And insulation is great. Solar is great on the house. Air conditioning works, so I can't complain. Devin Miller  08:20 No, sounds like a good setup, and it's kind of one where, why, if you enjoy where you're at, why would you move to go somewhere else that you wouldn't necessarily enjoy? So it just sounds like it works out. Michael Hingson  08:29 Well, it does, and I can always, as I need to being a keynote speaker and traveling, there's a shuttle that'll take me down to the nearest airports. So that works out. Well, that's awesome. So you went to, I'm a little bit familiar with the the whole LDS missionary program, Mission program, we we were not part of the church, but we lived, when my wife and I got married, we lived in Mission Viejo and we had neighbors right next door to us, who were members of the church, and they came over one day and they said, we have an issue. And I said, Okay. And my wife said, Okay, what's the issue? Well, we have a couple of missionaries coming in, and the only homes that are available to these two boys are homes that already have young female girls in them. So they really can't be in those homes. Would you be willing to rent your one of your rooms to missionaries? And so we said, and well, Karen said, because she was a member of the Methodist church, we said, as long as they don't try to mormonize us, we won't try to methodize them. And we would love to do it. And it worked out really well. We had a couple of missionaries for a while, and then they switched out. And eventually we had a gentleman from Tonga for a while, and we actually had a couple girls for for a while. So it worked out really well, and we we got to know them all, and it was a great relationship. And they did their work, and at Christmas time, they certainly were invited to our Christmas parties. We. Had every year a party. What we actually had was what we call a Christmas tree upping. We got the tree, we brought it into the house, and we invited all of our friends and neighbors to come and decorate the tree in the house. Because, needless to say, we weren't going to do that very well. Karen especially wasn't going to be able to stand up and decorate the tree. So we got them to do all the tree decorations and all that, and we fed them. So it worked out. Devin Miller  10:26 Well, it's awesome. Sounds like, great. And you hit on. I said, that's probably my, my favorite part of the Christmas is a Christmas tree. So growing up, we always had a real live tree, but it was always, you know, it was downstairs in the basement, and had lower ceilings. And so I was always kind of the opinion, hey, when I grow up, I want to have the a huge, you know, kind of like in the newbies at 20 plus or 20 or 20 plus foot tree, yeah. And lo and behold, we, or at least the couple houses that we build have always had, at least in the living space, have had the pretty high ceilings. And so that's always what we do. We'll go out and we'll cut down a live tree. So we'll go out to kind of in nature, to the forest, where they let you cut them down, and we'll, we'll cut down, usually it's around a 20 plus foot tree, and then have it strung up in the house. And I always tell my wife, I said, I'd rather that one could be my Christmas present. I'd be just as happy, because as long as I have my tree, it's a good Christmas for me. Michael Hingson  11:23 Yeah, oh, I hear you. Well, one of the boys who lived next door to us went off on a mission to, I think it was Argentina, and was gone for, I guess, two years. What was really funny is when he came back, it took him a while to re acclimatize his speaking English and getting back his American accent. He was he definitely had much more of a Spanish accent, and was much more used to speaking Spanish for a while. So the the three month exposure period certainly got him started at the at the center there in Utah. And then he went off and did his missionary work and then came home. But, you know, it's, it's got to be a wonderful and a very valuable experience. How do you think it affected you? Devin Miller  12:10 Yeah, I think I said, I think it would be, you said it probably well, is it like one where to say, Hey, this is the most fun time in your life, and you'll never have a more fun time. I don't know that. It's kind of like, you know, I liken it to I so I like to do a lot of running, so or in older years. I don't know that I was as much in younger years, but kind of discovered not that I love running, per se, but love to get out and decompress and otherwise, kind of have a time where I don't have a lot of intrusions or other things that are pressing in on life. And so with that, you know, I've done a number of marathons and marathons, you know, everybody again, says, Well, did you have fun? Or was it a good or was it good marathon? So I don't know that it's ever fun. I don't and do it, but it's a good accomplishment. You it's, you go out, you set your mind to something, and then otherwise, at the end of the day, you reach your goal. And, you know, kind of has the that sense of accomplishment and learning and become improving yourself. That's probably a lot of how I like in a mission is, you know, you have a lot of stresses of learning a new language, being in a different culture, doing something that you're unfamiliar with or not accustomed to, and at the end, you know, you learn a lot of things, you are gain a lot of skills. You hopefully impact a lot of people's lives for the better. And so it is definitely one of those where it's a great accomplishment, but it's not, you know, it's not one way to say, hey, this was a fun vacation where I got to go play for two years. So it it works out well, and I would absolutely do it again. Michael Hingson  13:31 Yeah, I'm sure you learned a lot, and you probably learned a whole lot more in a lot of ways, than most of the people that you you visited with because you treated it as an adventure and an adventure to learn. So that's pretty cool, absolutely. So you came back from that and you went back to college, and did you continue in electrical engineering? Or what Devin Miller  13:56 did you do? Yes and no. So I did continue in electrical engineering. Or so I came back and, you know, the intent was, and what I continue to do is to study electrical engineering. I did add on a second degree, which I was a Mandarin Chinese and so I can't remember, I mentioned I I served in Taiwan for those couple years and had an opportunity to kind of, you know, learn and study the language. So as I was doing that, I kind of came back and said, Well, if I've already put in the effort to learn the language and to study it, I might as well, you know, utilize it, or add it to the degree. And so I I really started, or I added that as a second degree to the first degree. So I came out with both the degree in Chinese or man or Chinese, as well as electrical engineering. So yes, continue to study that. And then from that, you know, kind of just as a part of that story. So I was coming out, kind of getting, you know, the senior year, kind of getting towards the end of that degree, and looked at and said, you know, what do I want to do when I grow up? And I still know if I know the full answer, but I did look at it and say, Hey, I, you know, I don't know exactly what I want to do when I grow up, but I don't, I like engineering. Engineering, but I don't want to be an engineer in the sense that, you know, not that I didn't like engineering, but it was one where a typical electrical engineers, you come out of graduate school, you go work for a big company. You're a very small cog and a very big Will you work for. You know, 1015, years, you gain enough experience to have any say your direction and what projects you work on or really have any impact. Not saying that's not really what I want to do when I grow up, or when I start into the working world. And so kind of with that, I, you know, I had a couple interests I enjoyed, you know, kind of the startup, small business, kind of that type of world. And I also found it interesting to on the legal aspect of intellectual property, so patents, trademarks, and really more. At the idea of, hey, you're going to work with a lot of cooling or cool inventions, cool people are working on a lot of unique things, and you get a lot more variety. And you get, you know, kind of be more impactful. And so that was kind of the the Crossroads I found myself at saying which, you know, kind of which direction I want to go. And, you know, kind of, rather than take one or the other, I kind of, I split the road and decided I was going to do both. So I went off to graduate school and did both an MBA or a master's in business administration as well as a law degree, kind of focused more on intellectual property. So went off and studied both of those kind of with the intent of, you know, I don't want to just be fit into one box or do just one thing, but I'd like to keep a foot in the business world, startup world, and have an opportunity to pursue my own business as well as doing the law degree. So I did that in a Case Western Reserve out in Cleveland, Ohio, studying both of those degrees Michael Hingson  16:34 when you were getting your degree in manner, in Chinese. Was that all about speaking the language, or was it also involved in history and civilization and understanding more about China? What was it like? Devin Miller  16:47 It was really more, certainly, there was a or, I guess, are you saying within college or within the mission itself? 16:54 In college? Okay, yeah. I mean, it was, Devin Miller  16:57 it was still primarily focused on the language. You know, the nice thing is, you can test out of a number of the, you know, entry level or their beginning classes, as long as you can show a proficiency. So there may have been some of that, and you still got, you know, some of the classes, would you still study a little bit of poetry, or, you know, within the language context, they've used poetry as a way to kind of learn different aspects of the language. You'd get a little bit of history, but pretty, or vast majority of focus was kind of both speaking as well as the the written and, you know, those are really as opposed to, like English speaking, where it's phonetics and you can or sound out and kind of understand what a you know, what something means by sounding it out, you don't have to know the word in order To, you know, to pronounce it. Chinese is not that way. So you have characters that are just every character you have to memorize. There is no phonetics. There's no way that you can look at a character and sound it out. And so there's a large amount of just memorizing, memorizing, you know, 20,000 characters to read a newspaper type of a thing. And then on the flip side is you have to learn the language, which is, you know, which are already focused on that, more on the mission, but you have to do pronunciation, so you can say the same word with different tones and it has entirely different meaning. So really, there was enough there on the language side, they tended to primarily focus on that, just because there was quite a bit there to Michael Hingson  18:19 dive into. It's a complicated language. Devin Miller  18:23 It it is certainly or uniquely different from English. I would say probably English to Chinese speakers is the hardest language because it's the most different from their language. And vice versa for English speaking Chinese is at least one of the this or harder languages because it is entirely different. So it is one that has a lot of intricacies that you get to learn. Michael Hingson  18:45 I took German in high school for three years, and then in college, I did a lot of shortwave listening and encountered radio Japan a bunch. So I actually took a year of Japanese, and I think from a written language, it's a lot more complicated than spoken language. I think it's a lot more straightforward than Chinese and a lot of ways easier to learn. But even so, it is different than than Latin languages by any standard. Devin Miller  19:16 But it is. It's an animal in and of itself, but it makes it fun. Michael Hingson  19:21 Yeah, that's right, it does make it fun. Incident. And then, as I said, it was an adventure. And all of that was, was an adventure. My master's is in physics. That was an adventure. And until you spend a lot of time dealing with physics and hopefully getting beyond just doing the math, you learn how much of a philosophical bent and how much about society and the way things work really is wrapped up in physics. So again, it's it's kind of fun, and unlike a lot of physicists or engineers. I've never thought that one is better or worse than the other. I think they both have purposes. And so as a physics person, I never pick on engineers. Devin Miller  20:11 I am, I wouldn't pick up. I wouldn't pick on any physics or physicists or physics majors, either, because that's equally, if not more difficult. And so there's a lot of learning that goes on and involved with all of them. But they're all of them are fun areas to Michael Hingson  20:26 study with. They are. So once you you got your master's degrees, and you you got your law degree, what did you go off and do? Devin Miller  20:36 Yeah, so I mean, I would probably back it up just a little bit. So kind of during that period where I was getting the degrees, couple things happened. Had a couple kids. So started out first kid while I was doing the, I guess the second year where I was in under or doing the law and MBA degree, doing it as a joint degree. And so had the had a kid. And then during that same period, the next year, about a year about a year and a half later, had another kid. And so that puts me as a it's a four year program, if you combine both of them together. And so I was in the kind of the third year, the four year program. And while I was doing those studies, you know, I had a I was doing a couple things. One is, I was doing the both, or studying both majors, raising the family. I was working about 20 hours as a law clerk or for a law firm, and then during that, I can't remember or if it was a flyer, or if it was, you know, an email or whatnot, but came across a business competition, or it's kind of a, it was kind of a, a multi disciplinary competition wherever, you know, people of different degrees and different fields of study would get together, you form a group of four or five, and you work on developing an idea, and then you would enter it into the competition and see how it goes. And so we did that the first year, and we did something, an idea to make Gym Bags less smelly, and then enter that in and took second place. And during that period, next year comes along, we're all in our final year of our degree. And as we're doing that, we are studying the degree and or entering the competition again. And we decided to do something different. It was for wearables. You know, this is before Apple Watch, or, you know, the Fitbit, or anything else. It was well before I knew that, but we just said, Hey, when I was there, thinking, hey, wouldn't it be cool I'd ran my or, I think, my second marathon that time. Wouldn't it be awesome if you could monitor your hydration level so that you can make sure you're staying well hydrated throughout and it helps with the air, not being a sore and being, you know, quicker recovery and performing better. And so out of that, took the genesis of that idea, entered it back into the business comp, or that is a new idea, into the business competition, and did that with the partners, and took second place again, still a little bitter, or bitter that about that, because the people that took first place has entered the same thing that they entered the previous year, but polished, or took the money they've earned previously and polished it made it look a little nicer, and won again because it looked the most polished. But that aside, was a great, or great competition. Enjoyed it. And from that, you know, said, Hey, I think this is a good idea. I think it can be a, you know, something that you could actually build a business around. And so said, Hey, or kind of told the the people that were in the the group with me, you know, we're all graduating. We're going different directions. Would be pretty hard to do a startup altogether. So why don't we do this? Or why don't you guys take all the money that I got, you know that we you're in some reward money, or, you know, prize money. If you take my portion, split it amongst yourselves, and I'll just take ownership of the idea, whatever it is, where, you know, wherever I take it, and simply own it outright, you know, basically buying them out. And so that's what I did. So coming out of, you know, getting the MBA in the law degree, that was kind of always the intent. So, or coming out of school, I went and joined a law firm here in Utah. Was a full time patent attorney, and then alongside, you know, had the side hustle, what I'd really say is kind of a second full time job to where I was, you know, pursuing that startup or small business alongside of doing the law firm. So that was kind of the the genesis for, as I graduated full time attorney working, you know, with a lot of our cool clients and other things, and then also incorporating the desire to do a startup or small business. And that's kind of been, really, the trajectory that I've taken throughout my career is really, you know, finding ways to combine or to pursue both interests together. Michael Hingson  24:26 What happened to the business? Devin Miller  24:28 Yeah, so it so it's still alive today. I've been, I exited. Now it's been a couple year and a half, two years somewhere in there. Have to think back. So it started out. So with the business I started out, it was actually one where, rewinding just a little bit when we when I got started, my dad was also an electrical engineer. He'd actually, you know, he's well or farther into his career, and he done a number of different things across their medical devices through his career. And so he kind of, or he joined on as kind of doing it with us. Hustle with me, and we took that, started to build it. We brought on some additional team members. We brought on an investor, and actually built out and grew the business. It also evolved. So we were starting to test or test out the technology have it with some colleges and some other, you know, athletes, which was a natural place to start it at and about that time, and we were getting kind of to that next hurdle where we either needed to get a further investment or cash infusion, you know, to kind of take it to a more of a marketable, you know, a except a Polish full or ready to go to market type of product. And at that time, as we're exploring that we had or came or got connected with somebody that was more in the diabetes monitoring, they were doing it more from a service base. But you know, the overlay as to kind of how the technologies are overlapped with what they're doing tended to work out pretty well. And so we ended up combining the business to be one, where it was redirected a lot of the technology we developed underlining to be more of a wearables for the diabetes monitor. So that was a number of years ago. I stayed on doing a lot of, some of the engineering and development, primarily more in the intellectual property realm, of doing a lot of patents and whatnot. And then about a year and a half, two years ago, got bought out, was exited from that company and and that continues on today. It's still alive and growing, and I kind of watch it from, you know, from a distance, so to speak, or kind of continue to maintain interest, but don't are not necessarily active within the business anymore. So that was kind of a long answer to a shorter question, but that's kind of where the business eventually evolved to. Michael Hingson  26:36 So now I'm sure that the company is doing things like developing or working with products like continuous glucose monitors and so on. Devin Miller  26:46 Yep, yeah, that's kind of the direction as to what they're headed you Michael Hingson  26:49 well, and what's what's been interesting about several of the CGM type devices is that for people who are blind, there's been a real push to try to get some of them to be accessible. And what finally occurred about a year ago, maybe two years ago, is that one of the devices that's out there was approved to actually incorporate an app on a smartphone, and when the app came out, then it was really easy, although it took an effort to convince people to pay attention to it and do it, but it became technically a lot easier to deal with access, because all you had to do was to make the app accessible. And so there now is a continuous glucose monitor that that is accessible, whereas you wherein you get all the information from the app through voiceover, for example, on the iPhone or through talkback on a android phone that you get when you're just looking at the screen, which is the way it really should be anyway, because If you're going to do it, you should be inclusive and make it work for everyone. Devin Miller  28:06 No, that's cool. Yeah, there's a number of I think, between, you know, being a prevalent, you know, issue that people are dealing with, to, you know, different trying to address things earlier on, and also to motivate people do healthier lifestyle. And kind of the direction I think, is headed where a lot of the the company that's continues on today, from our original technology, is on the non invasive side. So a lot of them have, you have to have a patch, or you have to have periodically prick, or put an arm, you know, arm, right? Something where has a needle in the arm. And this one is kind of trying hair working to take it to that next level, to where it's no longer having to be invasive, and it's really all without having air with sensors that don't require you to have any sort of pain or prick in order to be able to utilize it. So kind of fun to fun to see how the industry continues to evolve. Michael Hingson  28:55 Well, today, we're working on that, and tomorrow, of course, the tricorder. So you know, we'll, we'll get to Star Trek 29:03 absolutely one step at a time. Michael Hingson  29:05 Yeah, but I've kind of figured that people were certainly working on non invasive technology so that you didn't have to have the sensor stuck in your arm. And I'm not surprised that that that's coming, and we'll be around before too long, just because we're learning so much about other ways of making the measurements that it makes sense to be able to do that. Devin Miller  29:31 Yep, no, absolutely. You know, it is a hard nut to crack. The body is very complex. A lot of things going on, and to measure it, not invasively, is certainly a lot that goes into it, but I think there's a lot of good, good technologies coming out. A lot of progress is being made, and certainly fun to continue to see how the health devices continue to hit the market. So certainly a cool area. Michael Hingson  29:53 So why did you decide, or maybe it was a natural progression, but why did you decide to go into patent law? Yeah. Devin Miller  30:01 I mean, I think it was probably a natural progression, and in the sense that, you know, it is one where overall desire was, Hey, I like engineering from the sense I like to think or how things work and kind of break things down and to have a better understanding. So really, intellectual property law and patents and trademarks and others allowed me to work with a lot of startups and small businesses, see a lot of cool things that they're developing still play a hand in it, and yet, also not, you know, be mired down to a long project over multiple years where you, you know, you're a small cog in a big wheel. And so, yeah, that was kind of one where it fit well within kind of the overall business, you know, business desire and business aspect of what I wanted to accomplish, and also just overall, you know, enjoying it or enjoying it. So that's kind of where it might, you know, it married well with the the desire to do startups and small businesses, as well as to work with a lot of other startups and small businesses. Michael Hingson  30:55 That's a lot of fun, to be able to deal with startups and see a lot of new and innovative kinds of things. And being in patent law, you probably see more than a lot of people, which does get to be exciting in an adventure, especially when you see something that looks like it has so much potential. Yep. Devin Miller  31:14 No, it is. It is fun. I get to see everything from I've worked on everything from boat anchors to credit card thing or devices that help elderly people to remove them more easily, from their wallet to AI to drones to software other or software platforms to medical devices. So it gives a ability to have a pretty good wide exposure to a lot of cool, different, you know, very different types of innovations, and that makes her just, you know, a fun, fun time, and be able to work or work with the air businesses as they develop. Are all those different technologies? Michael Hingson  31:50 Well, on the the law side of things, what's the difference between a provisional patent and a non provisional filing? Devin Miller  31:57 Yeah, so, so I don't back it up, and I'll get to your question. But maybe I'd set the stages to when you're looking at what is the difference between a patent and trademark and copyright, because a lot of times when people look at that, that's probably a good question too. Provisional trademark, or I want a, you know, or a non provisional copyright, or whatever it might be, and kind of get the terminology mixed up. So if you're to take it one step back, a provisional patent app or a patent is something that goes towards protecting an invention. So something that has the functionality that does something, that accomplishes something, a trademark is going to be something that is protecting of a brand. So name of a company, name of a product, a cash, phrase, a logo, and those type of things all really fall under trademarks and copyrights are going to be something that's more creative in nature. So a painting, a sculpture, a picture, a book, you know, all those type of things are going to fall under copyrights. And so really, when you're looking at it, you know, kind of breaking it