Podcasts about High Court

Matthew Ridge is one of New Zealand's most recognisable sporting figures - All Blacks captain, NRL star, television personality. But behind the swagger and the highlights reel is a story most people have never heard.Originally released in 2024 and one of our most popular episodes, we're bringing this one back because it deserves to be heard again.Ridgey sits down with Steve and Seamus to tell it all. At 16, he was wrongfully convicted of aggravated robbery - three High Court trials, a 14-year sentence hanging over his head, and a sports career that nearly never happened.He talks about growing up without his father, finding mental toughness through tennis, and the moment he got a voicemail from Graham Lowe asking if he wanted to play rugby league for Manly.He opens up about the NRL years, the TV relationship with Marc Ellis - and he talks honestly about his meth use, functioning as an addict while the cameras rolled, and the moment he looked at a photo of himself and saw no light in his eyes.This is Matthew Ridge like you've never heard him before.Between Two Beers is proudly brought to you by One New Zealand. We believe that One NZ connects New Zealand, while Between Two Beers connects New Zealanders. And together, we are NZ's most trusted connection platform.Steve and Seamus are proud to be dressed by Barkers Clothing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

Actor and Hollywood stuntman Erik “All Day” Audé joins The Connect for one of the most intense stories ever told on the channel. In 2002, Erik was arrested in Pakistan after unknowingly being used as a drug mule and accused of attempting to smuggle narcotics through the airport. What followed was a nightmare: a death sentence, years inside one of Pakistan's most dangerous maximum-security prisons, brutal conditions, riots, violence, corruption, and the constant fear that he would be the next prisoner executed. Erik breaks down how he was deceived, what life on death row was really like, how he survived the prison system, and how he eventually fought his way back to freedom after proving his innocence. He also talks about his career as a stuntman, the importance of safety on film sets, and the lessons he learned from surviving the unimaginable. This is a story about betrayal, survival, faith, justice, and what it takes to keep fighting when the entire system is against you. Go Support Erik! Book: https://www.amazon.com/Years-Pakistan-Erik-Aud%C3%A9-Story/dp/B0D1YFHP5X Movie: https://www.amazon.com/Years-Pakistan-Erik-Aud%C3%A9-Story/dp/B07FSRBWGL Aude's Ice Cream Bar: https://www.instagram.com/audes_ice_cream_bar/ Tipsy Cow Bar and Grill: https://www.instagram.com/tipsycowshermanoaks/ Wine Bar: https://www.instagram.com/buvettela/ This Episode Is #Sponsored By The Following: Betterhelp! You don't have to be on this journey alone. Find support and have someone with you in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at https://betterhelp.com/connect Lucy! Find LUCY near you at https://lucy.co/stores or save 20% on your first online order at https://lucy.co/CONNECT with promo code CONNECT. Join The Patreon For Bonus Content! https://www.patreon.com/theconnectshow 00:00 Erik Audé's Nightmare: Pakistan Death Row 01:39 Introducing Erik's Story & Book 03:11 Hollywood Stunt Work & Industry Dangers 07:53 On-Set Injuries & Stunt Safety Culture 13:32 Behind the Scenes: Drug Smuggling Logistics 16:08 Exploiting Drivers & Realities of US-Mexico Smuggling 18:29 Deception Schemes: Mules, Tragedy & Innocent Couriers 20:15 This Episode Is Sponsored By Betterhelp 21:24 How Eric Became a Dupe in the Drug Trade 29:34 Pakistan's Corrupt Justice System & Bribery in Courts 33:24 This Episode Is Sponsored By Lucy 34:56 Erik's Recruitment—A Glamorous Leather Industry Cover 46:14 Erik's First Suspicious Smuggling Trips 55:02 The Trip to Pakistan: Red Flags and Arrest 01:03:54 Jailed in Pakistan: Culture Shock and Danger 01:14:17 Abuse, Survival, and Corruption Inside Prison 01:25:27 Violence, Survival, and Learning the System 01:41:09 Erik's Survival Tactics and Prison Power Plays 01:54:28 Prison Riots, Boxing, and Navigating Pakistani Jail Hierarchy 02:15:33 Appeals, Pakistani Lawyers, and Winning Respect 02:35:07 Fighting for Freedom: Legal Maneuvering from the Inside 02:57:06 High Court, Vindication, and Leaving Pakistan 03:02:39 Return Home, Civil Suit, and Final Justice 03:11:00 Erik Today: Lessons, Life After Prison & Reflections 03:13:33 Final Thoughts & Where to Find Erik's Story Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sall Grover returns for one of the most controversial and important conversations happening in Australia right now. After losing the landmark Giggle v Tickle case, Sall breaks down why she's taking the fight all the way to the High Court and what it means for free speech, women's spaces, gender identity, and the future of the Sex Discrimination Act.We dive deep into the question many people feel scared to even ask publicly anymore: what is a woman? We also unpack censorship, institutional pressure, compelled language, and why so many Australians feel governments and major institutions are no longer listening to everyday citizens.This episode isn't about hate — it's about open conversation, truth, biology, law, and the slippery slope of losing the ability to speak plainly about reality itself.PATREON Support The Hard Yarns and get access to exclusive drops, content, live shows and promo codes : www.patreon.com/thehardyarnspodcast FIND US Email: info@thehardyarns.com Instagram: @thehardyarnspodcast YouTube: https://youtube.com/@thehardyarnspodcastTikTok: @thehardyarnspodcast Web: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.thehardyarns.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ SPONSORS The Smart Business Lounge - https://www.thesmartbusinesslounge.com.auAll Trades Cover - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.alltradescover.com.au⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Crafted Finance - https://www.craftedfinance.com.auHard Yarns is Produced by B32media ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠#hardyarns⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠#podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠#comedy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. 

Mandy Wiener speaks to EWN Reporter, Babalo Ndenze about the EFF heading to the high court to challenge the powers accorded to the finance minister to decide on the fuel levy. The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report, go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There have been more than 390 suspected cases and more than 80 reported deaths from the new species of Ebola, according to the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. The infection has already spread from the Democratic Republic of Congo to neighbouring Uganda, while Rwanda and South Sudan are now on "high alert". Health officials are warning that the variant is deadlier than previous outbreaks. Also: International efforts to contain the Hantavirus are ongoing, as the cruise ship at the centre of the outbreak arrives in the Netherlands for disinfection. The Ukrainian military claim Russian forces are preparing for a major offensive in the summer. Spain's High Court has acquitted the Colombian singer Shakira of tax fraud and ordered her to get almost $65,000,000 in fines she had paid, plus interest. We get the latest on the Italian tourists who went missing whilst scuba diving in the Maldives. Why Swatch's Royal Pop collaboration with the Swiss luxury watch brand Audemars Piguet is causing chaos at shops around the world... and the drink that's putting an end to France's long-term love affair with wine.The Global News Podcast brings you the breaking news you need to hear, as it happens. Listen for the latest headlines and current affairs from around the world. Politics, economics, climate, business, technology, health – we cover it all with expert analysis and insight. Get the news that matters, delivered twice a day on weekdays and daily at weekends, plus special bonus episodes reacting to urgent breaking stories. Follow or subscribe now and never miss a moment. Get in touch: globalpodcast@bbc.co.uk

On today's Legally Speaking Podcast, I'm delighted to be joined by Sam Grimley. Sam is a Barrister at One Essex Court. He specialises in commercial, competition and intellectual property litigation and has appeared in disputes before the High Court, IPEC and UKIPO. Before pursuing a career at the Bar, Sam worked with artists including Sir Tom Jones, Ed Sheeran and Jessie J. So why should you be listening in? You can hear Rob and Sam discussing:- Career Transition from Music to Law- Transferable Skills and How to Use Them Well- Resilience Through Hardship and Academic Challenges- The Importance of Seeking Feedback and Mentorship- Current Practice and Specialist Legal Work at One Essex CourtConnect with Sam Grimley here - https://uk.linkedin.com/in/sam-grimley-47105224

In this podcast, Kushal speaks with Nikhil Mehra about the recent verdict by the Madhya Pradesh high court on the disputed Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar district. Buy my book "Blasphemy: Let me Speak": https://amzn.in/d/0bS2pOTc Follow them: X: @TweetinderKaul #bhojshala #islamism #hindutva #history ------------------------------------------------------------ Listen to the podcasts on: SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/kushal-mehra-99891819 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1rVcDV3upgVurMVW1wwoBp Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-c%C4%81rv%C4%81ka-podcast/id1445348369 Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-carvaka-podcast ------------------------------------------------------------ Support The Cārvāka Podcast: Buy Kushal's Book: https://amzn.in/d/58cY4dU Become a Member on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKPx... Become a Member on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/carvaka UPI: kushalmehra@icici Interac Canada: kushalmehra81@gmail.com To buy The Carvaka Podcast Exclusive Merch please visit: http://kushalmehra.com/shop ------------------------------------------------------------ Follow Kushal: Twitter: https://twitter.com/kushal_mehra?ref_... Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KushalMehraO... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarvakap... Koo: https://www.kooapp.com/profile/kushal... Inquiries: https://kushalmehra.com/ Feedback: kushalmehra81@gmail.com

Zip Co has lost a decade-long High Court battle over its own name and will be forced to rebrand its entire Australian business. Temple & Webster has raised its prices and pulled back on promotions after warning that its earnings will be 30% below market expectations. Swiss sneaker brand On has raised its profit forecast after clocking a 26% sales surge…but its US growth might be starting to untie itself. _ Download the free app (App Store): http://bit.ly/FluxAppStore Download the free app (Google Play): http://bit.ly/FluxappGooglePlay Daily newsletter: https://bit.ly/fluxnewsletter Flux on Instagram: http://bit.ly/fluxinsta Flux on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@flux.finance —- The content in this podcast reflects the views and opinions of the hosts, and is intended for personal and not commercial use. We do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any opinion, statement or other information provided or distributed in these episodes.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As Donald Trump leaves Beijing after meeting Xi Jinping, how much did this diplomacy accomplish? Plus, does Dr. Marty Makary's resignation at the FDA signal an agency turn? And the High Court halts an appellate ruling against mail-order mifepristone, the abortion pill, with no liberal dissents about the "shadow docket." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Health Affairs Publishing's Jeff Byers welcomes Georgetown University's Katie Keith and Deputy Editor Chris Fleming back to the podcast to unpack a new court case over mifepristone that could alter telehealth access to medication abortion and test the boundaries of FDA authority.Join us on June 23 for an exclusive Insider virtual event examining how antitrust policy in health care is evolving at both the federal and state levels, featuring insights from Katherine Gudiksen, Leemore Dafny, and Nathan Hostert.Related Links:Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Ruling Barring Telehealth And Pharmacy Access To Mifepristone (Health Affairs Forefront)The US Food and Drug Administration's Regulation of Mifepristone (JAMA)Sign up for Health Affairs' free newsletter to catch up on our new articles, podcasts, and events.

Suvendu's Bengal Dhamaka & Change in Politics | Tamil Nadu | High Court Drama | Anupam Mishra

WB - High Court Gives No Relief to TMC | 4 Big TMC Leaders Arrested | 3 Big Cases Transferred to CBI

Your favourite Aunties, Ak, Farrah and Nana are back with another packed episode, joined by Poet from Filthy Fellas and the HCPodcast.AUNTYVENTION