down initially, you look at it as you know, which one is it. And so now to your question, Michael Hingson  32:58 well, before you go there, before you go ahead, before you go there. So if I'm writing software, does that fall under patent or copyright? I would assume if the software is to do something, it would be a patent. Devin Miller  33:12 So software primarily is under a patent. So there's, technically, you can copyright software. Now there's, it's pretty limited in its scope of protection. So if you're to do or software and do it under a copyright, really, all it protects is the exact way that you wrote the code. So you know, got it using this exact coding language. If somebody come along, copy and paste my code, you'll be protected. But it doesn't protect the functionality of how this code works or what it does. It is purely just how you wrote the code. So most of the time, when you're looking at software, it's really going to be more under a patent, because you're not going to want to just simply protect the identical way that you wrote the code, but rather what it does and what it does, yeah. So yep. So yeah, you for if you're to do as as your example, software, primarily, you're going to it's going to fall under patents. Michael Hingson  34:01 Okay, so anyway, back to provisional and non provisional. Devin Miller  34:05 Yeah, so, and when you're looking at doing a patent, you can do there's a couple different types of patents. One is a design patent. It really just goes to something the esthetic nature, the look and feel of a of an invention. So if you're thinking of the iPhone, you know, used to have the curved edges. I had the circle or a button at the bottom. It had, you know, the speaker placement and all those things. And it was just that outward appearance, not the functionality, could go under a design patent, but what the primary patent, which is what most people pursue, is what's called the utility patent application. And the utility patent application is really going towards the functionality of how something works. So the utility, how it works, what it does, and then kind of the purpose of it. And so with that, when you're looking at pursuing a utility patent application, there are a couple different types of patents that you can or types of utility patent patent applications. So. As you mentioned, one is called a provisional patent application. The other one is called a non provisional patent application. So a provisional patent application is kind of set up primarily, a lot of times for startups or small businesses where they're going to have a some product or an innovation that they're working on. They're in earlier stages. They're wanting to kind of protect what they have while they continue to develop it, and kind of flush it out. So provisional patent application is set up to be a one year placeholder application. So it will get, you know, you file it, you'll get patent pending, you'll get a date of invention, and it'll give you a year to decide if you want to pursue a full patent application or not. So you can file that gives you that one year time frame as a placeholder. The non provisional patent application would be the full patent application. So that would be what has, all the functionality, all the features, all the air, formalities and air, and it will go through the examination process. We'll go look at it for patentability. So those are kind of the difference provisional, one year, placeholder, less expensive, get your patent pending, versus the non provisional, that's the full patent application and gives you kind of that, or we'll go through examination. Michael Hingson  36:12 Do most people go through the provisional process just because it not only is less expensive, but at least it puts a hold and gives you a place. Devin Miller  36:22 It really just depends on where people are at. So kind of, you know, a lot of times people ask, Hey, well, what would you recommend? And I'll usually say, hey, there are typically two reasons why I would do a provisional patent application. And if you don't fall into either of those camps, then I would probably do a non provisional patent. Got it. So generally, the two reasons I get one is certainly budgetary. Give you an example. So our flat fee, you know, we do our primarily everything, flat fee in my firm, and a provisional patent application to prepare and file it, our flat fee is 2500 versus a non provisional patent application is 6950 so one is, Hey, your startup, small business, to have a limited funds, you're wanting to get a level of protection in place while you continue to pursue or develop things, then you would oftentimes do that as a provisional patent application. And the other reason, a lot of times where I would recommend it is, if you're saying, Hey, we've got a initial innovation, we think it's going to be great. We're still figuring things out, so we'd like to get something in place while we continue to do that research and develop it and kind of further figure it out. So that would be kind of, if you fall into one of those camps where it's either budgetary overlay, or it's one where you're wanting to get something in place and then take the next year to further develop it, then a provisional patent application is oftentimes a good route. There are also a lot of clients say, Hey, I'm, you know, we are pretty well. Did the Research Development getting ready to release it in the marketplace. While we don't have unlimited funds, we still have the ability to just simply go or go straight to a non provisional so we can get the examination process started, and then they'll go that route. So both of them are viable route. It's not kind of necessarily. One is inherently better or worse than the other is kind of more where you're at along the process and what, what kind of fits your needs the best. Michael Hingson  38:09 But at least there is a process that gives you options, and that's always good. Absolutely, patent laws, I well, I won't say it's straightforward, but given you know, in in our country today, we've got so many different kinds of things going on in the courts and all that, and sometimes one can only shake one's head at some of the decisions that are made regarding politics and all that, but that just seems to be a whole lot more complicated and a lot less straightforward than what you do With patent law? Is that really true? Or are there lots of curves that people bend things to go all sorts of different ways that make life difficult for you? Devin Miller  38:50 Um, probably a little bit of both. I think that it so. The law, legal system in general, is a much more slower moving enemy, so it does have a bit more of a kind of a basis to anticipate where things are headed in general. Now, the exception is, there always is an exception to the rule. Is that anytime the Supreme Court gets involved with patent law cases, I'd say 95% of the time, they make it worse rather than better. So, you know, you get judges that none of them are really have an experience or background in patent law. They've never done it. They really don't have too much familiarity with it, and now they're getting posed questions that are fairly involved in intricate and most of the time when they make decisions, they make it worse. It's less clear. You know, it's not as great of understanding, and it otherwise complicates things more. And so when you get the Supreme Court involved, then they can kind of make it more difficult or kind of shake things up. But by and large, it is a not that there isn't a lot of or involved in going through the process to convince the patent and examiner the patent office of patentability and make sure it's well drafted and has the it's good of coverage and scope, but at least there is, to a degree, that ability to anticipate. Hate, you know what it what's going to be required, or what you may likely to be looking at. You know? The other exception is, is, you know, the, ironically, I think the patent office is the only budget or producing or budget positive entity within all of the government. So every other part of the government spends much more money than they ever make. The Patent Office is, I think the, I think the postal office at one point was the other one, and they have, now are always in the in the red, and never make any money. But, you know, they are the patent office. Now, the problem with that is, you think, great, well now they can reinvest. They can approve, they should have the best technology, they should be the most up to date. They should have, you know, all the resources because they're self funding, and yet, there's always a piggy bank that the government goes to raid and redirects all those funds to other pet projects. And so, or the patent office is always, perpetually underfunded, as ironic as that is, because they're getting, always getting the piggy bank rated, and so with that, you know, they are, if you're to go into a lot of the patent office, their interfaces, their websites or databases, their systems, it feels like you're the onset of the or late 90s, early 2000s as far as everything goes. And so that always is not necessarily your question, but it's always a bit aggravating that you know you can't, as an example, can't submit color drawings. People ask, can you submit videos? Nope, you can't submit any videos of your invention, you know, can you provide, you know, other types of information? Nope, it's really just a written document, and it is line drawings that are black and white, and you can't submit anything beyond that. So there's one where I think eventually it will sometime, maybe shift or change, but it's going to be not anytime soon. I don't think there's any time on the horizon, because they're kind of stuck it once they move, moved over to the lit or initially onto the computer system, that's about where that evolution stopped. Michael Hingson  41:51 Well, the other thing though, with with videos, especially when you get AI involved and so on, are you really seeing a video of the invention. Or are you seeing something that somebody created that looks great, but the invention may not really do it. So I can understand their arguments, but there have to be ways to deal with that stuff. Devin Miller  42:13 Yeah, and I think that even be prior to AI, even we just had, you know, videos been around for 20 or 30 years, even, you know, digital format or longer. That probably, and the problem is, I think it's more of the search ability. So if you have a drawing, you can more easily search drawings and compare them side by side, and they'll do it. If you have a video, you know what? What format is the video? And is it a, you know, dot movie, or dot MOV, or is it.mp for is it color? Is it black and white? How do you capture it? Is it zoomed in as a kind of show all the details? Or is it zoomed out? And I think that there's enough difficulty in comparing video side by side and having a rigid enough or standardized format, the patent office said, man, we're not going to worry about it. Yes, so we could probably figure something out, but that's more work than anybody, any administration or any of the directors of the patent office ever want to tackle so it's just always kind of kicked down the road. Michael Hingson  43:06 Do they ever actually want to see the invention itself? Devin Miller  43:12 Not really, I mean, you so the short answer is no. I mean, they want to see the invention as it's captured within the the patent application. So the problem Michael Hingson  43:21 is, the drawing, they don't want to see the actual device, or whatever it is, well, and a lot Devin Miller  43:24 of times, you know as a inventors, they you know as a patent applicants, as the inventors and the owners, you're saying, hey, but I want to show them the invention. Problem is, the invention doesn't always mirror exactly what's showing in the patent application. Because you're on generation three of your product patent application is still in generation one, yeah, and so it doesn't mirror, and so the examiners are supposed to, they don't always, or aren't always good, and sometimes pull things and they shouldn't, but they're supposed to just consider whatever is conveyed in the patent application. Yeah, it's a closed world. And so bringing those additional things in now you can, so technically, you can request a live in office interview with the examiner, where you sit down live. You can bring in your invention or other or details and information, and when you do it live, face to face with an interview, you can walk them through it. Most very few people attorneys ever do that because one clients aren't going to want to pay for you to one of the offices, put you up in a hotel, you know, sit there, spend a day or two to or with the examiner to walk them through it. It just adds a significant amount of expense. Examiners don't particularly like it, because they have to dedicate significantly more time to doing that. Yeah, they're allotted, so they lose they basically are doing a lot of free work, and then you're pulling in a lot of information that they really can't consider. So you technically can. But I would say that you know, the likelihood of the majority of attorneys, 99 point whatever, percent don't do that, including myself. I've never been to do a live or live one, just because it just doesn't, it doesn't have enough advantage to make it worthwhile. Michael Hingson  44:58 Well, in talking about. About the law and all the things that go on with it. One of the things that comes to mind is, let's say you have somebody in the United States who's patenting, or has made a patent. What happens when it all goes to it gets so popular, or whatever, that now it becomes an international type of thing. You've got, I'm sure, all sorts of laws regarding intellectual property and patents and so on internationally. And how do you get protection internationally for a product? Devin Miller  45:32 File it in each country separately. So, you know, there are people, and I understand the inclinations, hey, I want to get a worldwide or global patent that covers everything in every country. The short answer is, you can't. I mean, technically, you could, if you file a patent into every country separately, nobody, including when I used to work or do work for companies including Intel and Amazon and Red Hat and Ford. They don't have patents in every single country throughout the world because they just don't have enough marketplace. You know, you go to a very small, let's say, South African country that you know, where they just don't sell their product enough in it, it just doesn't make the sense, or the courts or the systems or the patent office isn't well enough to find, or it's not enforceable enough that it just doesn't capture that value. And so there isn't a ability to have a global, worldwide patent, and it really is one where you have to file into each country separately. They each have their own somewhat similar criteria, still a different, somewhat similar process, but they each have their own criteria in their process that has to go through examination. So when you're looking at you know when you want to go for whether it's in the US or any other country, when you're deciding where you want to file it, it's really a matter of what marketplaces you're going to be selling the product into. So if you look at it and you know, I have as an example, some clients that 95% of their marketplace is all in the US, that's where they anticipate, that's probably where they're going to sell it. Well, yes, you could go and find, if you have 2% of your marketplace in Japan, you could go file a patent and get it into Japan, but you have such a small amount of your marketplace that's probably there that it doesn't make sense. And vice versa will have as an example. And a lot of times in the medical devices, they'll a lot of times file both in the EU as well as in the US, because those are two of the predominant medical device and are places where a lot of innovation is going on, where there's a lot of focus on utilization, development, medical devices, and there's just a lot of that demand. And so you're really going to look at it is which, where's your marketplace. The other times are the people, a lot of times, they'll get tripped up on so they'll say, Well, I probably need to file into China, right? And I said, Well, maybe because the inclination is, well, everybody just goes to China. They'll knock off the product. And so I want to have a patent in China so that I can, you know, fight against the knockoffs. And that isn't while I again, understand why they would ask that question. It wouldn't be the right way to convey it. Because if you if all it is is they you have no real, you know, no desire, no plan, to go into China. You're not going to sell it. You're not going to build a business there. If they're knocking it off and just just doing it in China, so to speak, then they're not. There isn't going to be a need to file a patent in China, because you don't have any marketplace in there. There's nothing really to protect. And if somebody makes it in China as a just picking on China, making as an example, and imports it into the US, you can still enforce your patent or otherwise do or utilize it to stop people from importing knock off because it's in the US, because they're, yeah, exactly, they're selling it, importing it, or otherwise doing activities in the US. So it's really a matter of where your marketplace is, not where you think that somebody might knock it off. Or, Hey, I'm gonna get a try and get a global patent, even though my marketplace is really in one or two spots. Michael Hingson  48:38 What about products like, say, the iPhone, which are commonly used all over. Devin Miller  48:44 Yeah, they're going to do, they'll do a lot of countries. They still Michael Hingson  48:47 won't do. They'll still do kind of country by country. Devin Miller  48:50 Yeah, they'll now, they'll do a lot of countries. Don't get me wrong, a lot of right. Phones are sold throughout the world, but they'll still look at it as to where it is, and they still have, you know, issues with them. So one of the interesting tidbits as an example, so going back and rewinding your time, taking apple as an example. You know, they came out with, originally, the iPod, then they had iPhone, and then they had the iPad. Now the question is, when they originally came out with their watch, what did they call it? 49:17 Apple Watch? Apple Watch. Now, why Devin Miller  49:20 didn't they call the I wash, which is what it made sense. It goes right along with the iPhone, the iPad, the iPhone, you know, the all of those iPod on that. And it was because somebody had already got a trademark in China that was for a different company, unrelated to the apple that had it for the iWatch. And so when Apple tried to go into the country, they tried to negotiate. They tried to bully. They weren't able to successfully get the rights or to be able to use I wash within China. China was a big enough market, and so they had and rather than try and split it and call it the I wash everywhere but China and trying to have the Apple Watch in China, they opted to call it the Apple Watch. Now I think they might. Of eventually resolve that, and I think it's now can be referred to as the I watch, I'm not sure, but for, at least for a long period of time, they couldn't. They called it the Apple Watch when they released it, for that reason. So even if you have, you know, a big company and one of the biggest ones in the world, you still have to play by the same rules. And why, you can try and leverage your your size and your wealth and that to get your way, there's still those, there's still those hindrances. So that's kind of maybe a side, a side note, but it's kind of one that's interesting. Michael Hingson  50:30 So that's the trademark of how you name it. But how about the technology itself? When the Apple Watch was created, I'm assuming that they were able to patent that. Devin Miller  50:39 Yeah, they will have, I'm sure they probably have anywhere from 30 to 100 to 200 I mean, they'll have a significant amount of patents, even it's just within the Apple Watch, everything from the screen, the display, how it's waterproof, how it does communications, how does the battery management, how does the touch, how does the interface, all of those are going to be different aspects that they continue to, you know, did it originally in the original Apple Watch, and are always iterating and changing as they continue to improve the technology. So generally, you know that, I'm sure that you will start out with as a business of protecting you're getting a foundational patent where you kind of protect the initial invention, but if it's successful and you're building it out, you're going to continue to file a number of patents to capture those ongoing innovations, and then you're going to file it into all of the countries where you have a reasonable market size that makes it worthwhile to make the investment. Michael Hingson  51:32 So if you have a new company and they've got a name and all that, what should new businesses do in terms of looking and performing a comprehensive search for of trademarks and so on to make sure they are doing the right thing. Devin Miller  51:49 Yeah, a couple of things. I mean, it wanted, if you're it depends on the size of company, your budget, there's always the overlay of, you know, you can want to do everything in the world, and if you don't have the budget, then you have to figure out what goes in your budget. But if I'll take it from kind of a startup or a small business perspective, you know, you first thing you should do is just as stupid and as easy as it sounds, you should go do a Google search. Or, now that you have chat GPT, go do a chat BT search and a Google search. But, you know, because it's interesting as it sounds, or, you know, is you think that, oh, that's, you know, kind of give me or an automatic I'll have still even till today, people come into my office. They'll say, Hey, I've got this great idea, this great invention, and a Lacher getting a patent on it, and they'll start to walk me through it. I'm like, you know, I could have sworn I've seen that before. I've seen something very similar. We'll sit down at my desk, take two minutes, do a Google search, and say, so is this a product that you're thinking of? Oh, yeah, that's exactly it. Okay. Well, you can't really get a patent on something that's already been invented and out there, and so, you know, do a little bit of research yourself. Now there is a double edged sword, because you can do research and sometimes you'll have one or two things happen. You'll not having the experience and background, not entirely knowing what you're doing. You'll do research, and you'll either one say, Hey, I've done a whole bunch of research. I can't really find anything that's similar. When, in fact, there's a lot of similar things out there. There's a patent, and people will say, yeah, it's the same, it's the same invention, but my purpose is a little bit different. Well, you can't if it's the exact same or invention. Whether or not you say your purpose is different, doesn't get around their patent and same thing on a trademark. Yeah, their brand's pretty much 53:20 identical, but they're Devin Miller  53:21 doing legal services and I'm doing legal tools, and so it's different, and it's, again, it's one where there's there they have a false sense of security because they rationalize in their head why it's different, or vice versa. You also get people that will say, Hey, this is even though it's significantly different, it's the same purpose. And so while, while they really could go do the product, while they could get a patent or a trademark, because they think that it's just overall kind of the same concept, then they talk themselves out of it when they don't need to. So I would say, start out doing some of that initial research. I would do it if I was in their shoes, but temper it with, you know, do it as an initial review. If there's something that's identical or the same that's out there, then it gives you an idea. Probably, you know, you're not going to be able to add a minimum, get or patent their intellectual property protection, and you may infringe on someone else's but if you you know, if there's, there's some differences, or have to do that initial research, that's probably the time, if you're serious about, you know, investing or getting business up and going, you've probably engaged an attorney to do a more formal search, where they have the experience in the background and ability to better give a better understanding or determination as to whether or not something presents an issue. Michael Hingson  54:32 Yeah, well, that's understandable. If I've developed something and I have a patent for it, then I suddenly discovered that people are selling knockoffs or other similar devices on places like Amazon and so on. What do you do about that? Because I'm sure there must be a bunch of that that that does go on today. Devin Miller  54:53 Yeah, yes, it does. I mean, I wouldn't say it's not as probably as prevalent as some people think. In other words, not every single. Product, right, being knocked off. Not everything is copied. Sometimes it's because, you know, either I don't have the ability, I don't have the investment, I don't have the, you know, it's not as big enough marketplace, I don't have the manufacturing, I don't have the connections, or it is simply, am respectful, and I'm not going to go do a discord because I'm not going to try and rip off, you know, what I think is someone else's idea. So it doesn't happen that as frequently as I think sometimes people think it does, but it certainly does occur. You know, there's a competitive marketplace, there's a profit incentive, and if there's a good product that's out there that people think they can do something with, and there's a motivation to do it, either because people are unaware that it's an issue, or that they they're unaware that they can't copy it or is protected. And so if you get into that, you know, there's a few potentially different recourses. One is, you know, a lot of times you'll start out with the cease and desist.