The 2026 primary season is in full swing, and this year, many sitting lawmakers face challenges from both the left and the right. One Republican incumbent fighting to keep his seat is Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA). He faces multiple primary challengers this Saturday, including Louisiana Congresswoman Julia Letlow, who has been endorsed by President Trump. Senator Cassidy joins the Rundown to discuss his upcoming primary and his controversial vote to impeach President Trump during his first term. He also weighs in on rising gas prices and Louisiana's ongoing redistricting fight. This year, America celebrates 250 years of independence. While many complain about how polarized the country has become, someone with a front-row seat to the inner workings of American government says the United States has overcome much greater challenges than those it faces today. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch joins the Rundown to discuss how early patriots risked their lives for freedom, his judicial approach on the High Court, and why he hopes to educate younger generations through his new children's book, Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence. PLUS, Commentary by New York Post Columnist Karol Markowicz on older generations' use of phones and an alarming rise in screen time. PHOTO CREDIT: ASSOCIATED PRESS  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The U.S. Supreme Court has, in the words of the Native American Rights Fund, diluted Native Americans' “ability to secure good schools, adequate infrastructure, health care access, environmental protections, and economic opportunity.” Louisiana is moving fast to redraw voting districts to further minimize the political power of Native Americans and other minorities. Other states are preparing similar changes. The High Court's recent invalidation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act follows the 2013 decision striking down the Act's Section 5. That eliminates the most powerful tools Native voters had in challenging the long history of demonstrated efforts to exclude Native voices from political dialogue. We'll examine the looming implications of the Court's decisions and examine the strategies Native voting advocates have going forward. We'll also discuss some important indicators for Native candidates in pivotal races, including the potential for history to be made in the upcoming Midterm Elections. GUESTS Patty Ferguson-Bohnee (Pointe-au-Chien), professor of law at Arizona State University and Native Vote Election Protection coordinator for the State of Arizona Torey Dolan (Choctaw), assistant professor of law at the University of Wisconsin Law School Samantha Blencke, senior staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund Mark Trahant (Shoshone-Bannock), journalist and former editor of ICT Marjorie Childress, managing editor of New Mexico In Depth Break 1 Music: Fool's Paradise (song) Samantha Crain (artist) Gumshoe (album) Break 2 Music: Fearless I Live (song) Courtney Yellow Fat (artist) The Lost Songs of Sitting Bull (album)

The 2026 primary season is in full swing, and this year, many sitting lawmakers face challenges from both the left and the right. One Republican incumbent fighting to keep his seat is Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA). He faces multiple primary challengers this Saturday, including Louisiana Congresswoman Julia Letlow, who has been endorsed by President Trump. Senator Cassidy joins the Rundown to discuss his upcoming primary and his controversial vote to impeach President Trump during his first term. He also weighs in on rising gas prices and Louisiana's ongoing redistricting fight. This year, America celebrates 250 years of independence. While many complain about how polarized the country has become, someone with a front-row seat to the inner workings of American government says the United States has overcome much greater challenges than those it faces today. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch joins the Rundown to discuss how early patriots risked their lives for freedom, his judicial approach on the High Court, and why he hopes to educate younger generations through his new children's book, Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence. PLUS, Commentary by New York Post Columnist Karol Markowicz on older generations' use of phones and an alarming rise in screen time. PHOTO CREDIT: ASSOCIATED PRESS  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The 2026 primary season is in full swing, and this year, many sitting lawmakers face challenges from both the left and the right. One Republican incumbent fighting to keep his seat is Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA). He faces multiple primary challengers this Saturday, including Louisiana Congresswoman Julia Letlow, who has been endorsed by President Trump. Senator Cassidy joins the Rundown to discuss his upcoming primary and his controversial vote to impeach President Trump during his first term. He also weighs in on rising gas prices and Louisiana's ongoing redistricting fight. This year, America celebrates 250 years of independence. While many complain about how polarized the country has become, someone with a front-row seat to the inner workings of American government says the United States has overcome much greater challenges than those it faces today. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch joins the Rundown to discuss how early patriots risked their lives for freedom, his judicial approach on the High Court, and why he hopes to educate younger generations through his new children's book, Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence. PLUS, Commentary by New York Post Columnist Karol Markowicz on older generations' use of phones and an alarming rise in screen time. PHOTO CREDIT: ASSOCIATED PRESS  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's EV News Briefly for Wednesday 13 May 2026, everything you need to know in less than 5 minutes if you haven't got time for the full show.Patreon supporters fund this show, get the episodes ad free, as soon as they're ready and are part of the EV News Daily Community. You can be like them by clicking here: https://www.patreon.com/EVNewsDailyBYD PLANS EUROPE-BUILT CARS FOR EUROPEBYD will design and develop a series of purpose-built models for European consumers over the next three years, starting with the Dolphin G PHEV — set to debut in June and making its UK public appearance at Goodwood in July. Executive VP Stella Li has directed engineers to keep European variants under 4.3 metres, with separate B- and C-segment standards, as BYD stops adapting China-market models and instead builds vehicles tailored to dense European cities.MAZDA DELAYS DEDICATED EV TO 2029Mazda has pushed back its first dedicated EV platform by two years to 2029 and cut EV investment by nearly half, shifting resources toward hybrids and China-sourced electrified products. Before 2029, Mazda will sell China-built EVs — effectively rebadged Changan Automobile models — in Europe, Australia, and Southeast Asia.AUTOMAKERS SEEK NEW EU CO2 CONCESSIONSVolkswagen Group, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz met EU officials in Brussels on 13 May to press for further flexibility on the bloc's 2035 emissions targets, despite having already won concessions just months ago. Germany's VDA lobby warned that the country's auto sector could shed up to 125,000 additional jobs by 2035 without meaningful improvement in competitiveness.OPEL PREVIEWS 207 KW CORSA GSEOpel has revealed the all-electric Corsa GSE, which it claims will be the fastest-accelerating production Opel ever built, with a 0–100 km/h time of 5.5 seconds from a front-mounted 207 kW permanent magnet motor. The car rides on Stellantis' e-CMP platform and features a Torsen limited-slip differential, Alcon four-piston brakes, lowered sports suspension, and uprated battery thermal management.AUSTRALIA DELAYS FEDERAL EV ROAD CHARGEAustralia's federal government has paused its EV road user charge, opting to first develop a coordinated policy with state and territory governments following the High Court's 2023 ruling that struck down Victoria's version. The budget also restructures EV fringe benefits tax support, narrowing the full FBT exemption from April 2027 to EVs priced at A$75,000 or below on novated leases, before shifting to a 25% FBT reduction for all EVs under the luxury car tax threshold from April 2029.GERMAN OPERATORS BACK ELECTRIC TRUCKSA German study by the Institute for Applied Ecology found that 93% of transport companies already running electric trucks are satisfied or very satisfied, citing high reliability, driving comfort, and low operating costs. The same share expect electric trucks to become the standard fleet vehicle by 2030, though operators flagged high upfront costs and depot grid connection complexity as the main barriers.AI CHARGING METHOD CUTS EV BATTERY WEARResearchers at Chalmers University of Technology have developed an AI-driven fast-charging method using reinforcement learning that extends EV battery life by 23% without adding to charge times. The system adapts charging current to each battery's state of health and electrochemistry in real time, reducing internal wear and the risk of lithium plating compared to current one-size-fits-all charging protocols.FIRST BUS TESTS DEPOTS AS GRID ASSETSFirst Bus has launched a trial using its electric bus depot infrastructure to support the National Grid, intelligently scheduling charging to absorb surplus Scottish wind power that would otherwise be curtailed. The UK's largest electric bus operator, with over 1,400 zero-emission vehicles, argues the scheme can cut wasted renewable energy, support grid stability, and improve the economics of fleet electrification.LUCID PUTS UK LAUNCH BACK TO 2028Lucid has delayed its UK market entry to early 2028 — the third such postponement — with European President Lawrence Hamilton saying the firm must sequence its expansion carefully after entering seven or eight more continental European markets in 2026 first. Lucid will skip bringing the current Air and Gravity models to the UK, instead launching only on its new mid-size 800-volt platform with the Cosmos coupé-crossover and Earth SUV variants, built on the Atlas drive unit that cuts manufacturing costs by 37%.UK E-VAN RULES EASE FROM 2026From June 2026, the UK government will remove regulatory barriers for electric vans weighing between 3.5 and 4.25 tonnes, aligning them with equivalent diesel and petrol vehicles under the Class 7 MOT framework with a first MOT due after three years rather than one. Driver hours rules will also change, removing mandatory tachograph use and base-distance restrictions, with operators set to save up to 60% on MOT costs under the new regime.UK USED EV SALES HIT Q1 RECORDUK used EV sales hit a record 86,943 units in Q1 2026, up 32% year on year, with around one in 23 used car buyers choosing an EV compared to one in 30 in the same period last year. The surge is being driven by growing used EV supply from strong prior new car sales, lower prices, and improving buyer confidence in battery longevity.