Good day ladies and gentlemen, this is IRC news, and I am Joy Stephen, an authorized Canadian Immigration practitioner bringing out this Canada Work Permit application data specific to LMIA work permits or employer driven work permits or LMIA exempt work permits for multiple years based on your country of Citizenship. I am coming to you from the Polinsys studios in Cambridge, OntarioNew Brunswick issued work permits between 2015 and 2024 for Insurance adjusters and claims examiners under the former 4 digit NOC code 1312, currently referred to as NOC 12201.A senior Immigration counsel may use this data to strategize an SAPR program for clients. More details about SAPR can be found at https://ircnews.ca/sapr. Details including DATA table can be seen at https://polinsys.co/dIf you have an interest in gaining assistance with Work Permits based on your country of Citizenship, or should you require guidance post-selection, we extend a warm invitation to connect with us via https://myar.me/c. We strongly recommend attending our complimentary Zoom resource meetings conducted every Thursday. We kindly request you to carefully review the available resources. Subsequently, should any queries arise, our team of Canadian Authorized Representatives is readily available to address your concerns during the weekly AR's Q&A session held on Fridays. You can find the details for both these meetings at https://myar.me/zoom. Our dedicated team is committed to providing you with professional assistance in navigating the immigration process. Additionally, IRCNews offers valuable insights on selecting a qualified representative to advocate on your behalf with the Canadian Federal or Provincial governments, accessible at https://ircnews.ca/consultant.Support the show