AP's Lisa Dwyer reports that the conviction in a high profile murder case in South Carolina has been overturned.

Paul and his fellow Apostles and evangelists were only concerned ultimately, about the judgment of One.

Qatari tanker passes through Strait of Hormuz en route to Pakistan. Attorney General asks High Court to strike down Gofman appointment as Mossad director. Teen charged with negligent murder in fatal stabbing of Yemanu ZelkaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kneecap joined PoliticsJOE, fresh off the back of having a terrorism case, against member Mo Chara, thrown out of the British Court. It's also the premise of their new album, which they discussed with our very own Irishman-in-residence Seán Hickey. If you somehow missed the trail of the UK and Ireland's most controversial musicians, here's the TLDR. Kneecap were involved in a UK court case because member Mo Chara, real name, Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh was accused of displaying a Hezbollah flag during a concert in London in November 2024.UK prosecutors said this could amount to an offence under the UK Terrorism Act because Hezbollah is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK. Prosecutors also alleged slogans supporting Hezbollah and Hamas were shouted during the performance.The case was initially thrown out because prosecutors failed to get the Attorney General's approval within the legal six-month time limit required to bring the charge. The Crown Prosecution Service later appealed, trying to reinstate the case.In March 2026, the High Court rejected that appeal, meaning Mo Chara didn't face trial. The judges said the prosecution had been started unlawfully due to the procedural error, not because the court ruled on whether the alleged conduct itself was legal or illegal.Kneecap argued the prosecution was politically motivated and linked to their outspoken support for Palestine. A media carnival, if you will. Hey, that's the name of one of the songs on their new album. Subscribe to How to Rebuild Britain now: https://linktr.ee/howtorebuildbritain Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to the News Review on the PRmoment podcast. In this weekly show I'm joined by Mark Borkowski and Angie Moxham. Here's the agenda for PR Masterclass: AI in PR.In the PR News Review we look at the biggest news stories of the week from a PR perspective and this week we're talking about the UK local elections results.We discuss the predictably huge gains for Reform and the huge losses for Labour.We also talk about the likely comms strategies now for Farage & Reform and Starmer & Labour.The discussion centres on the shifting political landscape and the starkly different PR challenges facing the parties and their leaders.Podcast Summary HighlightsKeir Starmer and the Labour PartyThe panel offers a blunt assessment of Sir Keir Starmer's leadership. Despite Labour's significant majority, the speakers argue that Starmer suffers from a fundamental "charisma deficit" and a "robotic" communication style that fails to resonate with the electorate. Mark Borkowski describes Starmer as having a "barrister mind" better suited for the High Court than the public stage, noting that his messaging has been overwhelmed by poor decisions and controversies, particularly the "Mandelson stain." Angie Moxham predicts a potential leadership challenge, suggesting a "straight-out shooting" between Angela Rayner and Ed Miliband may be on thehorizon. The consensus is that Labour needs a leader who can project authenticity and positivity to maintain public trust in a volatile environment.Nigel Farage and the Reform PartyThe rise of Reform UK is characterized as a significant disruption to the traditionaltwo-and-a-half-party system. While Farage is praised for his "fearless communication" and ability to connect with his base, the panel identifies a major PR "own goal": the inclusion of "Tory party failures" like Robert Jenrick. Borkowski argues that bringing "old circus acts into a newtent" undermines Reform's image as a fresh alternative. Farage's strategy is described as headline-driven and opportunistic, effectively exploiting the "malaise" of current politics to gain momentum, even if his long-term viability remains a question of whether the electorate feels genuinely "more affluent" under his influence.The Changing Face of LeadershipBeyond the main parties, the Borkowski and Moxham speakers touch on the other party leaders.Kemi Badenoch is highlighted as an increasingly competent and "safe pair of hands," showing improved focus and delivery.In contrast, Zack Polanski's leadership is criticised for being "unpicked" by ego and a lack of maturity, particularly following unprofessional social media conduct. The overarching theme of the episode is that in the "age of authenticity," leaders have "nowhere to hide."Success requires not just policy, but the "spiritual quotient" (SQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ) to lead a nation that is increasingly fatigued by "dystopian" news narratives and systemic stress.

Seoul's High Court has sentenced former South Korean Prime Minister Han Duck-soo to 15 years in prison for aiding the insurrection of former President Yoon Suk-yeol.

Shane Phelan, legal affairs editor with Mediahuis, spoke to Treasa about the end to a legal dispute over control of the Rose of Tralee, after a settlement was agreed between the parties.

A High Court jury has watched footage of Hayden Tasker ploughing into two police officers and a patrol car early on New Years Day in 2025.