Send us a text Norskprøven B2: 15 Words about Technology and the Future The topic "Technology and the Future" is unavoidable on the Norskprøven B2 exam today. Examiners expect you to be able to reflect on how digital development affects us as individuals and as a society.It's not enough to just say you use your phone a lot. You must be able to discuss the consequences of "artificial intelligence (AI)" (kunstig intelligens), challenges regarding "privacy" (personvern), and how "screen time" (skjermtid) affects our health.In this video from NLS Norwegian Language School, we walk through 15 advanced keywords that will help you elevate your language from everyday chat to a B2-level discussion about our digital future. Master these words to argue and discuss with confidence!

Send us a textAbout Dr. Natalie Chai:Dr. Natalie Chai founded the Dry Eye Centre at Precision Eye Care when she joined the team in March of 2020. Dr. Chai attended the University of Alberta before receiving early acceptance to Pacific University College of Optometry in Forest Grove, Oregon, where she earned her joint Bachelor's Degree in Vision Science and Doctor of Optometry. Prior to practice, she successfully completed the Canadian Assessment of Competence in Optometry (CACO) as well as the National Board of Examiners in Optometry (NBEO) in the United States. Her practice is focused on Dry Eye Disease, Myopia Management, and Specialty Contact Lenses – these are specialties that are under-represented and under-used in the Edmonton region. Dr. Chai is happy to serve the community, co-manage with other health professionals, and help educate and empower her colleagues who seek to do the same.

Send us a textNorskprøven B2: 15 Advanced Words about Democracy and Media

Send us a textNorskprøven B2: 15 Words about Norwegian Working Life "Working Life" (Arbeidsliv) is notoriously one of the most challenging topics on the Norskprøven B2 exam. You are expected to understand more than just basic job chat. Examiners want to see that you grasp how the Norwegian system—"Den norske modellen"—actually works.Many candidates struggle here because they lack the precise professional terminology to describe rights, duties, unions, and the path to permanent employment.In this video from NLS Norwegian Language School, we give you the 15 essential, advanced words you need to discuss Norwegian working life with confidence. These are the words that can make the difference in a job interview and on exam day!

AlabamaDept. of Workforce for AL reports a decrease in unemployment rate for Sept.Congressman Strong says 11 months of Trump and America is BACK!Audit by Dept. of Examiners confirms need for restructuring of water utilityAmtrak numbers are positive for new Mardi Gras passenger rail serviceAlabama Forestry Commission lifts its Fire Danger Advisory for all countiesNationalPresident Trump calls for fast track review of child immunization scheduleHHS changes name from Rachel to Richard on portrait of Admiral LevineFormer Obama admin. official indicted money laundering to help cartelElon Musk calls for dissolution of European Union after it fines X platformTim Walz still on the hot seat for fraud in his state, SBA now investigating

Donnell Duncan, P.E., S.E. is the author of the revolutionary new book; Faith Science - "Where Faith and The Scientific Method Collide." While studying Applied Physics in 2000, he did research on the Cosmic Microwave Background, an important aspect of The Big Bang Theory at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. This research was led by Dr. George Smoot who consequently won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2004. He is an author, speaker and blogger with an international following. He was twice listed as a finalist for the Atlanta Power 30 Under 30 Awards. A structural engineer by profession, he holds a professional engineer's license (P.E.) in the State of Georgia and a structural engineer's license (S.E.) in the State of Illinois. He was also awarded the Model Law Structural Engineer Certificate (M.L.S.E.) by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. He is the founder of The Cracked Door Foundation, an organization dedicated to empowering young professionals with biblical principles. He obtained a BS in applied physics from Morehouse College, along with a BS and an MS in civil engineering (structural emphasis) from Georgia Institute of Technology. - www.faithscienceonline.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-x-zone-radio-tv-show--1078348/support.Please note that all XZBN radio and/or television shows are Copyright © REL-MAR McConnell Meda Company, Niagara, Ontario, Canada – www.rel-mar.com. For more Episodes of this show and all shows produced, broadcasted and syndicated from REL-MAR McConell Media Company and The 'X' Zone Broadcast Network and the 'X' Zone TV Channell, visit www.xzbn.net. For programming, distribution, and syndication inquiries, email programming@xzbn.net.We are proud to announce the we have launched TWATNews.com, launched in August 2025.TWATNews.com is an independent online news platform dedicated to uncovering the truth about Donald Trump and his ongoing influence in politics, business, and society. Unlike mainstream outlets that often sanitize, soften, or ignore stories that challenge Trump and his allies, TWATNews digs deeper to deliver hard-hitting articles, investigative features, and sharp commentary that mainstream media won't touch.These are stories and articles that you will not read anywhere else.Our mission is simple: to expose corruption, lies, and authoritarian tendencies while giving voice to the perspectives and evidence that are often marginalized or buried by corporate-controlled media

In this episode of Fraud Talk, ACFE Communications Director John Duffley sits down with Heather Vescent, a futurist, researcher and CEO of The Purple Tornado, to explore how strategic foresight can empower anti-fraud professionals to anticipate emerging threats and adapt to rapid technological change. The conversation covers the evolving role of AI in fraud detection, the importance of human intuition alongside automation, and the promise and challenges of new technologies such as decentralized identity. Vescent shares practical insights on blending technology and human expertise to build resilient, future-ready anti-fraud programs.

The October edition of the WGI Unleashed Podcast is officially here! Join us as we travel to Austin, Texas, to chat with Coleen Johnson, RPLS, WGI's Director of Geospatial. Coleen's story is one of resilience, curiosity, and a lifelong passion for learning. From hand-drafting machine parts in Houston to leading cutting-edge geospatial teams at WGI, her journey proves that sometimes the best career paths are the ones you create yourself. From Small-Town Roots to the Lone Star State Coleen grew up in the rural town of Hannibal, New York, surrounded by rolling hills, dairy farms, and open skies. With four siblings, a farm-loving grandfather, and 21 acres to explore, she learned early on the value of hard work and curiosity. After high school, uncertain about her next step, Coleen made a bold move—she packed her bags and headed to Houston, Texas, chasing opportunity (and maybe a little adventure). She landed a job at an oilfield manufacturing company, working in the warehouse under the blazing Houston sun. Her dedication didn't go unnoticed. The company's owner brought her into the office to learn mechanical drafting by hand—pencil, vellum, and all. That moment changed everything. “It was fun,” Coleen recalled. “And that's how I ended up getting into surveying eventually… through drafting.” Learning by Doing: The Path to Surveying When the oil industry slowed, Coleen moved to Austin with an abundance of ambition but no real plan. She found work with a new civil engineering firm that needed a drafter, and not long after, the firm expanded to start a survey department. Coleen jumped at the chance to join, and from that moment, she was hooked. Surveying turned out to be the perfect fit: a mix of math, mapping, and the great outdoors. While working full-time, she attended Austin Community College at night, earning her land surveying degree after several years of late nights and determination. By then, she was also a licensed professional surveyor—a huge milestone in a field she'd learned entirely on the job. Her advice for others figuring out their path? “It's okay not to know right away,” Coleen says. “Figure out what you love first, then follow it. The rest will fall into place.” A Trailblazer for Women in Surveying Coleen's career took her through just about every side of surveying imaginable. From private developments to public utilities, and even a stint at TxDOT and the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), where she surveyed electric transmission lines and the parks surrounding Lake Travis. But her biggest achievements go beyond project work. In 2007, she became the first woman to serve as President of the Texas Society of Professional Surveyors (TSPS)—a major milestone in a profession where women were once few and far between. Today, she continues to pay it forward as a member of the Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors and the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES), mentoring others and shaping the future of the profession. “I love giving back to the field that gave me everything,” she said. Life at WGI: Leading with Vision and Innovation Now celebrating her sixth year at WGI, Coleen leads the Geospatial division in Austin—managing teams, securing contracts, and helping shape how WGI captures and analyzes data across the country. She even landed WGI's first TxDOT Austin District contract, a major win for both her team and the firm. Her role is fast-paced and constantly evolving. “Technology has changed tremendously,” she says. “We've gone from hand-drawing on Mylar to laser scanning, drones, and LiDAR. That's what I love about this field—it's never monotonous. There's always something new to learn.” And Mondays at her office? They start with a safety meeting and breakfast tacos, of course. Life Outside the Grid When she's not overseeing survey crews or reviewing proposals, Coleen enjoys the quiet life on her two-acre property outside Leander, where she lives with her husband and three rescue Dobermans—Prada, Ruby, and Cooper. She's a passionate gardener, cultivating flowers, herbs, and vegetables in raised beds. “Taking care of the yard is actually therapeutic,” she says. “I love mowing, trimming, and just being outside—it's my kind of peace.” A creative at heart, Coleen even sewed her own clothes growing up, a skill passed down from her grandmother, a 4-H teacher for 60 years. She credits that upbringing for her independence, creativity, and love of hands-on work. A Legacy of Leadership Coleen's story is one of grit, gratitude, and growth. From learning drafting by hand to leading a team of geospatial experts, she's built a career defined by curiosity and love for what she does. As for what keeps her excited about coming into work every day? “The people,” she said without hesitation. “I love working with our teams, mentoring others, and watching them grow. That's what makes it all worth it.” Tune In This episode is packed with moments that showcase Coleen's curiosity, grit, and passion for her craft - So, tune in, and as always, stay curious, stay driven, and keep unleashing your full potential! Visit your favorite podcast app now and subscribe to WGI Unleashed to receive alerts every time a new episode drops. You can find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, iHeart Radio, or wherever you find your favorite podcasts.