Your easy weekly guide to the music biz and how it all works. Become a ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Superfan of the podcast for free – and enjoy the exclusive weekly Lock-in bonus section!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠This week... Steve and Producer Joe grapple with some big numbers, mergers, and warnings about signing your rights away:The UK government promised to ban ticket touting (scalping). But now the ban may be delayed for a year or so: and the industry (and Steve) is not happy....The estates of Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell, Jimi Hendrix's Experience bandmates, have lost a court case in which they were seeking more money from the band's albums – but why did they lose?The resurgence of vinyl isn't all good: LPs aren't the most climate-friendly product. But that could be changing, and a group of independent labels wants to show how…761 million people are now using Spotify every month, according to its latest financial results.Talking of Spotify, you may have seen a new ‘green tick' badge on artist profiles to verify that they are human. What's that all about?The music industry's latest mega-merger will see BMG and Concord coming together - but who are these two businesses and why is this one so big - and meaningful for indie artists?Have Taylor Swift or Rihanna tried to get you to sign up to an online service you've never heard of on TikTok? Here's why... William Shatner has a full-length heavy metal album featuring 35 hand-picked collaborators from across the genre, including Dave Lombardo of Slayer, and Rob Halford of Judas Priest(!)And in the special post-show lock-in section just for our ⁠⁠Patreon Superfans⁠⁠, Steve and Stu prop themselves at the bar – and Steve's getting the first round in – as they discuss this week's bonus material: More thoughts from Steve on the UK government's pause on the touting banApparently Angine de Poitrine are ‘2026's first breakout band' according to the streaming stats. But what does Steve think about them? And what does Steve think of Dadaist Math Rock, anyway?Plus: Grebo! Fraggle! Baggy! Which genre deserves (perhaps) a revival?===================================As ever, we welcome your feedback, emails and – in particular – any questions you might have about how the music biz works!Email us: ⁠⁠thepriceofmusicpodcast@gmail.com⁠⁠See you next week!Steve and Stuart======TPOM online: http://tpom.uk/Support The Price of Music on Patreon:⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/ThePriceofMusic⁠⁠Follow Steve on X - @steve_lamacqFollow Stuart on X - @stuartdredgeFollow The Price of Music on X - @PriceofMusicpodFor sponsorship opportunities, please email - ⁠⁠joe@musically.com

In episode 74 of Trade Show Talk, Host Danica Tormohlen explores the New Zealand exhibition industry with Brent Spillane, Managing Director of XPO Exhibitions, the country's largest trade and consumer show organizer. Spillane is a true visionary in the exhibitions industry, with more than 15 years of experience at the helm of XPO, where he has been instrumental in shaping how industries connect, trade, and thrive through live experiences across the Asia-Pacific region.  After a successful corporate career at Allianz Australia, where he rose to General Manager of Allianz Finance, Spillane and his family acquired six trade shows in 2010 when dmg World Media exited New Zealand. Since then, he has carefully navigated XPO through challenges, including the pandemic, and even led a landmark High Court battle to preserve New Zealand's largest exhibition venue, Auckland Showgrounds, from being converted into a film studio.  Under Spillane's leadership, XPO Exhibitions has grown into a highly diversified business, delivering 19 of New Zealand's largest B2B and B2C events across industries like construction, architecture, manufacturing, food production, workplace safety, marine, hospitality, and more. Most recently, XPO announced a joint venture with Hannover Fairs Australia to launch Logistics Automation New Zealand, powered by CeMAT, in November.  In this month's advocacy segment, Tommy Goodwin, President and CEO of the Exhibitions and Conferences Alliance provides an in-depth overview of what attendees can expect at this year's Legislative Action Day. Get prepared for a day of industry lobbying on Capitol Hill on May 28, 2026 in Washington, DC. Register for Legislative Action Day for free here. Get tips, insights and first-hand accounts from 10 key participants at last year's Legislative Action Day. Listen to Trade Show Talk Episode 62 On Air at Legislative Action Day 2025.  Key Topics in this episode:  Brent Spillane's career transition from finance to exhibitions and the impact of New Zealand's unique market  The strategic growth of XPO Exhibitions through acquisitions, joint ventures, and diversification  The importance of in-house event technology stacks and data control for ROI and efficiency  How his personal legal battle preserved one of New Zealand's key trade fair grounds  Innovative uses of AI and automation to boost visitor engagement and operational efficiency  Synergies between B2B and B2C events and the ecosystem approach  Insights into cross-sector growth, especially in food manufacturing, logistics, and marine  Strategic partnership with Hannover Fairs Australia and implications for global-local collaborations  Brent's leadership inspiration, personal interests, and the future outlook of the industry  Lessons learned from industry advocacy and the upcoming U.S. Capitol Hill lobbying efforts  Timestamps:   00:00 - Welcome and episode overview: Brent Spillane's role in transforming NZ exhibitions   00:47 - Introduction of XPO's growth, industries served, and recent initiatives   01:46 - Brent's journey from corporate finance to leading NZ's largest exhibition company   07:15 - Growth models: acquisitions, organic expansion, and joint ventures   08:18 - Celebrating one show's 70th anniversary and its significance to NZ's marine sector   10:11 - Local market overview and cross-sector opportunities in New Zealand   12:10 - The legal battle to save Auckland's major venue and its industry impact   17:34 - Timeline and lessons from the court case safeguarding NZ's largest venue   20:17 - The integration of B2B and B2C events and ecosystem benefits   22:05 - Synergies in the food industry: from manufacturing to retail and hospitality   25:53 - Building and leveraging the in-house event tech stack for ROI and data ownership   31:07 - Embracing artificial intelligence: AI-driven visitor engagement and outreach   34:29 - The use of outbound AI calls and automation for lead generation and database enrichment   37:33 - Results and lessons from AI application in event promotion   39:56 - The recent joint venture with Hanover Fairs Australia and international collaboration   45:23 - Brent's most memorable recent event and the story behind NZ's Food Show   48:20 - Influencers and mentors: industry leaders who inspire Brent   50:48 - Personal hobbies: sailing, fishing, outdoor sports, and family life   51:30 - Personal attributes: Brent's drive and leadership style   52:27 - Team size and office culture at Expo   53:05 - The importance of face-to-face interaction and office environment   55:06 - Travel tips: hydration and electrolytes for long journeys   66:12 - Preparing for Legislative Action Day: advocacy strategies and webinars   66:43 - Capitol Hill experience: events, meetings, and the importance of advocacy   69:01 - Invitation to join the upcoming Legislative Action Day in Washington, DC   69:34 - Closing remarks and upcoming episodes 