In this special archive replay of With Flying Colors, Mark Treichel is joined by his colleagues Steve Farrar and Todd Miller — both former senior leaders at NCUA — to discuss why regulators sometimes ask to meet directly with a credit union's board of directors without management present.They break down the nuances, including:When it's routine vs. when it's unusual.Why NCUA may ask to meet with a board chair separately.Situations where examiners want to hear directly from board members.The role of supervisory committees and board governance accountability.How boards should prepare — including when to ask for an agenda, whether to bring counsel, and why you should avoid making commitments in the room.This candid discussion highlights the importance of communication, trust, and preparedness when navigating examiner requests.Key TakeawaysA request to meet with a board chair is often routine and about building trust.A request to meet with the full board without staff is rare — usually a signal of deeper concerns.Boards should listen carefully, avoid agreeing to actions on the spot, and consider legal counsel if appropriate.Examiners are trained in conflict resolution — open, respectful dialogue goes a long way.Recording or documenting meetings can protect both parties and ensure clarity.ResourcesLearn more about how Credit Union Exam Solutions supports boards and executives: marktreichel.comSubscribe to With Flying Colors on your favorite podcast app for more insights on navigating NCUA exams.

As Head of Flight Operations at the CAA I have responsibility for the oversight of all commercial aircraft operations; oversight of commercial Approved Training Organisations, and for the standards of Flight Crew Licensing, Instructors and Examiners. I have been in that role since 2019, having been in the CAA as Flight Ops Manager - Aeroplanes role for 2½ years overseeing fixed wing commercial activity. Prior to joining the CAA I was at easyJet for 10 years in various roles including Head of Aircraft Ops, responsible for safety, technical, cabin safety, EFB, performance and airports/routes. I was also a Functional Check Flight Capt for A320 family aircraft as well as TRI and TRE. Before being bought by easyJet I was at GB Airways for 10 years as Flight Manager Technical covering similar areas and check flight activity. I spent 12 years in the RAF mainly flying Tornado GR1/GR1As based in Germany and UK and flying in operational theatres of Northern and Southern Iraq, qualified as an IRE and ACO. With a period as a Simulator Instructor on Harrier GR5/7. I am still a current A320 Capt, TRI, TRE, SE and Training Inspector, and GA Pilot with a share in a Beagle Pup. Lovefly Courses  FB - Lovefly Insta @loveflyhelp #fearofflying #flyingwithout fear #anxiety #aviation #lovefly #pilots #turbulence #claustrophobia Private Members Group https://lovefly.podia.com Intro and outro music 'Fearless' Daniel King Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Host Sean White talks with solar engineer and educator Mike Nowicki about utility-scale solar projects, the ins and outs of professional engineering licenses, and the evolution of industry codes. They dive into union labor, project design, and Mike's experience teaching future engineers. A must-listen for anyone interested in the real-world challenges and opportunities in solar energy.   Topics covered: ACP = American Clean Power Utility Scale Solar Burns & Mcdonnell www.burnsmcd.com EPC = Engineering, Procurement, and Construction ESS = Energy Storage System ESOP = Employee Stock Ownership Program Solar Engineer PE = Professional Engineer NCEES = National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying Certifications Licenses NABCEP = North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners NEC = National Electrical Code CMP = Code Making Panel NREL = National Renewable Energy Laboratory RE+ Conference PV and the NEC (Sean & Bill's Book) Solar Power International = SPI Solar Professional Magazine Rapid Shutdown SSIF + Solar and Storage Industry Forum SEIA = Solar Energy Industries Association UL 3741 Clipping Battery DC Coupling AC Coupling Union Labor UBC = United Brotherhood of Carpenters IBEW = International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Backtracking Trackers Next Trackers Wayne State University Grid Short Circuit Fault Utility   Reach out to Mike Nowicki Here: Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/michael-p-nowicki Burns & Mcdonnell: www.burnsmcd.com   Learn more at www.solarSEAN.com and be sure to get NABCEP certified by taking Sean's classes at www.heatspring.com/sean  

Welcome to episode 76 of the Ski Instructor Podcast, featuring Anna Norlin Berg and Joel Baudin. Anna and Joel are the hosts of the popular Swedish ski instructor podcast 'Skidlärarpodden'.  When they aren't doing that, Joel and Anna are working ski instructors.   Joel runs the ski school in Kittelfjäll and is an instructor and course leader within Friluftsfrämjandet (The Swedish Outdoor Organization) for the past eight years. He's involved in instructor education through Friluftsfrämjandet and is a passionate moguls skier. Anna is involved in training leaders and ski instructors in Friluftsfämjandet, and is chairman of the Swedish ski exams. She is an Alpine ski coach in Kungsbergets AK for U14 and U16. She was a member of the Swedish demo team in Pomporovo and Levi. We had a very wide ranging chat covering the backstory for Anna and Joel, instructor systems in Sweden, the technical models, hockey (again, sorry!), interski and falling off of bicycles. I loved chatting with these two and it's a fun interview.  If you'd like to listen to the interview that they did with me, you can find it here: https://skidlararpodden.se/episodes/dave-burrows-on-coaching-community-and-carving-your-own-path-in-the-alps Happy listening Dave

Myth vs. Reality: What You Need to Know About PolygraphsMyth 1: Polygraphs Are 100% Accurate and Always Determine TruthReality: Polygraphs are not “lie detectors.” They measure physiological responses such as heart rate, blood pressure, and sweat gland activity—signals that may indicate stress or anxiety. Trained examiners interpret these results, but several factors can influence the outcome:False positives and false negatives happen.Anxiety, medical conditions, or medications can affect readings.Polygraphs are investigative tools, not final proof of truthfulness.In the clearance process, a failed or inconclusive test often just means further review or a retest.Myth 2: Failing a Polygraph Automatically Disqualifies You from ClearanceReality: A polygraph is only one piece of the broader adjudication puzzle. Even if you “fail” a test, you may still move forward in the process. The full review includes:Background checksInterviewsSF-86 form reviewCorroborating evidence from multiple sourcesMany applicants are given another chance to take the polygraph or explain their answers before any decision is made.Myth 3: You Can Beat the Polygraph with Tricks or TechniquesReality: The internet is full of “tips” for beating the polygraph. Examiners are well aware of these tactics, and attempting them can:Raise red flags and trigger suspicionLead to invalidated resultsDamage your credibility more than a poor showing on the test itselfTrying to game the polygraph can backfire badly—often worse than just answering honestly.Polygraphs can be stressful, but they're not the final word in your clearance journey. The most important thing you can bring into the exam is honesty—both with the examiner and yourself. Understanding how polygraphs work, and knowing that a single test doesn't determine your fate, can go a long way toward reducing the anxiety that comes with this infamous step in the process.If you're heading into a polygraph soon, take a deep breath, skip the internet “hacks,” and focus on telling the truth. The rest is just part of the process. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this candid and insightful conversation, host Kristin Walker sits down with Reverend Dr. Stephanie Holmes to explore her personal and professional journey in autism advocacy. From her daughter's early diagnosis to her family's multi-perspective book, Dr. Holmes shares how lived experience shaped her mission to support neurodivergent individuals, couples, and families—especially in faith-based communities. Together, they discuss the historic underdiagnosis of women on the spectrum, the nuances of masking, the need for inclusive education, and the often-overlooked intersections of autism, gender, and culture. This episode is a deep dive into breaking stereotypes, amplifying autistic voices, and creating genuine inclusion in schools, marriages, and communities.​Stephanie C. Holmes graduated from Campbell University summa cum laude with a Bachelor's degree in Psychology in 1994. She then completed her Master's in Counseling  summa cum laude through Liberty University  and further pursued licensing in  the state of NC which was obtained and held from 2001 through 2009. She was an LPC in good standing. Upon moving to Georgia, with a desire to reach more people through tele- counseling, she obtained other certifications to pursue her calling of working with marriage and families with special needs nationally and internationally.  Her highest held degree is an Ed.D from Abilene Christian University, where she graduated with distinction upon completing her dissertation, “Creating an Inclusive Climate for Students on the Autism Spectrum.”​Certifications and Training​Certified Master Life Coach through International Board of Christian Counselors (IBCC)Certified Mental Health Coach through American Association of Christian Counselors.Board Certified Christian Counselor through International Board of Certified Counselors (AACC)Board Certified through Georgia Board of Examiners for Georgia Christian Counselors and TherapistsCertified Autism Specialist through IBCCESNeurodiverse Couples Certification through AANENeurodiversity Trained and Certified through Neurodiversity Training InternationalOrdained through IAOGholmesasr.com

Growing up, Durran Dunn, CPA, had drive and discipline, but he didn't have any aspiration of using those qualities to become a CPA. He didn't even know what a CPA was. Dunn, now a partner in Bennett Thrasher's Risk Advisory Services practice, based in greater Atlanta, overcame “whiplash” in the form of two moves – from Jamaica to New York, from New York to Mississippi – and now mentors students on the merits of the profession. In addition to sharing strategies for success, Dunn spoke about the high-profile-yet-anonymous role he had at a Major League Baseball stadium. He was a social media and YouTube sensation, even though his identity was hidden by a full bodysuit. What you'll learn from this episode: Dunn's introduction to the accounting profession. The cultural whiplash he experienced, twice, upon leaving his native Jamaica. The running role Dunn performed for about seven years at a Major League Baseball stadium. Dunn's path from not knowing what a CPA was to becoming a firm partner. Details of Dunn's service on the AICPA's Board of Examiners. Why he is passionate about volunteering and mentoring young accounting candidates. His emphasis on discipline – a message he shares with student groups. 

www.marktreichel.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-treichel/NCUA staff rely heavily on the examiner guide and the National Supervision Policy Manual.  We discuss these documents and what they really mean for credit unions.

In this episode I'm interviewing a nuclear energy educator with a series of informative videos on LinkedIn. He works to address radiophobia and provides an evidence-based assessment of nuclear fission and the many polarized debates surrounding its safety.  Dr. Robert Hayes is an Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering at North Carolina State University. He holds a joint faculty appointment with Savannah River National Laboratory and serves as an Associate Editor for the journal Radiation Physics and Chemistry.  Dr. Hayes is a licensed Professional Engineer in Nuclear Engineering, a Certified Health Physicist (CHP) through the American Board of Health Physics, and a Fellow of both the Health Physics Society (HPS) and the American Physical Society (APS). He has extensive experience in federal radiological emergency response, serving over a decade at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for the geological disposal of transuranic waste. Currently, Dr. Hayes is an advisor to the DOE-NNSA Advisory Committee on Nuclear Security and serves on the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) committee responsible for nuclear engineering licensure. In addition to his academic and research contributions, he is actively engaged in public communication on radiological risk, particularly in the realm of nuclear waste management.

Whistleblowers are often key to uncovering fraud—but what happens after they report? In this episode of Fraud Talk, Jacqueline Garrick, founder of Whistleblowers of America and the Workplace Promise Institute, shares her journey from whistleblower to advocate. From moral injury to PTSD, Garrick shares how peer support and trauma-informed workplaces can protect whistleblowers and strengthen fraud prevention efforts.

In this episode of CASAT Conversations, we're joined by Agata Gawronski, Executive Director of the State of Nevada Board of Examiners for Alcohol, Drug, and Gambling Counselors. Originally from Poland, Agata's journey into the field of substance use and problem gambling began after earning her master's degree in social work and immigrating to the United States. She shares the experiences that shaped her career, from her early days as a substance use disorder counselor to her 14 years of leadership at the State of Nevada licensing board.Agata's career has been defined by a passion for building trust, collaboration, and community. She has found tremendous reward in her work, especially in bringing people together to solve complex problems and make a lasting impact in the field. As a committed advocate, she has also dedicated her time to various nonprofit organizations, including the Katie Grace Foundation.In this episode, Agata discusses:The key experiences that shaped her career pathThe most rewarding aspects of working in fieldStrategies she uses to build trust and collaboration with othersHow she stays motivated and resilient in the face of burnoutReflections on how to support colleaguesAdvice for young professionals entering the behavioral health fieldJoin us for an inspiring conversation about the power of community, resilience, and the impact of leadership in the substance use and problem gambling fields.Key words: leadership, counseling, advocacy, mental health, burnout preventionResources: https://www.psychiatrist.com/news/surgeon-general-drafts-one-last-prescription/Beyond Burnout: The Hidden Cost of Sanctuary Trauma on Mental Health and Organizational Culture blog postSelf-Care: An Important Strategy for Managing Mental Health blog postEmbracing Self-Awareness and Reflection: Vital Practices for Behavioral Health Providers blog post

In this episode of the Healthcare Plus Podcast, Dan Collard welcomes Céu Cirne-Neves, MPA, FACHE.  With over 25 years' experience as a healthcare executive, she now serves as a faculty member in the undergraduate and graduate health administration programs at Rutgers University.They discuss insights Céu has gained from her unusual path, which led her from her first job in healthcare marketing to chief administrative officer and finally to academia. At Rutgers she's observed major differences in today's students vs. those of years past (for instance: they're far more focused and specific on what they want, and very intentional about gaining the competencies and resources needed to achieve it).Céu shares her recent idea for drawing undecided students into the Healthcare Administration major by building an exploratory course based on Quint Studer's book The Calling: Why Healthcare is So Special. (“I feel healthcare is more than a job,” she says. “I'm trying to make it enticing for them to see the difference they can make through healthcare administration.”) Filled with practical takeaways, this episode will appeal to anyone seeking more understanding on what drives the next generation of Health Administration students, how to help them connect to their calling early, and how to develop and mentor them.About Céu Cirne-Neves, MPA, FACHECéu Cirne-Neves, MPA, FACHE, is a healthcare executive with more than 25 years of experience in senior level positions and has made a successful leadership transition as full-time faculty at the Rutgers University EJ Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. At Bloustein, she teaches in the Master of Health Administration Program and serves as the coordinator for the undergraduate Health Administration Program. Furthermore, she is the faculty advisor for the undergraduate student organization, Future Healthcare Administrators, which signature event is the annual healthcare administration case competition. Cirne-Neves brings to the classroom a wealth of practical health administration experience resulting from years leading culture change, operational effectiveness, and patient safety and experience. She served as the CEO of Saint James Hospital, Cathedral Healthcare System, Newark, for 10 years, and most recently, in a variety of senior level roles including as Vice President of Ambulatory Services at Cooperman Barnabas Medical Center (CBMC), RWJBarnabas Health, Livingston.  Throughout her career, Cirne-Neves has demonstrated how to convert an organization's Mission, Vision, and Values into a leadership model that improves workforce engagement, organizational performance and results. She excels at strategic planning and implementation, operations management, and community benefit; and most of all, she shares the resolve that health administrators must nurture and contribute to the next generation of healthcare leaders.Cirne-Neves is board certified in hospital administration and as a fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE); she is a past president of ACHE's New Jersey chapter and serves as the ACHE Regent for New Jersey – Northern; as part of her annual Regent Awards Program, she has now introduced the Student Associate and Mid Careerist Regent Awards, elevating the significance of both levels of health administration. She has served on the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Board of Examiners and under her leadership CBMC received the regional Baldrige Gold Award for Performance Excellence. She has enjoyed serving in the most senior roles at healthcare organizations and now promotes bridging healthcare organizations with healthcare education.

Send us a textAbout Dr. Mila IoussifovaDr. Mila Ioussifova graduated with honors from the New England College of Optometry and completed a residency program in community health and ocular disease in Boston, MA. She is a fellow of the American Academy of Optometry and is on the leadership team of the Anterior Segment Section of the AAO. Dr. Mila served as an adjunct clinical faculty at the Pacific University College of Optometry and was an examiner for the National Board of Examiners in Optometry. She is involved with her state association and advocacy efforts, and she is the Director of Education for the Oregon Optometric Physicians Association. Dr. Mila is a Board-Certified Nutrition Specialist and is a fellow of the Ocular Wellness and Nutrition Society. Dr. Mila owns a private practice in Portland, OR, with special interests in advanced dry eye treatments, nutritional counseling, and aesthetic services.

Don't miss this exciting episode with Drew Burgess! From his world-class expertise to his knack for solving tough challenges, Drew shares how Acro Chat is revolutionizing support for dance teachers and studio owners. Whether you're looking for inspiration, guidance, or just a little TLC, this is the episode you need to hear! About Drew Burgess Ohio native, Drew made his industry debut on Live with Regis during Amazing Kids Week. Upon relocating to California, he trained at L.A.'s best studios including EDGE, Millennium, Fusion, and the PAC Annex. Drew is highly sought after as a performer, choreographer, guest teacher, dance supervisor, & dance captain. Drew can be seen on teaching & adjudication panels for: Chicago National Association of Dance Masters, Dance Teachers Club of Boston, Headliners, DanZa, 10+ Dance Masters of America Regional Chapters, Dance Educators of America, & the Rhee Gold Company. A former competitor himself, Drew's regional titles include Master, Junior, and Teen Mr. Dance of Ohio, as well as, Mr. Dance of the Pacific Coast. Nationally, Drew is a former Jr. Mr. Dance of America and Mr. Dance of America. Drew is certified by test to teach through DMA & DEA in Ballet, Tap, Jazz, & Acrobatics and is an active member in both organizations. Drew is also proud to be Acrobatic Arts Certified (M1-M3) & part of their U.S. Division Staff of Course Conductors & Examiners.Drew's passion for dance circles the globe with guest workshop classes, technique clinics, & choreography, year-round. His corporate & live entertainment credits include performances with the Radio City Rockettes, Taylor Swift, & The Baha Men. Drew's students have accolades including: Teen Miss Dance of Arizona, Male Dancer of the Year, Miss Dance of Ohio, & Mr. Dance of America. His National Choreography merits include the Sherry Gold Memorial Choreography Award from DMA & Best Small Group & Production from NexStar. Drew has toured worldwide with Rasta Thomas' Bad Boys of Dance as a Swing in Rock the Ballet 2 and Romeo & Juliet. He was honored to serve as the Tap Director for four years at Spisak Dance Academy in Glendale, Arizona; and now resides in Columbus, Ohio and is part of of the teaching staff at Straub Dance Center. Find out more about Acro Chat with Drew Burgess: https://www.acrobaticarts.com/training-courses/acrochat-with-drew-burgessFollow Drew on Instagram: @drewdances If you'd like more amazing content more tips and ideas check out our Acrobatic Arts Channel on YouTube. Subscribe Now! Connect with Acrobatic Arts on your favourite social media platform: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/acrobaticarts/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Acroarts Twitter: https://twitter.com/acrobatic_arts/ Learn more and register for our programs at AcrobaticArts.com

Episode Title:NCUA: Can You Put That in an Examiner Finding, Not a DOR?Episode Summary:In this episode of With Flying Colors, host Mark Treichel is joined by Steve Farrar and Todd Miller to unpack the complexities of NCUA examinations, examiner findings, and documents of resolution (DOORS). They dive into what makes an issue rise to a DOOR, how credit unions can negotiate findings, and why corporate governance is becoming a focal point in exams.With their decades of experience inside NCUA, Mark, Steve, and Todd share insights on how credit unions can better navigate the regulatory process, avoid unnecessary compliance burdens, and strengthen their governance structures. If you've ever wondered why something lands in a DOOR rather than an examiner finding, this episode is for you!Key Topics Covered:✔️ What qualifies as an examiner finding vs. a DOOR? ✔️ How credit unions can respond to and negotiate with NCUA ✔️ The rising focus on corporate governance in examinations ✔️ How unresolved examiner findings escalate over time ✔️ The role of supplementary facts in the examination process ✔️ Understanding regional director letters and enforcement trendsGuest Information:

www.marktreichel.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-treichel/In this episode of With Flying Colors, host Mark Treichel is joined by Steve Farrar and Todd Miller to analyze the latest trends shaping the credit union industry in 2024. They dive into the recently released NCUA data, discussing multi-year trends, economic pressures, and how credit unions are navigating challenges such as rising delinquencies, declining net income, and shifting liquidity conditions.Key Topics Covered:✅ Multi-Year Credit Union Trends – How decisions made during COVID-19 continue to impact the industry today ✅ Rising Credit Risk & Loan Performance – What's driving the surge in credit card and auto loan delinquencies? ✅ NCUA's Supervisory Priorities – Where examiners are focusing their attention in 2024 ✅ Liquidity & Interest Rate Risk – How credit unions are adjusting to changing market conditions ✅ Earnings & Profitability Pressures – Understanding the impact of fee income declines, provision for loan losses, and economic uncertainty ✅ Regulatory Challenges & Mergers – The latest data on credit union consolidations and how they compare to community banksRecent Exam Trends:

Jim began by quoting 1 Peter 5:8 which says, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour."Jim began this way because as he also pointed out, our culture today is inundated with films, books, toys, games and other items designed to lure and attract people into the occult. Children and teens are constantly exposed to these efforts and worsening the situation are social media phone apps and popular online programs/games featuring occult themes.This program is a warning from Marcia Montenegro. Before becoming a Christian, Marcia was involved for many years in Eastern spiritual beliefs (Hindu and Buddhist), New Age, and occult practices. She was a certified, professional astrologer who taught Astrology for several years. She served as chairperson of the Astrology Board of Examiners and president of the Astrological Society in Atlanta. She came to Christ and is now engaged in her full-time ministry, Christian Answers for the New Age. She's spoken around the country and writes on New Age and occult topics published in magazines, journals and books. She is co-author of Richard Rohr and the Enneagram Secret and is author of the book discussed on this broadcast, Spellbound: The Paranormal Seduction of Today's Kids.Marcia began by defining the occult as a set of practices that involve either an attempt to contact an invisible/supernatural being or an attempt to use or manipulate some kind of supernatural source. It can also involve reading or finding hidden or secret meaning into things.

Jim began by quoting 1 Peter 5:8 which says, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour."Jim began this way because as he also pointed out, our culture today is inundated with films, books, toys, games and other items designed to lure and attract people into the occult. Children and teens are constantly exposed to these efforts and worsening the situation are social media phone apps and popular online programs/games featuring occult themes.This program is a warning from Marcia Montenegro. Before becoming a Christian, Marcia was involved for many years in Eastern spiritual beliefs (Hindu and Buddhist), New Age, and occult practices. She was a certified, professional astrologer who taught Astrology for several years. She served as chairperson of the Astrology Board of Examiners and president of the Astrological Society in Atlanta. She came to Christ and is now engaged in her full-time ministry, Christian Answers for the New Age. She's spoken around the country and writes on New Age and occult topics published in magazines, journals and books. She is co-author of Richard Rohr and the Enneagram Secret and is author of the book discussed on this broadcast, Spellbound: The Paranormal Seduction of Today's Kids.Marcia began by defining the occult as a set of practices that involve either an attempt to contact an invisible/supernatural being or an attempt to use or manipulate some kind of supernatural source. It can also involve reading or finding hidden or secret meaning into things.