In the 1970s, a young pilot called Deborah Lawrie did something nobody had thought possible: took on the might of Ansett, at the time one of Australia's two big airlines, all the way to the High Court – and won. Her goal? To overturn Sir Reginald Ansett's long-standing ban on women in the cockpit and become Australia's first female commercial airline pilot. Her landmark case – and her incredible subsequent career – paved the way for female aviators after her to make their mark on Australian skies. Now working for Virgin Australia, Deb is the oldest and longest-serving female pilot at any commercial airline in the world, and has just released a new memoir, Touching the Sky, recounting her fight against Ansett and what came next. On this week's Australian Aviation Podcast, Deb sits down with Jake to discuss how she caught the flying bug at an early age, how she took down the aviation titan that was Sir Reg Ansett, and the highs and lows of more than four decades of flying.

The High Court has heard how a Nelson policeman did not realise he had been hit by a car that killed his colleague, until he woke up injured on the ground. Senior Sergeant Adam Ramsay was critically injured and his colleague Lyn Fleming was killed in the crash in the early hours of New Year's Day last year. Hayden Tasker is on trial for her murder and badly injuring Mr Ramsay. Reporter Samantha Gee spoke to Melissa Chan-Green.

A key case begins in the High Court today that will decide who owns footage illegally obtained in an abattoir in north east Victoria. 

In October 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Maxwell's appeal aimed at overturning her 2021 conviction for helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse minors. The appeal argued that Maxwell should have been protected from prosecution under a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that had been made with Epstein — Maxwell's legal team claimed that the government's promise in that deal extended to co-conspirators like her, across jurisdictions. But lower courts (including the Second Circuit) rejected that argument, and the DOJ urged the high court not to take the case, saying the NPA did not cover Maxwell's prosecution in New York. The Supreme Court's denial (without explanation) means the conviction stands and Maxwell's 20-year sentence remains intact.Maxwell's plea of “but the deal should protect me” now lies in ashes. The refusal by the Supreme Court sends a message: the serious, prolonged, documented role she played in trafficking and grooming minors for Epstein can't be overwritten by legal technicalities or bargains made behind closed doors. Her efforts to invoke immunity through someone else's deal were flatly dismissed, underscoring that privilege and high-social standing won't shield her from full accountability for her actions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Gaza's healthcare system is nearing collapse. Hospitals are damaged, supplies are blocked, and many doctors have been killed or detained. Now, Physicians for Human Rights Israel has petitioned Israel's High Court, demanding the release of 14 Palestinian doctors held without charge. These detainees include senior surgeons and hospital leaders—some taken while on duty. Among them is Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, whose detention was recently extended indefinitely. Today, we're joined by Naji Abbas from PHRI to discuss what this means for Gaza's already fragile medical system.

A court has heard a man was drunk, annoyed and motivated by anger towards police before he drove into two Nelson officers, killing one and seriously injuring another. 33-year-old Hayden Tasker is on trial for the murder of senior sergeant Lyn Fleming in the early hours of New Year's Day last year, at the High Court at Christchurch. The Crown argues Mr Tasker had murderous intent, while his defence said the tragedy was a result of an attempt to take his own life. Reporter Samantha Gee spoke to Melissa Chan-Green.

In October 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Maxwell's appeal aimed at overturning her 2021 conviction for helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse minors. The appeal argued that Maxwell should have been protected from prosecution under a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that had been made with Epstein — Maxwell's legal team claimed that the government's promise in that deal extended to co-conspirators like her, across jurisdictions. But lower courts (including the Second Circuit) rejected that argument, and the DOJ urged the high court not to take the case, saying the NPA did not cover Maxwell's prosecution in New York. The Supreme Court's denial (without explanation) means the conviction stands and Maxwell's 20-year sentence remains intact.Maxwell's plea of “but the deal should protect me” now lies in ashes. The refusal by the Supreme Court sends a message: the serious, prolonged, documented role she played in trafficking and grooming minors for Epstein can't be overwritten by legal technicalities or bargains made behind closed doors. Her efforts to invoke immunity through someone else's deal were flatly dismissed, underscoring that privilege and high-social standing won't shield her from full accountability for her actions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Supreme Court has struck down Louisiana's redrawn congressional map in a decision that could have a massive impact on this year's midterm elections and the current nationwide redistricting fight. While a lower court previously mandated a second Black-majority district to satisfy Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the High Court's 6-3 majority ruled that the state went too far in prioritizing race, labeling it an "unconstitutional" racial gerrymander. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill joins us to discuss why she believes the court has finally "harmonized" the law with the Constitution and how this ruling affects other states seeking to reshape their voting boundaries. Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted for a second time by the Trump administration. This time, he is accused of using seashells on a beach to communicate a threat toward the President. Criminal defense attorney Andrew Cherkasky joins to discuss the indictment related to the "86-47" post, the First Amendment questions the case raises, and the significant challenges prosecutors will face. Plus, he breaks down the case against Cole Allen—the man charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump last weekend—and why an insanity defense is unlikely to succeed.  PLUS, commentary by Karol Markowicz, columnist for the New York Post and FOX News. PHOTO CREDIT: ASSOCIATED PRESS Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Stephen Grootes talks to Professor Francois Viruly, Former Director of the Urban Real Estate Research Unit at UCT, about the Western Cape High Court ruling that set aside Cape Town’s property value-based cleaning and sanitation charges, what it means for ratepayers, municipal budgets, and the city’s options going forward. In other interviews, Tourism Minister, Patricia de Lille talks about South Africa’s continued tourism growth, what’s driving the steady rise in international arrivals, and what the sector’s strong performance means for jobs and the broader economy. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court has struck down Louisiana's redrawn congressional map in a decision that could have a massive impact on this year's midterm elections and the current nationwide redistricting fight. While a lower court previously mandated a second Black-majority district to satisfy Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the High Court's 6-3 majority ruled that the state went too far in prioritizing race, labeling it an "unconstitutional" racial gerrymander. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill joins us to discuss why she believes the court has finally "harmonized" the law with the Constitution and how this ruling affects other states seeking to reshape their voting boundaries. Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted for a second time by the Trump administration. This time, he is accused of using seashells on a beach to communicate a threat toward the President. Criminal defense attorney Andrew Cherkasky joins to discuss the indictment related to the "86-47" post, the First Amendment questions the case raises, and the significant challenges prosecutors will face. Plus, he breaks down the case against Cole Allen—the man charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump last weekend—and why an insanity defense is unlikely to succeed.  PLUS, commentary by Karol Markowicz, columnist for the New York Post and FOX News. PHOTO CREDIT: ASSOCIATED PRESS Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Supreme Court has struck down Louisiana's redrawn congressional map in a decision that could have a massive impact on this year's midterm elections and the current nationwide redistricting fight. While a lower court previously mandated a second Black-majority district to satisfy Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the High Court's 6-3 majority ruled that the state went too far in prioritizing race, labeling it an "unconstitutional" racial gerrymander. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill joins us to discuss why she believes the court has finally "harmonized" the law with the Constitution and how this ruling affects other states seeking to reshape their voting boundaries. Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted for a second time by the Trump administration. This time, he is accused of using seashells on a beach to communicate a threat toward the President. Criminal defense attorney Andrew Cherkasky joins to discuss the indictment related to the "86-47" post, the First Amendment questions the case raises, and the significant challenges prosecutors will face. Plus, he breaks down the case against Cole Allen—the man charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump last weekend—and why an insanity defense is unlikely to succeed.  PLUS, commentary by Karol Markowicz, columnist for the New York Post and FOX News. PHOTO CREDIT: ASSOCIATED PRESS Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ECI Masterstroke - IPS Ajay Pal Sharma vs Biggest Gunda of TMC | TMC Goes to High Court Against IPS

This is the 36th episode of our series of commercial litigation update podcasts. In this episode we discuss class actions, AI, a number of privilege cases including one of the most important decisions in that area in the past few years, and an interesting decision on service of proceedings. This episode is hosted by Maura McIntosh, a knowledge counsel in our commercial litigation team, who is joined by Julian Copeman, a disputes partner, and Tracey Lattimer, a knowledge lawyer in our disputes team. Below you can find links to our blog posts on the developments and cases covered in this podcast. • Law Commission to consider introduction of opt-out consumer class actions regime https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-04/law-commission-to-consider-introduction-of-opt-out-consumer-class-actions-regime • Cross-examining AI – Episode 1: Civil Justice Council AI consultation and latest developments in AI and privilege https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-03/cross-examining-ai-episode-1-civil-justice-council-ai-consultation-and-latest-developments-in-ai-and-privilege • US courts find privilege applies to use of public AI tools by self-represented litigants https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-04/us-courts-find-privilege-applies-to-use-of-public-ai-tools-by-self-represented-litigants • Upper Tribunal finds privilege applied to whether Boris Johnson sought legal advice on the lawfulness of the Covid-19 lockdown https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-04/upper-tribunal-finds-privilege-applied-to-whether-boris-johnson-sought-legal-advice-on-the-lawfulness-of-the-covid-19-lockdown • High Court finds company could not assert privilege against former director over legal advice she had seen at the time https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-03/high-court-finds-company-could-not-assert-privilege-against-former-director-over-legal-advice-she-had-seen-at-the-time • High Court finds legal advice privilege is not limited to lawyer/client communications but extends to "intra-client" communications https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-04/high-court-finds-legal-advice-privilege-is-not-limited-to-lawyer-client-communications-but-extends-to-intra-client-communications • Court of Appeal finds English courts lack jurisdiction over sanctioned individual who is not permitted to enter the UK https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-03/court-of-appeal-finds-english-courts-lack-jurisdiction-over-sanctioned-individual-who-is-not-permitted-to-enter-the-uk See podcast episode transcript here: https://marketing.hsfkramer.com/20/36058/landing-pages/commercial-litigation-podcast-ep36-transcript.pdf

When Democrats say nasty, violent things, their supporters do nasty, violent things. President Trump was at the White House Correspondents dinner over the weekend when another deranged left-wing lunatic ran past the magnetometer and started shooting. President Trump and Vice President JD Vance were rushed off stage as the shooter was apprehended. It's been years and years of Democrats calling President Trump all kinds of names, including a fascist and Hitler and he currently has the most dangerous job in the world. From left-wing influencers to Democrat elected officials, their language is violent and their supporters are acting out the violence. In Virginia, the redistricting referendum, led by Abigail Spanberger, has made its way to the Virginia Supreme Court. State Senator Bryce Reeves is here to discuss how Spanberger is decimating the state of Virginia and what the future may hold for Virginia Republicans. Former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli heard the oral arguments in the Virginia Supreme Court today. He is optimistic this referendum will be found unconstitutional and thrown out by the VA Supreme Court. Featuring: Sen. Bryce Reeves Republican Virginia State Senator https://x.com/ReevesVA Ken Cuccinelli 46th Virginia Attorney General Former Acting Deputy of Homeland Security https://x.com/KenCuccinelli Join me at the Kennedy Center for the launch of Trump 2.0: ⁠https://www.kennedy-center.org/whats-on/millennium-stage/2026/05-may/sean-spicer/⁠ Buy your copy of Trump 2.0 here: https://a.co/d/67kKgje Today's show is sponsored by: VanMan - Go to http://vanman.shop/sean and use code SEAN for 15% off your first order. Ready to ditch the corporate chemicals? When your favorite "natural" rband grows and gets bought by a massive corporation or private equity firm, somehow they loss the "naturalness" of their product. Well, the VanMan Company is taking a different path— bringing things back to basics with products made from real, simple ingredients. Whether it's face balm, eye cream, toothpaste or deodorant... VanMan's got you covered. Just head to https://vanman.shop/SEAN to save 15%OFF your next order. Patriot Mobile - PatriotMobile.com/SPICER for 1 free month Take a stand for faith, family, and freedom—switch to Patriot Mobile. Patriot Mobile provides PREMIUM service on all three major U.S. networks.  Patriot Mobile has the same or even better coverage, backed by 100% U.S.-based customer support. Get unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming, and more with Patriot Mobile. Take a stand as a PATRIOT by going to ⁠https://PatriotMobile.com/SPICER⁠ or call 972-PATRIOT for a FREE month! ------------------------------------------------------------- 1️⃣ Subscribe and ring the bell for new videos: https://youtube.com/seanmspicer?sub_confirmation=1 2️⃣ Become a part of The Sean Spicer Show community: https://www.seanspicer.com/ 3️⃣ Listen to the full audio show on all platforms: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-sean-spicer-show/id1701280578 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/32od2cKHBAjhMBd9XntcUd iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-sean-spicer-show-120471641/ 4️⃣ Stay in touch with Sean on social media: Facebook: https://facebook.com/seanmspicer Twitter: https://twitter.com/seanspicer Instagram: https://instagram.com/seanmspicer/ 5️⃣ Follow The Sean Spicer Show on social media: Facebook: https://facebook.com/seanspicershow Twitter: https://twitter.com/seanspicershow Instagram: https://instagram.com/seanspicershow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A landmark legal case over water pollution gets underway later today. Thousands of people are part of the case which claims that chicken farming and sewage spills are causing pollution in three rivers, the Wye, Usk and Lugg. The case against chicken producers Avara and Freemans of Newent, and Welsh Water, will be heard at the High Court in London. All three firms vigorously deny the claims.A new report from MPs highlights low morale and a lack of trust in officials amongst fishing communities. All week we'll be looking at agroforestry, or farming with trees in the mix: putting pigs into an orchard or planting fruit trees in an arable field to provide wind breaks and food. Presented by Charlotte Smith and produced by Beatrice Fenton.