The Storm Skiing Journal and Podcast is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and to support independent ski journalism, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.WhoMax Magill, President of United Mountain Workers and ski patroller at Park City Mountain Resort, UtahRecorded onJanuary 11, 2025About United Mountain WorkersUnited Mountain Workers (UMW) is a labor union representing 16 distinct employee groups across more than a dozen U.S. ski resorts:UMW is organized under Communication Workers of America, which represents more than 700,000 workers across media, healthcare, manufacturing, and other sectors.Why I interviewed himIn case you missed it (New York Times):Ski patrollers at Park City Mountain in Utah triumphantly returned to the slopes on Thursday, after ending a nearly two-week strike over union wages and benefits. The strike hobbled the largest U.S. ski resort during a busy holiday period and sparked online fury about deepening economic inequality in rural mountain areas.Late Wednesday, the Park City Professional Ski Patrollers Association ratified a contract with Vail Resorts, which owns Park City and more than 40 other ski areas, that raises the starting pay of ski patrollers and other mountain safety workers $2 an hour, to $23. The most experienced patrollers will receive an average increase of $7.75 per hour. The agreement also expands parental leave policies for the workers, and provides “industry-leading educational opportunities,” according to the union. …Accusing Vail Resorts of unfair labor practices, the Ski Patrollers Association, which represents 204 ski patrollers and mountain safety personnel, went on strike on Dec. 27. The strike received national attention as a fight between the haves and have-nots — a global corporation valued at nearly $10 billion against the vital workers who aid and protect skiers on its properties.With few ski patrollers to open trails, respond to accidents and perform avalanche mitigation, only about one fourth of Park City Mountain's terrain was open during the strike.Irate skiers and snowboarders at Park City soon pilloried Vail, taking to social media and national news organizations to denounce lengthy lift lines and contrast the high salaries of Vail leadership and expensive ticket prices with the relatively low pay of resort workers.This is a big deal, and it's probably just getting started.What we talked aboutBack to work; support in unexpected corners; I hear tell of flying pizzas and donuts and I want in on this magical world; a brief timeline of contract negotiations; what Vail Resorts offered and why the union said no; “we had no choice but to play our final and most powerful card, knowing that our strike would cause massive disruption”; deconstructing the vast Vail management machine; what UMW won in the new contract; “the raises we won are life-changing for a ton of our members, including me”; a rapidly changing Utah; how the patrollers' union was challenged when Vail merged Park City and Canyons; “a malicious union-busting campaign is the best way to organize workers”; organizing a union in a “right to work” state; the amazing complexity of Park City Mountain Resort; the complexities of importing patrollers from one resort to another; skier volumes at Park City over time; the pluses and minuses of more skiers; “this movement will continue to grow”; the patrol union vote at A-Basin (it passed); could the various patrol unions combine?; whether ski industry unions could spread to other worker groups and regions; “all workers, ski industry or not, deserve respect”; and Vail's big 2022 pay raises.Questions I wish I'd askedI was surprised to hear Magill describe new patrol uniforms as “pretty substandard.” With every lift op rocking a Helly jacket, I figured the squad up top would get primo stuff. Why don't they?What I got wrongReal-world facts for numbers that I roughly guessed at mid-talk:* Park City population: 8,254 (I said “a little over 8,000”)* 2024-25 Epic Pass sales: approximately 2.3 million (I said “2 million”)* Early-bird price of a 2024-25 Epic Local Pass: $739 (I said “seven-thirty-something”)* Size of Park City Mountain Resort: 7,300 acres, 350 trails (I actually got these right, but tagged them with a “or whatever they are” on the pod)* On the number of active U.S. ski areas: 509, by my own count (I said “500-some,” but it changes almost weekly, so I hedged)On words being hard* I kept saying “exasperate” when I meant to say “exacerbate,” a word that my idiot brain cannot pronounce. But I know the difference so please stop sending me that email.* I said that “most” U.S. ski areas were in the Midwest and East, when I meant to say that the “majority” were. This is true. Only 189 of the 509 active U.S. ski areas (37%) sit in the 11 western ski states.On things changing fastMagill and I discussed the pending unionization vote among Arapahoe Basin patrollers. Shortly after our conversation concluded, he informed me that they had officially voted to organize.On sourcingI cited the AP (Associated Press), as my source for some summary points from the Park City patrollers' contract with Vail Resorts. Most of what I cited actually came from High Country News.Corrected mid-flow* Contract negotiations began in March (not May, as I suggested) of 2024* Patrollers at the then-independent Canyons ski area established the union that now represents all of Park City Mountain Resort in 2001, not 2002. Vail purchased Canyons in 2013 and Park City in 2014, and combined the side-by-side ski areas into one with the Quicksilver Gondola in 2015.On skier visit numbersI noted that ski resorts operating on Forest Service lands had successfully lobbied against requirements to report annual skier visit numbers. That probably seemed irrelevant in the case of Park City Mountain Resort, which does not operate on Forest Service land, but I was trying to get to the larger point that Vail Resorts is secretive with its resort-by-resort skier visits.Podcast NotesOn Right to WorkMany states have passed “right to work” laws, meaning that employees are not compelled to join a labor union, even if one represents their workplace. From the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation:Nuances exist from state to state. Magill notes in our conversation that Colorado is a right-to-work state, but the Colorado Sun describes the state as a “modified right-to-work state”:But the Labor Peace Act is a law that unions find to be a challenge.Enacted in 1943, the state law was seen as a compromise between unions and business owners. That's why Colorado is considered a modified right-to-work state, which means that new hires don't have to join a union if one exists, though they can if they want to. But if a union wins its Labor Peace Act election, then union membership is required.The Peace Act rules require three-quarters of eligible workers to participate in a second vote, if they already successfully voted in an NLRB election. Without it, the union has less bite since it doesn't represent all eligible workers and cannot collect dues from those who don't join. The NLRB's vote needs just a simple majority.On Park City Mountain ResortYeah it's freaking huge:On the “Knowledge”I compared the master patroller's understanding of gigantic, rollicking Park City - with its 350 trails, 7,300 acres, and dozens of lifts - to the “Knowledge,” an exam that requires would-be London taxi drivers to memorize every cobblestone in the city to earn their license. Per The New York Times:McCabe had spent the last three years of his life thinking about London's roads and landmarks, and how to navigate between them. In the process, he had logged more than 50,000 miles on motorbike and on foot, the equivalent of two circumnavigations of the Earth, nearly all within inner London's dozen boroughs and the City of London financial district. He was studying to be a London taxi driver, devoting himself full-time to the challenge that would earn him a cabbie's “green badge” and put him behind the wheel of one of the city's famous boxy black taxis.Actually, “challenge” isn't quite the word for the trial a London cabbie endures to gain his qualification. It has been called the hardest test, of any kind, in the world. Its rigors have been likened to those required to earn a degree in law or medicine. It is without question a unique intellectual, psychological and physical ordeal, demanding unnumbered thousands of hours of immersive study, as would-be cabbies undertake the task of committing to memory the entirety of London, and demonstrating that mastery through a progressively more difficult sequence of oral examinations — a process which, on average, takes four years to complete, and for some, much longer than that. The guidebook issued to prospective cabbies by London Taxi and Private Hire (LTPH), which oversees the test, summarizes the task like this:To achieve the required standard to be licensed as an “All London” taxi driver you will need a thorough knowledge, primarily, of the area within a six-mile radius of Charing Cross. You will need to know: all the streets; housing estates; parks and open spaces; government offices and departments; financial and commercial centres; diplomatic premises; town halls; registry offices; hospitals; places of worship; sports stadiums and leisure centres; airline offices; stations; hotels; clubs; theatres; cinemas; museums; art galleries; schools; colleges and universities; police stations and headquarters buildings; civil, criminal and coroner's courts; prisons; and places of interest to tourists. In fact, anywhere a taxi passenger might ask to be taken.If anything, this description understates the case. The six-mile radius from Charing Cross, the putative center-point of London marked by an equestrian statue of King Charles I, takes in some 25,000 streets. London cabbies need to know all of those streets, and how to drive them — the direction they run, which are one-way, which are dead ends, where to enter and exit traffic circles, and so on. But cabbies also need to know everything on the streets. Examiners may ask a would-be cabbie to identify the location of any restaurant in London. Any pub, any shop, any landmark, no matter how small or obscure — all are fair game. Test-takers have been asked to name the whereabouts of flower stands, of laundromats, of commemorative plaques. One taxi driver told me that he was asked the location of a statue, just a foot tall, depicting two mice sharing a piece of cheese. It's on the facade of a building in Philpot Lane, on the corner of Eastcheap, not far from London Bridge.Surely hyperbole, I thought, upon reading this 2014 article. But when I stepped into a London black cab some years later and gave the driver my address, he said “Quite good Old Fellow”* and piloted his gigantic car from the train station down an impossible tangle of narrow streets and dropped us at the doorstep of the very building I'd requested. It appears that the robots have yet to kill this requirement.*He probably didn't actually say this, but I jolly well wish he had.On Vail's 2022 pay raisesOn different skillsets and jobsI think I came off as a bit of an a-hole at the end when I was asking about Vail paying unskilled jobs like ticket-checker and lift attendant $20 an hour while setting the minimum for more skilled jobs like ski patrol at $21. Look, I know all jobs have nuances and challenges and ways to do them well and ways to do them poorly. I've done all sorts of “unskilled” jobs, from bagging groceries to pushing shopping carts to stocking shelves to waiting tables. I know the work can be challenging, tiring, and thankless, and I believe good workers should be paid good wages. If you're loading a fixed-grip double chair on a beginner run for eight hours in four-degree weather, well, you're awesome. But it does take more training and a larger skillset to step onto a big-mountain patrol than to manage a big-mountain liftline, and I believe the compensation for the more rigorous role ought to reflect that skills gap.The Storm explores the world of lift-served skiing year-round. Join us. Get full access to The Storm Skiing Journal and Podcast at www.stormskiing.com/subscribe

Today Jim Garrity revisits the headaches caused by examining lawyers who frequently interrupt your deponents' answers. To combat this problem, Garrity offers you a six-pronged strategy for stopping this practice and/or creating a strong record that will allow your deponents to later add materially to their interrupted testimony, whether by errata sheet, affidavit, or live testimony. Courts are far more likely to allow that where you've used Garrity's strategies. (By the way, if you have a moment, would you send our production team a small "thank you" by leaving us a five-star rating wherever you listen to our podcast? It takes just 30 seconds - we timed it! - and it's deeply appreciated. Our crew devotes a great deal of time to research and production, and the podcast is not only free, but also uncluttered by pesky advertising. Thank you so much.)SHOW NOTESIn re Injectafer Prod. Liab. Litig. ALL CASES, No. CV 19-276, 2022 WL 4280491  (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2022) (“Defendants propose. . . changing “It would be one of the—yes” to “It would be one of the sources of information. Yes.” This change is not necessarily inconsistent with the original testimony because it appears that the deponent was cut off or otherwise stopped speaking in the middle of the sentence and is justified as making the answer more complete. See id. While finishing a thought is not necessarily a proper justification for an errata modification, here it appears to be justified and within the flexible scope of the Third Circuit's approach to Rule 30(e)")Grey v.  Amex Assurance Company, 2002 WL 31242195, No. B152467 (Ct. App. Calif. Oct. 7, 2002) (reversing summary judgment in part because trial court abused discretion in failing to consider errata sheet containing “changes. . . made because the witness was interrupted before completing her answers;” further noting that the defendant “. . .took the risk that [the plaintiff's] corrections would bring some of its undisputed facts into controversy”)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 512 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (denying, without prejudice, motion to strike errata sheet, as motion failed to specifically discuss many of the 67 changes defendant wanted stricken; noting that “The reason given for the vast majority of the 67 changes was that [Plaintiff] “did not finish” her answer during the deposition, though the transcript does not reflect that she was interrupted and prevented from doing so,” and outlining how various courts and commentators deal with the extent to which changes to testimony can be made on errata sheets)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, F.R.D. 504, 512, fn. 5 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (noting that, if one looks back at the early origins of the rule on errata sheets, quoted in this opinion, it may be argued that the intent of the drafters was indeed to limit changes to clerical-level mistakes, not to allow substantive changes): "One commentator who examined the history of the rule dating back to the original Equity Rule 67, and the twin Equity Rules 50 and 51 that succeeded it, concluded that Rule 30 was never intended to allow for more than the correction of transcription errors: "Appeals to the plain language of Rule 30(e) are incomplete and misleading without reference to the Rule's transcriptive focus. Read in historical context, the Rule appears to be distinctly clerical, ill-equipped—and never intended—to embrace substantive changes. Although its wording has changed over time, Rule 30(e) has retained one modest but steady focus: the who, how, and what of accurate transcription. The Rule is meant to secure an accurate representation of what was said, leaving to another day (and frequently to the mechanisms of Rule 56) the question of the meaning and implication of the deposition content for purposes of material factual disputes. The common understanding of Rule 30(e) has moved far afield from that mild ambition, giving us the confusion and circuit split we know today. Read in light of its history, the Rule clearly embraces a transcriptive focus. Ruehlmann, Jr., supra, at 915. Rule 30(e)'s counterpart in Illinois state court, Supreme Court Rule 207(a), was amended to limit corrections to transcription errors because the “potential for testimonial abuse” had “become increasingly evident as witnesses submit[ted] lengthy errata sheets in which their testimony [was] drastically altered....” Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 207(a), Rules Committee Comment to Paragraph (a) (1995)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 511 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (citing Deposition Dilemmas: Vexatious Scheduling and Errata Sheets, 12 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1, 60 (1998), for its author's argument that Rule 30(e) permits “opposing counsel, at her choosing, to introduce both versions to the jury”)Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383 (7th Cir.2000) (observing, as to changes in errata sheet, that what the witness “tried to do, whether or not honestly, was to change his deposition from what he said to what he meant;” quoting the common refrain that “a deposition is not a take home examination,” the court remarked that while this was a “questionable basis for altering a deposition.” the court would allow the change under Rule 30(e) since the rule expressly “authorizes ‘changes in form or substance'.”Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-895, 2018 WL 1472527 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2018) (refusing, based on Sixth Circuit's strict interpretation of errata sheet changes, to allow “. . .impermissible substantive alterations to Tchankpa's testimony. . .”, including explanations stating “Incomplete; I was cut off,” allegedly because “defense counsel interrupted him;” “In this circuit, a deponent cannot make substantive changes to his deposition testimony under Rule 30(e) based on defense counsel's interruptions. . .”)Hirsch v. Humana, Inc., No. CV-15-08254-PCT-SMM, 2017 WL 9991896, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 17, 2017) When a party makes changes to his deposition pursuant to Rule 30(e), the original answers remain part of the record. See Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383, 389 (7th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he rule requires that the original transcript be retained (it is implicit in the provision of that rule that any changes made by the deponent are to be appended to the transcript) so that the trier of fact can evaluate the honesty of the alteration.”); Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 511 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (“Subject to the rules of evidence, the jury is permitted to hear the original answer, the change, and the reasons for the change and decide – in the context of all the other evidence – whether to credit either answer and what weight to assign it.”); Coleman v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 997 F. Supp. 1197, 1205 (D. Ariz. 1998) (accepting the argument that “a change in a deposition statement does not eradicate the deponent's original answers”); Lugtig v. Thomas, 89 F.R.D. 639, 641-42 (N.D. Ill. 1981) (“Nothing in the language of Rule 30(e) requires or implies that the original answers are to be stricken when changes are made.”). The reason for this is obvious: “[t]he Rule is less likely to be abused if the deponent knows that ... the original answers[,] as well as the changes and the reasons will be subject to examination by the trier of fact")Hirsh v. Humana, Inc., No. CV-15-08254-PCT-SMM, 2017 WL 9991896, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 17, 2017) (court-ordered second deposition of plaintiff did not extend deadline for submitting errata sheet following delivery of transcript from first deposition; counsel claimed he “believed that the first deposition did not ‘count,' because it was ordered [to] be redone, and therefore corrections were reserved”; errata sheet rejected as untimely)Neutrion Dev. Corp. v. Sonosite, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d 529, 550 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (allowing and considering – without apparent challenge or concern – expert's substantive changes to errata sheet, necessitated “. . . [because he] began to explain the knowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess, but was interrupted by Neutrino's counsel”)Trout v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., 339 F. App'x 560, 565 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting argument made by defendant that plaintiff “. . . is not entitled to benefit from her corrected deposition testimony because her counsel did not rehabilitate her statements during the deposition,” meaning plaintiff's counsel could and should have asked followup questions while the deposition was in progress)Bahrami v. Maxie Price Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc., No. 1:11-CV-4483-SCJ-AJB, 2014 WL 11517837, at fn. 2 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 4, 2014) (Although Plaintiff's brief in response to Defendant's objections discusses a long day and interruptions by Defendant's counsel during the deposition, those reasons were not provided in the errata sheet. The Court also notes that if Defendant's counsel interrupted Plaintiff such that he could not elaborate much as he wished, Plaintiff's counsel had the opportunity afterwards to examine her client on those points and did not do so.”)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1)(B) (federal rule of civil procedure on errata sheets, which expressly contemplates possible changes in form or substance)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (requiring objections not just to evidentiary issues but to a party's conduct, to the manner of taking the deposition, and to any other aspect of the deposition)Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B)(i) (requiring objections to errors or irregularities at an oral examination if they relate to the manner of taking the deposition, a party's conduct, or other matters that might have been corrected at that time)