3 Shocks by Calcutta High Court to Mamata | TMC's Intimidation Plan Fails | Sanjay Dixit

What makes Australia's Constitution so effective, and why do so few people understand it? In this interview, Ian Callinan and Mark Fowler unpack the origins of our legal system, the role of philosophy in shaping law, and the importance of keeping power accountable.They also tackle modern challenges: the push for a Human Rights Act, the rise of postmodern thinking, and the growing tension between individual “truths” and objective justice. The result is a powerful discussion on the future of law, freedom, and society.Mark Fowler is an Adjunct Associate Professor at his alma mater, the University of New England School of Law, and an Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Notre Dame School of Law, Sydney. He is an Appeals Panel member for the Australian Council for International Development, the peak body for Australian non-government organisations (NGOs) involved in international development and humanitarian action. He is the author of Beauty and The Law.The Honourable Ian Callinan was appointed as a Justice of the High Court in February 1998. He remained a Justice of the High Court until 1 September 2007. He has mediated and arbitrated in an extensive range of commercial, energy, revenue, mining, construction, regulatory, IT and other disputes throughout Australia and overseas.

High Court hears petitions for Oct 7 state commission. Session suspended after disruption. Trump: Iran truce ongoing. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Erin and Manasa begin their Percy Jackson podcasting by debriefing the Big Animorphs News, naturally (perchance… a new podcast idea??? Stay tuned). Will there now be explicit Animorphs references in the Disney+ PJO adaptation? Crossover musical episode? Just kidding (unless…). Erin points out that the plot of this book is just like Halloweentown 3, Halloweentown High. The mythics have a hard time fitting in with the demigods. We find some more plot holes. They learn about some mysterious threats plaguing the mythics and Nico. And then… the mythics start to disappear. First Arielle, then Quinoa. Then, Manasa gives us a deep dive on the Empousa, our favorite hot weird-legged woman. PS - there were some funny bloopers edited out this episode. It was a bit of an editing beast to fix. Please enjoy the snippet at the end after the outro ;) Podcast Links: SUPPORT US ON PATREON: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/camphalfpod?fan_landing=true⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT US ON KO-FI: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ko-fi.com/camphalfpod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SEND US AN AUDIO MESSAGE: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.speakpipe.com/Camphalfpod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠JOIN OUR DISCORD: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/gzHYsUbdgr⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠MERCH: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.zazzle.com/store/camphalfpod

It was a rough week for two of the top lawyers in the Trump administration, and it couldn't happen to a nicer pair ... Ever since Donald Trump's return to office and the installation of his (second choice) Attorney General, we've been tracking the toxic combination of incompetence and cruelty at the Department of Justice. Pam Bondi, Trump's hand-picked attack dog for Attorney General, finally reached the point of no return. She's out, and Todd Blanche is in … for now. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss AG Bondi's legacy, and why she may still be dragged before congress to answer for the DOJ's mishandling of the Epstein Files. Meanwhile, over at One, First Street, Mr. Trump became the first sitting president to show up live and in person to oral arguments, in a woefully misguided possible attempt to intimidate “his” justices into buying his nonsensical theory about birthright citizenship. John Sauer, his Solicitor General, flopped and flailed, and revealed a fundamental flaw at the heart of the second Trump presidency: if loyalty is the only test, you might fail a bunch of other, more significant, tests. Finally, Dahlia and Mark unpack the thorny and confusing 8-1 decision from the High Court in Chiles v. Salazar, taking a huge bite out of conversion therapy bans, and what that means for LGBTQ youth and the First Amendment. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It was a rough week for two of the top lawyers in the Trump administration, and it couldn't happen to a nicer pair ... Ever since Donald Trump's return to office and the installation of his (second choice) Attorney General, we've been tracking the toxic combination of incompetence and cruelty at the Department of Justice. Pam Bondi, Trump's hand-picked attack dog for Attorney General, finally reached the point of no return. She's out, and Todd Blanche is in … for now. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss AG Bondi's legacy, and why she may still be dragged before congress to answer for the DOJ's mishandling of the Epstein Files. Meanwhile, over at One, First Street, Mr. Trump became the first sitting president to show up live and in person to oral arguments, in a woefully misguided possible attempt to intimidate “his” justices into buying his nonsensical theory about birthright citizenship. John Sauer, his Solicitor General, flopped and flailed, and revealed a fundamental flaw at the heart of the second Trump presidency: if loyalty is the only test, you might fail a bunch of other, more significant, tests. Finally, Dahlia and Mark unpack the thorny and confusing 8-1 decision from the High Court in Chiles v. Salazar, taking a huge bite out of conversion therapy bans, and what that means for LGBTQ youth and the First Amendment. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.