In today's podcast episode, we are joined by Raj Date, who has served in a variety of roles at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, including as the acting head of the agency and as it's first-ever Deputy Director. He recently wrote a thought-provoking article in a new online publication, Open Banker, entitled “Banks Aren't Over-Regulated, They Are Over-Supervised.” Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion, and is joined by Joseph Schuster, a partner in the Group. By way of background, Mr. Date described how bankers have almost uniformly complained to him that banks are over-regulated. Mr. Date responds to these complaints in his article as follows: At the time, in the still-smoldering ruins of the financial crisis, this struck me as bizarre. Banks are the beneficiaries of an array of government privileges: subsidized leverage (through insured deposits), liquidity (through the discount window and the home loan banks), exclusive access to payment rails (both through the central bank and bank-only private networks), and even choice of law (through federal preemption). Given all that, safeguards on capital, liquidity, credit exposure, market and interest rate exposure, cybersecurity, and consumer protection seemed like a fair trade to me. More than a decade later, I realize that those bank CEOs were not exactly wrong, they were imprecise: Banks are not over-regulated, but they are — quite dramatically — over-supervised.  Mr. Date makes the following points in support of his thesis that the banking industry is over-supervised: 1.       Bank examination tries to cover too many areas and, as a result, sometimes fails to see the forest through the trees. 2.       Bank examination obsessively focuses on process rather than substance.  That focus is evidenced by the supervisors' requirements that the banks document everything. 3.       It takes far too long for banks to receive examination reports after exams are completed, sometimes years later. The final exam reports are often anachronistic. 4.       Bank examinations often stultify bank innovation because supervisors' examinations are often critical of banks offering new products and services and this results in bank management being reluctant to innovate out of fear that they will be downgraded. 5.       Examiners' focus on process rather than risk itself has resulted in a bank management brain drain. Mr. Date then explains how the examination process should be changed. Mr. Date first calls for immediate changes even though the banking industry is largely thriving.   Mr. Date suggests the following approach in his article and during the podcast: The regulatory agencies are, probably justifiably, proud of their long histories of public service. But that pride breeds cultures that are strikingly conservative and resistant to change. As importantly, unlike private sector firms, they do not have the crucible of a profit imperative to burn away unproductive practices and orthodoxies. And it shows. It is not as though bank examiners cannot articulate the most important issues facing their regulated charges; it is just that they often just have no reason to stop working on things other than the most important issues. The only solution is strong top-down leadership that imposes ambitious goals. Without stretch goals that will feel strikingly out of reach at the outset, real change will not be possible. If it were me, I would set out, in a pilot with a handful of mid-sized banks, to structure a supervisory exam strategy that costs 75% less (in combined bank and agency costs) and is 75% faster from first-day letter to final report than today's norms.[9] I would embrace pilot uses of new technology tools in pursuit of those goals. And then I would iterate on those initial (almost certainly unsuccessful) results. This will be difficult, and even painful. But I very much believe it will be worth it. While acknowledging the issues with over-supervision, Joseph directs significant attention to the problem of over-regulation. He argues that modern regulatory practices have become more complex, restrictive, and less clear, creating barriers to innovation and access to credit. Joseph highlights how over-regulation stifles the development and availability of consumer finance products. Joseph explains how products like "Buy Now, Pay Later" (BNPL) face regulatory hurdles despite addressing consumer needs effectively. Joseph also discusses the potential negative impact of proposed changes to late fee regulations, warning that such measures could limit access to credit and push consumers toward higher-cost alternatives. Joseph criticizes the heavy-handed approach taken by regulators, such as the CFPB's issuance of circulars, which adds further uncertainty and complexity for institutions attempting to innovate in this space. Joseph advocates for a return to a more structured and transparent regulatory framework. He suggests that agencies recommit to the principles of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), emphasizing the importance of notice-and-comment rulemaking. Drawing parallels to the Federal Reserve Board's process during the implementation of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act, Joseph argues that meaningful engagement with the industry could lead to clearer regulations that balance consumer protection with innovation and operational feasibility. Joseph endorses Raj Date's call for clear and focused priorities in the supervisory process, and emphasizes that both banks and examiners benefit from a more straightforward understanding of the rules. Joseph concludes by warning against the trend of "regulation through enforcement," which undermines transparency and predictability, ultimately harming consumers and financial institutions alike.

In this episode of Nutrition Pearls: the Podcast, co-hosts Bailey Koch and Nikki Misner speak with Rashelle Berry on nasogastric feeding tube placement and weaning enteral nutrition. Rashelle has been working at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta for over 16 years as a dietitian in the Marcus Autism Center's feeding program. She previously served as the nutrition manager of the intensive feeding program. Currently, Rashelle's clinical work is focused on infants and children with pediatric feeding disorders in both the outpatient clinical and rehab settings. She is especially passionate about weaning children from tube feedings. Rashelle also serves on the Georgia Board of Examiners for Licensed Dietitians and as a site reviewer for the Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics.Nutrition Pearls is supported by an educational grant from Reckitt Mead Johnson Nutrition.Resources:Academy Quality Management Committee. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Revised 2017 Scope of Practice for the Registered Dietitian Nutritionist. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018;118(1):141-165. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2017.10.002Corrigan ML, Bobo E, Rollins C, Mogensen KM. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition: Revised 2021 standards of practice and standards of professional performance for registered dietitian nutritionists (competent, proficient, and expert) in nutrition support. Nutr Clin Pract. 2021;36(6):1126-1143. doi:10.1002/ncp.10774Produced by: Corey IrwinNASPGHAN - Council for Pediatric Nutrition Professionalscpnp@naspghan.org

For every aspiring optometrist, the board exam is a monumental milestone that marks the transition from student to professional. Among its challenges, Part III of the National Board of Examiners in Optometry (NBEO) often stands out as a daunting yet pivotal hurdle. In the spirit of empowering future optometrists, this guide provides actionable insights, personal anecdotes, and practical tips to help candidates confidently navigate the exam.

The steps are being taken following recommendations by a govt panel, set up to suggest reforms in entrance exams conducted by NTA after allegations of irregularities in the 2024 NEET-UG.  

Idaho State Police is working to train about 250 sexual assault nurse examiners (SANE) by the end of the year despite our state's nursing shortages. Host Lindsay Van Allen is joined by Idaho Reports' Ruth Brown to break down what a SANE nurse is trained to do, and how they can potentially help the citizens of Idaho. Plus, Brown outlines some of the challenges victims of sexual assault currently face, including the unexpected issue minors have when trying to access sexual assault exams without parental consent.  Want some more Boise news? Head over to our Hey Boise newsletter where you'll get a cheatsheet to the city every weekday morning. Interested in advertising with City Cast Boise? Find more info HERE. Reach us at boise@citycast.fm. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Title: Credit Risk - NCUA's Top Exam Priority for 2024Key Points:- Credit risk is NCUA's #1 exam priority for 2024- Economic conditions are changing the credit risk environment - Trends show weakening credit quality and increasing delinquencies- Consumers have fallen behind inflation for over 2 years- NCUA is directing credit unions back to credit risk management fundamentals- Examiners will review lending programs, risk management practices, loan modifications, collections, and allowance for credit lossesGuests:- Steve Farrar - Former NCUA problem case officer and VP of Central Liquidity Facility- Todd Miller - Former NCUA examiner, capital markets specialist, and director of special actionsAdditional Notes:- Episode discusses NCUA's 2024 Letter to Credit Unions on exam priorities- Compares credit risk priority to previous years- Analyzes economic factors impacting credit risk like inflation, income growth, unemployment- Mentions potential issues in commercial real estate - Discusses implementation of CECL accounting standard- Notes NCUA's focus on concentration risk justificationThe show notes summarize the key points and guests from the episode while avoiding any direct quotes or reproduction of copyrighted material.

Welcome to The Veterans Disability Nexus, where we provide unique insights and expertise on medical evidence related to VA-rated disabilities.Leah Bucholz, a US Army Veteran, Physician Assistant, & former Compensation & Pension Examiner shares her knowledge related to Independent Medical Opinions often referred to as “Nexus Letters” in support of your pursuit of VA Disability every Wednesday at 7 AM.Leah discusses recent concerns regarding the quality of veteran compensation and pension (C&P) exams. Drawing from a military.com article featuring comments from Senator Elizabeth Warren, Leah highlights issues such as examiners not reviewing veterans' service records, inappropriate locations for exams, and rushed assessments. She explains that these exams are often crucial for adjudicators in determining if a veteran's disability is service-connected and the degree of disability. Despite the challenges, Leah points out that there are dedicated and skilled examiners, urging veterans to seek legal advice if they experience a poor exam outcome.

Go here to get our complete online IELTS course with a 100% score increase guarantee. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices