Podcasts about Inta

En el programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con la Dra. Graciela Rodriguez de INTA PROAPI INTA EEA Hilario Ascasubi 20/06/2026, sobre su historia y trayectoria en INTA PROAPI.

Un total de 29 trabajadores dejaron la Estación Experimental Agropecuaria de Rafaela luego de adherirse al programa de desvinculación impulsado a nivel nacional. La cifra representa cerca del 25% de la planta permanente y genera preocupación por el impacto en áreas técnicas y de investigación.

En la entrevista del programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con Lic. Apic. Micaela Christensen, con el Apic. Gastón Prunier y el Apic. Daniel Avena Asoc. de MVC - INTA 13/06/26. Quienes nos comparten toda la información sobre la Asocación de las cabañas apícolas de crianza de abejas reinas de Material Vivo Certificado - MVC por INTA PROAPI, las actividades del presentes y futuras para la organización.

Marakaibo apkārtnē dzīvojošie tic, ka ikreiz kaķēnu metienā ir kāds jaguārs, kurš aug un attīstītās citādi. No jaguāra sapņa ir cēlusies šī pilsēta – tā viņi tic Marakaibo apkārtnē. Franču rakstnieka Migela Bonfuā romāns "Jaguāra sapnis" ir maģiski reālistisks, tas balstīts viņa vecvecāku un mātes dzīvesstāstā. Venecuēla romānā ir gan valsts, gan sievietes vārds. Venecuēlas vēsture kopš "naftas buma” līdz mūsdienām, ģimenes sāga no atradeņa uz baznīcas kāpnēm līdz pirmās ārstes bērēm un noslēpumainajiem pierakstiem. Ja "Jaguāra sapnī" iedomāsiet par Markesa "Simts vientulības gadiem", tad jūs nebūsit vienīgie. Migela Bonfuā romānu "Jaguāra sapnis” no franču valodas tulkojusi Inta Šmite, izdevusi "Zvaigzne ABC". Raidījumu atbalsta:  

En la entrevista del programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con la Lic. Cs. de la atmósfera Natalia Gattinoni - INTA Castelar e INTA PROAPI - Buenos Aires 06/06/2026. Quien nos comparte toda la información sobre la perspectiva climática y la tendencia del niño para la primavera 2026.

En la entrevista del programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con el Dr. Cs. Agrarias y Lic. en Genética Marcelo Agra INTA Balcarce - Tandil y PROAPI 6/6/2026. Quien conversamos sobre sobre la organización del Curso de iniciación en apicultura de Tandil y las actividades en el marco de la Semana de la Miel Bonaerense en Tandil 2026.

Darío Coria, Lic. en Ecología y Dr. en Cs. Agronómicas, egresado de la UNSE, en comunicación con #AgendaPropia, nos invitó a la presentación del libro "El Manejo del Fuego: Guía para el uso sustentable del fuego en establecimientos productivos del Chaco argentino", realizado desde el INTA Santiago del Estero, con el apoyo de la Revista Incendios y Riesgos Naturales. Se trata de una herramienta práctica y científica para ayudar a proteger las tierras y recursos de incendios no deseados, y obtener beneficios ambientales y productivos del fuego.La presentación, organizada en conjunto con la Facultad de Cs. Forestales, será el 18 de junio, a las 10 hs en el auditorio del Centro Cultural del Bicentenario. Al mismo tiempo se realizará el lanzamiento de la diplomatura “Manejo sustentable del fuego”, formación que estará destinada a todos los interesados en la temática, con el único requisito de tener el título de nivel secundario.Esta es una de las actividades de la amplia agenda preparada por la Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, organizadas bajo el nombre “Mes del ambiente. Por el clima ya”. Más información en las redes de la facultad. 

En la entrevista del programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con el Dr. Cs. Biol. Pablo Cavigliasso INTA Marco Juarez - PROAPI de Córdoba 30/05/26. Con quien conversamos sobre su participación en la mesa de las Características de los Servicios de Polinización en Cultivos Extensivos con su charla denominada: “Polinizando cultivos de soja: casos implementados” en el marco de la ExpoMiel Azul 2026.

En el programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con la Lic. y Apic. Ana Fuhr de INTA PROAPI de J.N Fernández 30/05/206. Quien nos habla del desarrollo de la ExpoMiel Necochea 2026 el pasado 28 de Mayo.

[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.

We're in London at the INTA 2026 Annual Meeting, but we're not doing a standard conference recap. We wanted to show how intellectual property work can be creative, inventive, and even fun, so we built THE INVENTIVE MINDSET GAME, a scenario game, and handed real IP lawyers a stack of tricky client prompts.Each prompt forces a choice: do you follow the client's exact instructions, take an inventive counseling path, bring in an AI assist tool, or throw a curveball and plan for the worst-case scenario. From a smart home invention to a viral character and an influencer launching a skincare line, we dig into the practical decisions behind patent strategy, trademark protection, and copyright, including how to think about prior art, claim scope, brand control, and what “commercialization” actually demands.We also talk about the unglamorous but critical details that can make or break an IP strategy: picking the right trademark classes, avoiding coverage that doesn't match the business, and sequencing filings when budgets are tight. If you're a founder, creator, in-house counsel, or just curious about how IP law works in the real world, you'll leave with clearer mental models and sharper questions to ask before you file anything.Subscribe for more stories and practical IP insights, share this with a friend building a brand, and leave a review if the game format helped you think differently about IP. What would you choose first: safe, inventive, AI-assisted, or curveball?Send us Fan MailCheck out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats.The views and opinions expressed (by the host and guest(s)) in this podcast are strictly their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the entities with which they may be affiliated. This podcast should in no way be construed as promoting or criticizing any particular government policy, institutional position, private interest or commercial entity. Any content provided is for informational and educational purposes only.

Send us Fan MailUn nombre que te encanta puede ser el mismo que te bloquee el registro. Arrancamos desde Londres, en el INTA 2026 Annual Meeting, con un juego de escenarios para demostrar cómo se ve la creatividad cuando toca hacer estrategia de propiedad intelectual de verdad: con límites, presión de tiempo y clientes que llegan con una idea fija.Yo, Leticia Caminero, invité a abogados de PI a escoger un camino para cada caso: seguir al cliente al pie de la letra, tomar una ruta inventiva dentro de la asesoría legal, apoyarse en tecnología con inteligencia artificial o pensar en el peor escenario posible. De ahí salen conversaciones bien prácticas sobre registro de marca en varios países, nombres descriptivos para apps de fitness, urgencias por inversionistas, selección correcta de clases y cómo evitar registros que no sirven para el negocio real.También entramos en terreno de patentes y divulgación previa con un invento médico, y aterrizamos lo que muchos creadores pasan por alto cuando crecen: un podcast que quiere vender merchandising necesita más que “solo una marca”; hablamos de derechos de autor, diseños industriales y cómo armar una protección que aguante. Cerramos con dos temas que están en boca de todo el mundo: secretos comerciales y know-how para una receta de snacks, y una canción creada con herramientas de IA donde la falta de documentación puede complicar derechos y monetización.Dale play, compártelo con alguien que esté lanzando producto o contenido, y si te aporta, suscríbete y deja una reseña. ¿Cuál escenario te dio más trabajo mental y por qué?Descubre Protección para la Mente Inventiva – ya disponible en Amazon en formatos impreso y Kindle.Las opiniones expresadas por la host y los invitados en este pódcast son exclusivamente personales y propias, estas no reflejan necesariamente la política o postura oficial de las entidades con las que puedan estar vinculados. Este pódcast no debe interpretarse como una promoción ni una crítica a ninguna política gubernamental, posición institucional, interés privado o entidad comercial. Todo el contenido presentado tiene fines informativos y educativos.

El congreso de la International Trademark Association (INTA), celebrada en Londres del 2 al 6 de mayo de 2026 ha sido el tema de este espacio con la presencia de Alejandro Falcón, socio director de Falcón Abogados; y Lucía León Ariza, asociada de Falcón Abogados.

8. maijā Venēcijas biennāles 61. starptautiskajā mākslas izstādē atklāts Latvijas paviljons “Nepieradinātā asambleja: utopijas aizkulises”, kuru sadarbībā modes dizaineri Bruno Birmani veidojis mākslinieku duets “Mareunrol's” (Mārīte Mastiņa-Pēterkopa un Rolands Pēterkops). Mākslinieku veidotā instalācija ir šodienas skatījums uz eksperimentālās modes, mākslas un performances notikumu ciklu "Nepieradinātās modes asamblejas", kas norisinājās Rīgā deviņdesmitajos gados. Notikumā klāt bija un ar māksliniekiem tikās Inta Zēgnere. Bruno Birmanis: "Ar “Nepieradinātās modes asambleju” 90. gados izveidojām tādu vidi, teritoriju vai platformu, kurā brīvi un bez ierobežojumiem varēja izpausties radošie cilvēki, kas saistīti ar modi. Būtībā tā bija utopija, jo bijām starp divām sistēmām - padomju ideoloģiskais presings bija beidzies un kapitālisma presings vēl nebija sācies. Jutāmies kā no būra izlaisti putni. Viss ātri kļuva par apjomā un kvalitātē par profesionālu pasākumu, un tagad viss NMA gars ir pārnests uz paviljonu. Jau no sākuma sapratām, ka tā nebūs muzejisku priekšmetu ekspozīcija, gribējām, lai jauni cilvēki redz, ka iespējamas arī neiespējamas lietas, ko ar tām var izdarīt. Domāt brīvi, domāt plaši. Bieži citēju Žanu Kokto, kurš pirms 100 gadiem teicis, ka mode rada skaistas lietas, kas ar laiku sāk izskatīties dīvaini, savukārt māksla rada dīvainas lietas, kas ar laiku sāk izskatīties skaistas. Un šeit ne tikai video par tos stāsta, bet arī viss, ko MAREUNROL'S ir radījuši, kā šo garu ir transformējuši savā skatījumā instalācijās. (,,) Vadošais dzinējspēks ir viņu balss, kurai jāskan. Manuprāt, tas ir izdevies lieliski. Turklāt Rolands ir ļoti daudzpusīgs mākslinieks un viss skaniskais noformējums ir viņa un Iļjas Krūmiņa radīts. Tas ir vienkārši lieliski." Rolands Pēterkops paviljona atklāšanā: “Ir forša sajūta, mēģinot saprast, kā kurš ko nolasa, kā šī informācija rezonē, jo ir vairāki informācijas slāņojumi, emociju slāņojumi. Sākot ar arhīvu izpēti, kopkonceptu par telpu, par cilvēkiem, par to, par ko vēlējāmies šajā paviljonā runāt. Materiāls, skaņa, gaisma. Instalāciju veidojām tā, lai tas nav uzmācīgi, bet gan vienkārši, viegli, poētiski, lai sniegtu emocijas. Darbs ir emocionāls, jo reflektējam par modes notikumu 90. gados. Mēs esam 2000. gadu paaudze, kas arī esam centušies starptautiski izrauties. Šis NMA stāsts no vienas puses mums bija jautājums, ko ar to varam darīt, vai mūs tas iedvesmo. Nebija šī pasākuma pēctecības, tas bija un pazuda. Mēs vairāk skatījāmies uz to laiku, enerģiju un cilvēkiem, kas to iniciēja, kas tur darbojās. Attiecības, emocijas režģis. Kādu 90. gados neatkarību un brīvību atguvušu valsti caur Henrija Stīna filmētajiem videomateriāliem redzēja Rietumu valstīs. Mums bija būtiski, lai vēstījums ir tagadnīgs. Kā brīvības manifests. Ir būtiski runāt par to šobrīd, jo brīžiem šķiet, ka dzīvojam trauslākos laikos nekā 90. gados. Šīs izpratnes reizēm no Rietumiem pat pietrūkst, tāpēc ir jāatrod skaisti veidi, kā viņus skaisti uzrunāt caur empātiju un izprotošu iedvesmu. Galvenais ir ļauties pieredzei. Mūsdienu laikmetīgajai mākslai ir būtiska šī vieglā pieeja un atvērtība." Inta Zēgnere arī stāsta par redzēto Ukrainai veltītajā izstādē STILL JOY from Ukraine in the world, kur sastapta Ukrainas māksliniece Žanna Kadirova.  

En la entrevista del programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con el Ing. Agr. Salvador Sangregorio – INTA Alto Valle - PROAPI 02/05/2026 con quien conversamos sobre su jubilación de la actividad apícola que realizaba en INTA Alto Valle - PROAPI.

Un estudio de la Universidad de Chile demostró que los residuos del calafate, Berberis microphylla, contienen potentes antioxidantes y podrían convertirse en valiosos nutracéuticos, compuestos que no solo aportan nutrientes esenciales, sino que también pueden prevenir enfermedades y mejorar la salud en general. Por Ivonne Sánchez El calafate o Berberis microphylla es un fruto endémico de la Patagonia rico en antioxidantes, minerales y vitaminas y es usado sobre todo para la elaboración de jugos y mermeladas. Sin embargo, una gran parte de esta baya es desechada como la cáscara, las semillas y la pulpa. Un tesoro oculto en los residuos del calafate Un equipo de investigadores del Instituto de Nutrición y Tecnología de los Alimentos (INTA) de la Universidad de Chile quiso estudiar el valor de dichos residuos y descubrió que contienen contienen antioxidantes hasta mil veces más potentes que los encontrados en el fruto completo. Estos compuestos, llamados polifenoles insolubles, están unidos a la fibra vegetal y habían sido ignorados hasta ahora. El hallazgo demuestra que lo que se considera "desecho" puede ser una fuente valiosa de beneficios para la salud. Los resultados de este estudio fueron publicados en la revista Food Research International. ¿Por qué son tan importantes estos antioxidantes? A diferencia de los antioxidantes tradicionales, los polifenoles insolubles del calafate no se absorben en el intestino delgado, lo que les permite llegar intactos al colon. Allí, son transformados por la microbiota intestinal y ejercen un efecto protector mucho más potente contra el estrés oxidativo, un proceso vinculado a enfermedades crónicas y el envejecimiento. Esto significa que, aunque se necesite una cantidad mínima de estos compuestos, su impacto en la salud intestinal es significativo.   RFI conversó con la primera autora, Alina Concepción Alvarez. Ella lleva a cabo un doctorado en Nutrición y Alimentos en el INTA de la Universidad de Chile. Oportunidades para alimentos funcionales y economía circular Este descubrimiento abre la puerta a desarrollar nuevos ingredientes para alimentos funcionales y nutracéuticos (productos que combinan nutrición y farmacia). Por ejemplo, los residuos del calafate podrían usarse para crear suplementos o alimentos enriquecidos que mejoren la salud intestinal. Además, este enfoque promueve la economía circular: en lugar de desechar los subproductos agroindustriales, se les da un nuevo valor, reduciendo el desperdicio y generando oportunidades económicas basadas en la biodiversidad local.

En la entrevista del programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con la la Lic. Apic. Analia Martinez INTA Balcarce - PROAPI y Rodrigo Fabbro de El jardín de Malabrigo 25/04/2026. Nos adelanta la próxima charla sobre Seleccion de colmenas: experiencia MEGA -PROAPI en el marco Jornada Apícola de Malabrigo 2026.

En la entrevista del programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con el Tec. Apic. Emanuel Orellano de INTA Rafaela - PROAPI de Santa Fé 18/04/26. Quien nos comparte toda la información sobre las Jornadas Apícolas del 9 de abril en Agencia de Ceres y el 16 de abril en la Agencia de Galvez de INTA Rafaela.

En la entrevista del programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con la Lic. Cs. Biol. Belén Bedascarrasbure - coordinadora académica de la Cátedra Abierta de Apicultura (INTA - UNICEN) PROAPI 18/04/2026. Nos adelanta la próxima charla sobre la “Preparación de las colonias para el receso productivo. Fundamentos, buenas prácticas y experiencias en distintas zonas del país” en el marco del Plan de Profesionalización 2026.

Alberto Evans (Sec. Gremial de la Asociación Personal del INTA) Unas Cuantas Verdades @marianoobarrio

En H2 Intereconomía hablamos de los temas clave para el futuro energético de Europa y del sector del hidrógeno. Para ello contamos con la participación de Antonio González García-Conde, director del Departamento de Física de Vuelo del INTA y vicepresidente de la Asociación Española del Hidrógeno, quien destacó la relevancia del Congreso Europeo del Hidrógeno 2026: “Se demuestra que estamos entrando en una fase de despliegue a gran escala de las tecnologías. No son proyectos piloto, son inversiones reales, desarrollos industriales”. El Congreso Europeo del Hidrógeno, celebrado en Sevilla, ha reunido a más de 2.000 asistentes procedentes de 45 países, consolidándose como un punto de encuentro clave para el sector. Este evento refleja el creciente interés global por el hidrógeno como vector energético estratégico. Durante el programa también contamos con Rafael Luque, CEO de Ariema, con quien analizamos los principales desafíos y retos que enfrenta la industria: desde la necesidad de escalar los proyectos y asegurar su viabilidad económica, hasta el impulso de marcos regulatorios adecuados. Asimismo, se puso el foco en la importancia de la cooperación internacional para acelerar el desarrollo del hidrógeno y en su papel fundamental en la soberanía energética de Europa, especialmente en un contexto marcado por la incertidumbre geopolítica.

What if your biggest competitor this holiday season isn't another brand, but an army of AI-powered scammers stealing your customers and destroying your brand equity before you even know they exist?Agility requires not only building a brand that can pivot with market trends, but also one that can defend its value and customer trust against threats that evolve just as quickly.Today, we're going to talk about the dark side of digital engagement, including the rapidly growing threat of brand impersonation, counterfeit goods, and AI-driven scams that target the customers marketers work so hard to attract. This isn't just an IT security issue; it's a fundamental threat to customer experience, brand trust, and revenue.To help me discuss this topic, I'd like to welcome Yoav Keren, CEO and Co-founder at BrandShield. About Yoav Keren Yoav Keren has 24 years of experience in financial management, marketing, and business development. He is currently a member of the anti-counterfeiting committee at INTA and was formerly a Council Member at ICANN. Yoav was a senior advisor to a minister in the Israeli government and was the head of the Technology branch of the Israeli military's Information Security Department. He holds an MBA from the Kellogg & Recanati business school (Northwestern University & Tel-Aviv University) and a BA in Economics and Physics from the Tel-Aviv University. Yoav Keren on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yoavkeren/?originalSubdomain=il Resources BrandShield : brandshield.com The Agile Brand podcast is brought to you by TEKsystems. Learn more here: https://aglbrnd.co/r/2868abd8085a9703 Drive your customers to new horizons at the premier retail event of the year for Retail and Brand marketers. Learn more at CRMC 2026, June 1-3. https://aglbrnd.co/r/d15ec37a537c0d74 Enjoyed the show? Tell us more at and give us a rating so others can find the show at: https://aglbrnd.co/r/faaed112fc9887f3 Connect with Greg on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregkihlstromDon't miss a thing: get the latest episodes, sign up for our newsletter and more: https://aglbrnd.co/r/35ded3ccfb6716ba Check out The Agile Brand Guide website with articles, insights, and Martechipedia, the wiki for marketing technology: https://www.agilebrandguide.com The Agile Brand is produced by Missing Link—a Latina-owned strategy-driven, creatively fueled production co-op. From ideation to creation, they craft human connections through intelligent, engaging and informative content. https://www.missinglink.company Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What if your biggest competitor this holiday season isn't another brand, but an army of AI-powered scammers stealing your customers and destroying your brand equity before you even know they exist? Agility requires not only building a brand that can pivot with market trends, but also one that can defend its value and customer trust against threats that evolve just as quickly. Today, we're going to talk about the dark side of digital engagement, including the rapidly growing threat of brand impersonation, counterfeit goods, and AI-driven scams that target the customers marketers work so hard to attract. This isn't just an IT security issue; it's a fundamental threat to customer experience, brand trust, and revenue. To help me discuss this topic, I'd like to welcome Yoav Keren, CEO and Co-founder at BrandShield. About Yoav Keren Yoav Keren has 24 years of experience in financial management, marketing, and business development. He is currently a member of the anti-counterfeiting committee at INTA and was formerly a Council Member at ICANN. Yoav was a senior advisor to a minister in the Israeli government and was the head of the Technology branch of the Israeli military's Information Security Department. He holds an MBA from the Kellogg & Recanati business school (Northwestern University & Tel-Aviv University) and a BA in Economics and Physics from the Tel-Aviv University. Yoav Keren on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yoavkeren/?originalSubdomain=il Resources BrandShield : brandshield.com The Agile Brand podcast is brought to you by TEKsystems. Learn more here: https://aglbrnd.co/r/2868abd8085a9703 Drive your customers to new horizons at the premier retail event of the year for Retail and Brand marketers. Learn more at CRMC 2026, June 1-3. https://aglbrnd.co/r/d15ec37a537c0d74 Enjoyed the show? Tell us more at and give us a rating so others can find the show at: https://aglbrnd.co/r/faaed112fc9887f3 Connect with Greg on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregkihlstromDon't miss a thing: get the latest episodes, sign up for our newsletter and more: https://aglbrnd.co/r/35ded3ccfb6716ba Check out The Agile Brand Guide website with articles, insights, and Martechipedia, the wiki for marketing technology: https://www.agilebrandguide.com The Agile Brand is produced by Missing Link—a Latina-owned strategy-driven, creatively fueled production co-op. From ideation to creation, they craft human connections through intelligent, engaging and informative content. https://www.missinglink.company

What if your biggest competitor this holiday season isn't another brand, but an army of AI-powered scammers stealing your customers and destroying your brand equity before you even know they exist?Agility requires not only building a brand that can pivot with market trends, but also one that can defend its value and customer trust against threats that evolve just as quickly.Today, we're going to talk about the dark side of digital engagement, including the rapidly growing threat of brand impersonation, counterfeit goods, and AI-driven scams that target the customers marketers work so hard to attract. This isn't just an IT security issue; it's a fundamental threat to customer experience, brand trust, and revenue.To help me discuss this topic, I'd like to welcome Yoav Keren, CEO and Co-founder at BrandShield. About Yoav Keren Yoav Keren has 24 years of experience in financial management, marketing, and business development. He is currently a member of the anti-counterfeiting committee at INTA and was formerly a Council Member at ICANN. Yoav was a senior advisor to a minister in the Israeli government and was the head of the Technology branch of the Israeli military's Information Security Department. He holds an MBA from the Kellogg & Recanati business school (Northwestern University & Tel-Aviv University) and a BA in Economics and Physics from the Tel-Aviv University. Yoav Keren on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yoavkeren/?originalSubdomain=il Resources BrandShield : brandshield.com The Agile Brand podcast is brought to you by TEKsystems. Learn more here: https://aglbrnd.co/r/2868abd8085a9703 Drive your customers to new horizons at the premier retail event of the year for Retail and Brand marketers. Learn more at CRMC 2026, June 1-3. https://aglbrnd.co/r/d15ec37a537c0d74 Enjoyed the show? Tell us more at and give us a rating so others can find the show at: https://aglbrnd.co/r/faaed112fc9887f3 Connect with Greg on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregkihlstromDon't miss a thing: get the latest episodes, sign up for our newsletter and more: https://aglbrnd.co/r/35ded3ccfb6716ba Check out The Agile Brand Guide website with articles, insights, and Martechipedia, the wiki for marketing technology: https://www.agilebrandguide.com The Agile Brand is produced by Missing Link—a Latina-owned strategy-driven, creatively fueled production co-op. From ideation to creation, they craft human connections through intelligent, engaging and informative content. https://www.missinglink.company Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What if your biggest competitor this holiday season isn't another brand, but an army of AI-powered scammers stealing your customers and destroying your brand equity before you even know they exist? Agility requires not only building a brand that can pivot with market trends, but also one that can defend its value and customer trust against threats that evolve just as quickly. Today, we're going to talk about the dark side of digital engagement, including the rapidly growing threat of brand impersonation, counterfeit goods, and AI-driven scams that target the customers marketers work so hard to attract. This isn't just an IT security issue; it's a fundamental threat to customer experience, brand trust, and revenue. To help me discuss this topic, I'd like to welcome Yoav Keren, CEO and Co-founder at BrandShield. About Yoav Keren Yoav Keren has 24 years of experience in financial management, marketing, and business development. He is currently a member of the anti-counterfeiting committee at INTA and was formerly a Council Member at ICANN. Yoav was a senior advisor to a minister in the Israeli government and was the head of the Technology branch of the Israeli military's Information Security Department. He holds an MBA from the Kellogg & Recanati business school (Northwestern University & Tel-Aviv University) and a BA in Economics and Physics from the Tel-Aviv University. Yoav Keren on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yoavkeren/?originalSubdomain=il Resources BrandShield : brandshield.com The Agile Brand podcast is brought to you by TEKsystems. Learn more here: https://aglbrnd.co/r/2868abd8085a9703 Drive your customers to new horizons at the premier retail event of the year for Retail and Brand marketers. Learn more at CRMC 2026, June 1-3. https://aglbrnd.co/r/d15ec37a537c0d74 Enjoyed the show? Tell us more at and give us a rating so others can find the show at: https://aglbrnd.co/r/faaed112fc9887f3 Connect with Greg on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregkihlstromDon't miss a thing: get the latest episodes, sign up for our newsletter and more: https://aglbrnd.co/r/35ded3ccfb6716ba Check out The Agile Brand Guide website with articles, insights, and Martechipedia, the wiki for marketing technology: https://www.agilebrandguide.com The Agile Brand is produced by Missing Link—a Latina-owned strategy-driven, creatively fueled production co-op. From ideation to creation, they craft human connections through intelligent, engaging and informative content. https://www.missinglink.company

Last year marked the fifth anniversary of The Women's LeadershIP Initiative (WLI). This is the Association's program to move forward the conversation around women's leadership in our field and to give INTA members practical tools they can use to advance women leaders in their organizations.During the last five years, the global intellectual property community has made real progress on belonging and inclusion in our industry, but when we look at leadership, advancement, and impact, many gaps persist. In celebration of Women's History Month and to mark our fifth anniversary, the WLI has just released an updated version of the WLI's original Report and Best Practices Toolkit. It takes an honest look at where progress has been made and where more work is needed.For this episode of Brand & New, we're joined by Ayala Deutsch, Executive Vice President and Deputy General Counsel at NBA Properties and the WLI Executive Champion. She played a central role in the drafting of the updated Report and will help us dig into and unpack this data-rich research.Notably, Ms. Deutsch was also President of INTA in 2020, which was not only the first year of the pandemic (with its own repercussions for working women around the world) but also the year when the WLI was drafting its first Report and Best Practices Toolkit. Further, as listeners may know, Ms. Deutsch has hosted many episodes of Brand & New on behalf of the WLI.Beyond exploring the Report findings and data, Ms. Deutsch provides practical insights for those looking to advance belonging and inclusion in their organizations and engage their leadership on this issue, and for those who want to become better advocates for themselves.Happy Women's History Month and enjoy the episode.Resources:About Alaya DeutschAbout The Women's LeadershIP InitiativeAbout Women's History MonthThe WLI Report & Best Practices Toolkit 2026 UpdateRecent and Related Brand & New Episodes:The AI Gender GapWomen in IP History: Pioneers and ProgressWomen Architects of Innovation: AI, IP, and What's Next (The WLI's 2026 Annual Meeting Educational Session)

Register for the 2016 INTA Annual Meeting at https://inta.org !! In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, I spoke with Deborah Hampton, President of the International Trademark Association (INTA) and Global Brand Enforcement and Trademark Team Leader at the Chemours Company. I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 173 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Deborah Hampton. She is the Global Brand Enforcement & Trademark Team Leader at The Chemours Company and is currently serving as the president of the International Trademarks Association. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you: The US Department of Justice and the USPTO filed a joint statement supporting the right of Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) to seek injunctions against patent infringers. This position challenges established post-eBay case law, which has made it difficult for NPEs to obtain injunctive relief. The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that security for costs can be provided through specialized insurance policies. This significantly lowers the financial barriers to bringing patent actions at the UPC, as companies no longer need to deposit large amounts of liquid capital as security. Huawei has filed a new lawsuit at UPC Mannheim against twelve Walt Disney Group companies (Ref. UPC-CFL-0000352/2026), asserting EP 3 211 897 relating to transform coefficient coding under the HEVC standard used by Disney+. Two additional suits were filed at Munich Regional Court I. In a parallel action, Huawei is suing Meta and Facebook at the UPC over EP 3 471 419, covering video compression in end devices. This continues Huawei’s strategy of pressuring streaming and platform providers into licensing its SEP portfolios. In a landmark first, the UPC Court of Appeal has referred a legal question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ): whether the UPC has jurisdiction over defendants without a seat in a UPC member state, provided a co-defendant is domiciled within the UPC territory (“long-arm jurisdiction”). The case arose from a dispute between Dyson and Chinese competitor Dreame; the first-instance injunction was simultaneously extended to cover newer Dreame hair dryers. For German companies, this signals a gradual expansion of UPC jurisdiction beyond its territorial borders, with significant implications for cross-border patent strategy. And now let's jump into the interview with Deborah Hampton: Our conversation covered one central question:How must intellectual property enforcement evolve in a world that is more global, digital, and complex than ever before? A Career Built on Intellectual Property Deborah Hampton has spent more than four decades in the field of intellectual property. She began her career as a paralegal in a small IP firm in New York and quickly discovered her passion for the subject. Over the years, IP has taken her around the world. She has worked with leading professionals, governments, and institutions. Her experience reflects a key truth: IP is not a narrow legal discipline. It is a global ecosystem that connects law, business, innovation, and policy. Counterfeiting: A Much Bigger Problem Than Many Think One of the key topics in our discussion was counterfeiting. Many people still see counterfeit goods as a minor issue—cheap handbags or fake T-shirts bought on holiday. But the reality is far more serious. Counterfeiting creates real risks for consumers because products often bypass safety and quality standards. It damages trust in brands and undermines legitimate marketplaces, especially online. The economic impact is also significant. Companies lose revenue, innovation slows down, and jobs are affected. Smaller businesses suffer the most because they often lack the resources to fight counterfeiting effectively. Perhaps most concerning is the link to organized crime. Counterfeiting is not an isolated activity. It is often part of larger illegal networks. From Deborah Hampton's perspective, effective enforcement must address both supply and demand. That includes stronger border measures, better online enforcement, and, importantly, consumer education. The Core Problem: Fragmentation in IP Enforcement A central theme of the interview was fragmentation. Many companies approach IP protection in silos. Legal teams, cybersecurity experts, business units, and external advisors often work separately. Even when they pursue the same goal, their efforts are not aligned. This leads to inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and unnecessary risks. To address this, Deborah Hampton has launched a Presidential Task Force at INTA. The goal is to create a unified approach to IP protection and enforcement. The idea is simple but powerful:Bring all stakeholders together and align strategy, enforcement, and measurement. This includes not only companies and their advisors but also regulators, courts, customs authorities, and IP offices. Only a coordinated approach can effectively address global challenges like counterfeiting. The Changing Role of IP Professionals Another important insight is how the role of IP professionals is changing. In the past, IP work was often reactive and focused on legal protection. Today, expectations are much higher. IP professionals are now expected to: Act as strategic advisors to the business Align IP with commercial goals Manage global and digital portfolios Use data to make better decisions At the same time, new technologies such as artificial intelligence are transforming how IP is managed and enforced. These tools create efficiencies but also raise new legal and strategic questions. Budget constraints add another layer of complexity. Teams must achieve more with fewer resources. In short, IP professionals must become more strategic, more integrated, and more business-focused. Why the INTA Annual Meeting Matters We also discussed the upcoming INTA Annual Meeting in London. For many in the field, this event is the most important gathering of the year. It brings together more than 10,000 professionals from around 140 jurisdictions. According to Deborah Hampton, the value lies in three areas: First, the return on investment is exceptionally high. The combination of education, networking, and business development is difficult to replicate elsewhere. Second, the educational program is extensive. It covers law, policy, technology, and the business of intangible assets. Third, the networking opportunities are unmatched. The meeting creates a unique environment where a year's worth of work can be done in a single week. At the same time, Hampton addressed a sensitive issue: attending without registering. She made it clear that this practice undermines the entire system. Without proper support from participants, events like this would not be possible. A Clear Message for the Future If there is one key takeaway from the conversation, it is this: Intellectual property protection must become more coordinated, more strategic, and more closely aligned with business objectives. The challenges are growing. Counterfeiting is more sophisticated. Markets are more global. Technology is changing rapidly. But the opportunity is also clear. By breaking down silos and working together across functions and borders, companies can protect their IP more effectively and create real value. For IP professionals, this means stepping into a broader role. Not just as legal experts, but as strategic partners in the business. Rolf Claessen: Today’s guest on the IP Fridays podcast is Deborah Hampton. If you don’t know Deborah, she’s the global brand and enforcement and trademark team leader at the Chemours company and is currently serving as the president of the International Trademark Association. Thank you for being on our podcast IP Fridays, Deborah. Deborah A. Hampton: Thank you. Thank you for having me. Rolf Claessen: So you have been in the field of IP for more than 25 years now. How did you get there and where did it lead to you? Deborah A. Hampton: I’ve actually been an IP practitioner for 43 years. I started at a small IP firm in New York; it was my first paralegal position, and I fell in love with IP from the very beginning. This field has allowed me to travel the world meeting some amazing and brilliant colleagues as well as high-ranking government, judicial, and IPO officials. I’ve also worked extremely hard to stay abreast of trends, statutes, precedent cases, and practices that enhance the way we do our jobs. Rolf Claessen: Wow. That sounds really exciting. I didn’t know you’ve been in the field so long. Great to hear that. So I’m personally very interested in the fight against counterfeit goods. Why, in your personal opinion, is it so important to fight counterfeit goods? Maybe you can share your thoughts on why it is important and a little bit about how you do it. Deborah A. Hampton: There are a number of factors that I always take into consideration when it comes to counterfeit goods. Starting with consumer safety, counterfeits often bypass safety and quality standards, putting consumers at real risk. Then there’s consumer trust; fake goods undermine confidence in brands and legitimate marketplaces, especially online. Economic harm is another factor; counterfeiting drains revenue from lawful businesses, weakens innovation, and ultimately costs jobs. Smaller businesses (SMEs) are hit the hardest because they lack resources to combat fakes at scale. The factor that scares me the most is organized crime, as counterfeiting fuels criminal networks and is linked to broader illicit activity. There is also the issue of fair competition, where fake goods distort markets by undercutting compliant, responsible producers. Finally, strong enforcement protects the integrity of the IP system and the trademarks that drive investment, innovation, and growth. It is important to combat the production, sale, and demand for counterfeit goods. At INTA, our anti-counterfeiting priorities focus on customs and border measures, criminal enforcement, online counterfeiting, and consumer education. Our Anti-Counterfeiting Committee leads initiatives to address the production and sale of fakes by monitoring worldwide developments in treaties and legislation and proposing policy recommendations to the board. We also partner with stakeholders to promote cooperation across agencies and borders. Additionally, the Unreal Campaign Committee addresses the demand for counterfeit goods by educating young consumers ages 14 to 23 about the importance of brands and the dangers of fakes. I remember being that age and wanting low-priced goods that looked good, but now I realize I probably wasn’t always getting genuine products. Rolf Claessen: Yes, that helps me explain to friends who buy fake clothes on holiday in Turkey and don’t realize the harm they are doing. You’re also on the presidential task force for unifying IP protection and enforcement strategy. Can you tell us more about who is part of this task force and what the agenda is? Deborah A. Hampton: When I was nominated to become an officer, I immediately wondered what my presidential task force topic would be and what I would wear for the opening ceremonies. The 2026 task force is titled “Unifying Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Strategy”. The goal is to eliminate value leakage and risk caused by fragmented approaches to IP protection. We want to deliver a unified global operating model that aligns strategy and enforcement, allowing organizations to work smarter and quantify their impact across all jurisdictions. Many organizations, including my own, currently operate in disconnected silos that sometimes work at cross purposes. The challenge is to maintain internal coordination across all intangible-related aspects. We have many stakeholders—business, security, cybersecurity, outside counsel, customers, the judiciary, and IPOs—all striving for the same goal, but the road we take is not always unified. I hope to build a strong cross-functional partnership focused on protecting all forms of IP, including patents and designs, not just brands. Rolf Claessen: Right, IP includes patents and designs and everything. Most importantly, you are this year's INTA president. What is your agenda for the year and what do you want people in the field to realize? Deborah A. Hampton: As president, I chair the board and steward our strategy and governance. I am also an ambassador, representing INTA globally to IPOs and government officials. My agenda has three pillars. First is the 2026–2029 Strategic Plan, which is the roadmap for our future. Second is my Presidential Task Force on unifying IP strategies. Third is volunteer mobilization; with a new committee structure in 2026, I want to energize our volunteers and recognize their contributions. I want people in the field to prioritize mentorship and professional development for the next generation. We need to ensure young practitioners are prepared to lead. I also want them to embrace the unified approach to IP protection we are advocating. Rolf Claessen: That's a powerful vision. Thank you so much for sharing your insights and for the work you’re doing with INTA. Deborah A. Hampton: Thank you again for the opportunity. I really enjoyed the interview

En la entrevista del programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con el Med. Vet. Joaquín Moja y el Tec. Apic. Daniel Poffer INTA Cuenca del Salado - PROAPI 14/3/2026 sobre las Jornadas de apicultura en Tapalqué, Saladillo, J.N. Frenández y Chascomús en donde conversaron sobre las recomendaciones en torno a la importancia de los monitoreos de varroa, preparación de la colmena para la invernada, recambio de reinas de fines de temporada, entre otros.

En la entrevista del programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con la Lic. Apic. Analía Martínez de INTA Balcarce e INTA PROAPI - Mar del Plata 14/03/2026. Con quien conversamos sobre la charla sobre los puntos a tener en cuenta en la seleccion de colmenas para produccion de celdas y lineas basicas de inseminacion instrumental en el marco del Noveno Encuentro de Criadero de Abejas Reinas en Gral. Belgrano.

En este episodio te contamos cómo nace esta alianza entre Pronto Copec y Red de Alimentos, el banco de alimentos de Chile, para transformar una compra cotidiana en ayuda tangible: las utilidades de esta colección de peluches van en beneficio de la labor de rescate y distribución de alimentos para personas en situación de vulnerabilidad. Conoce a los Rescatines (los icónicos de Pronto, versión peluche)Giuseppleto (el completo italiano)La Burguesa (hamburguesa con actitud)Clarita (huevo con energía)Luna (la medialuna dulce)Esspresito (café siempre despierto)Donutelo (donut que endulza la solidaridad) ¿Por qué importa esta “compra social”?Porque el hambre es una realidad que muchas veces no se ve.En Chile, 700.000 personas sufren hambre severa (FAO, reporte 2025).Y en personas mayores, el riesgo de desnutrición alcanza 32,4% según datos difundidos por INTA. Una alianza con impactoPronto Copec y Red de Alimentos trabajan en conjunto desde 2020, conectando tiendas y organizaciones sociales para rescatar alimentos aptos para consumo y redistribuirlos en comunidades a lo largo de Chile. Disponibles en tiendas Pronto Copec y Tienda Copec (colección limitada). Pregunta para la comunidad:¿Cuál Rescatín elegirías tú… y por qué?  Si este contenido te sirve, deja tu like Suscríbete para más historias de sostenibilidad real Y compártelo con alguien que crea que ayudar puede ser parte del día a día#Sostenibilidad #Colaboración #CompraSocial #RedDeAlimentos #ProntoCopec #Rescatines

En la entrevista del programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con el Tec. Apic. Emanuel Orellano de INTA Rafaela - PROAPI de Santa Fé 14/02/26. Quien nos comparte toda la información sobre la Jornada Apícola de preparación de la invernada en Santa Fé el pròximo jueves 26 de febrero.

En la entrevista del programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con el Med. Vet. Joaquin Moja INTA Cuenca del Salado - AER Chascomús - Proapi 14/2/2026 sobre las recomendaciones en torno a la importancia de los monitoreos de varroa temprano debido a alertas de monitoreos altos en la región y cuales son las acciones de mejora en torno a esa problemática.

Maza Sarkangalvīte ar asumainu kleitiņu. Šo Lindas Vīksnes un citas klausītāju atsūtītās mīklas Greizajos ratos min Milzarāju ģimene no Rīgas Imantas: ome Inta, opis Aldans ar mazdēliem Edvardu (8 gadi) un Ernestu (9 gadi) Bērziņiem no Saulkrastiem.

Visitamos a XI edición de Astrogalicia en Arzúa. (1:58) O radioastrónomo Ricardo Rizzo estuda as estrelas que viven rápido, morren novas e deixan un cadáver fermoso, as estrelas masivas que expulsan nun segundo 4000 veces a masa do Everest. Sergio Pereira impartiu un obradoiro de análise de datos da misión Gaia. (20:32) Francisco Castander, Instituto de Ciencia do Espazo-CSIC, preséntanos a misión Euclid da ESA que vai medir amplas rexións do universo para estudar a materia e a enerxía escura. (33:00) Javi Molder impartiu o obradoiro de radioastronomía amadora no Astrogalicia. (35:55) Juan Ángel Vaquerizo (proxecto CESAR da ESA, INTA e ISDEFE) e Marcos Merinero (proxecto ESERA da ESA) traballan en proxectos educativos de astronomía e ciencias do espazo. (50:26) Leticia Pereiras da Asociación Polaris impartiu o obradoiro de astrofotografía no Astrogalicia.

Raidījumā viesojas Inta Gerharde - Samariešu / Med4U paliatīvās aprūpes mājās mobilās komandas vadītāja.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is forcing legal systems worldwide to confront fundamental questions about creativity, ownership, and identity. Can companies train algorithms on copyrighted works without permission? What happens when technology makes it easy to clone someone's voice or face? In this episode of Brand & New, host Willard Knox speaks with two attorneys at the forefront of these rapidly evolving issues. Lynn Oberlander is Co-Editor of the Practising Law Institute's (PLI) comprehensive new treatise, Artificial Intelligence & Intellectual Property, which brings together leading practitioners to address the most pressing legal challenges in AI. Catie Seibel Sinitsa is the co-author the chapter covering copyright and AI. Ms. Oberlander has spent almost 25 years counseling media and entertainment companies on intellectual property (IP) and First Amendment issues. Ms. Sinitsa specializes in copyright and trademark law, working with clients across fashion, media, among other industries. Together, they unpack how this evolving technology is reshaping long-standing IP principles and why these questions are no longer theoretical but urgent, real-world concerns. This episode of Brand & New is sponsored by PLI. For more than 90 years, the Institute has helped legal professionals stay at the forefront of knowledge and expertise through world-class continuing legal education. Related Resources  About Lynn Oberlander About Catie Seibel Sinitsa About the Practising Law Institute Access Artificial Intelligence & Intellectual Property AI-Related Sessions at INTA's 2026 Annual Meeting Related Brand & New Episodes:Certifying Human Music in the Age of AIThe AI Gender Gap    

En la entrevista del programa La Miel en tu radio conversamos con el Med. Vet. Joaquin Moja INTA Cuenca del Salado - AER Chascomús - Proapi 17/1/2026 sobre las recomendaciones en torno a las olas de calor en nuestro centro norte del pais, de las buenas prácticas apícolas para la cosecha y la importancia de los monitoreos de varroa temprano debido a alertas de monitoreos altos en la región.

As AI-generated music floods the market, the music industry faces unprecedented questions about creativity, copyright, and compensation. But behind every evolving technology and headline debate are the lawyers, often musicians themselves, who navigate the space where art and law converge. In this episode of Brand & New, guest host Rudy Gaines sits down with two leading intellectual property practitioners whose personal and professional lives are deeply connected to music: INTA Past President Mei-lan Stark, Executive Vice President and Chief Counsel for IP at NBCUniversal (USA) and Rick McMurtry, Founding Partner at M|C Law Group (USA). From childhood music lessons to high-stakes licensing negotiations, both guests share how their lifelong connection to music has shaped their careers, protecting creative works. Together, they trace the soundtrack of the industry's evolution, from the era of Napster to today's AI-driven soundscapes, exploring how innovation challenges what it means to be both creator and protector. This episode was recorded live during INTA's 2025 Annual Meeting in San Diego, California.Resources: About Mei-lan StarkAbout Rick McMurtryAbout Rudy GainesRelated Brand & New Episodes:The Beat of IP: A Conversation with The Opposition™ BandCertifying Human Music in the Age of AIINTA's 2026 Annual Meeting 

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in music has sparked a new kind of identity crisis for artists and the industry alike. When anyone with a laptop can generate a song in seconds, how do listeners tell differentiate between human-created music and AI-generated music? In this episode of Brand & New, guest host Rudy Gaines talks with Paul McGrady, an intellectual property attorney and the co-founder of Humanable (USA), a certification platform that verifies when music is created entirely by human artists. Inspired by his daughter's journey in Nashville's music scene, Mr. McGrady shares how Humanable aims to protect musicians, preserve royalties, and help audiences reconnect with authentic artistry. Beyond the legal innovation, Mr. McGrady also discusses his Nashville alter ego, “Uncle Paul,” and his mission to spotlight independent musicians through social media and community advocacy. This episode was recorded live during INTA's 2025 Annual Meeting in San Diego, California. Resources: About Paul McGrady About Humanable About Rudy Gaines Related Brand & New Episodes:The Beat of IP: A Conversation with The Opposition™ BandWhen Music Meets IP: A Conversation with Mei-lan Stark and Rick McMurtryINTA's 2026 Annual Meeting

In today's episode of Brand & New, we're diving into a timely and complex question: How can intellectual property (IP) systems earn public trust again? Behind the headlines and the legal frameworks, what's really at stake is how innovation happens, and whether creators, entrepreneurs, and consumers continue to believe in the value of protection, fairness, and trust. Joining us to explore this critical conversation is Megan Carpenter, Dean of the University of New Hampshire (UNH) Franklin Pierce School of Law (USA). Under her leadership, UNH Franklin Pierce has continued to pioneer new ways of teaching IP, bridging theory with practice, and preparing the next generation of lawyers, policymakers, and creators to navigate an increasingly complex innovation economy. Ms. Carpenter shares how IP education is evolving, what it means to rebuild trust in IP systems, and why innovators and brand owners should care deeply about the future of IP. This is the third episode in INTA's Women's Leaders Series, a collaboration between Brand and New, and the Women's LeadershIP Initiative. It brings together women leaders and diverse roles and representing various organization types in the brands and IP ecosystem. These women are at the forefront of industry trends and the conversation around how the landscape for women leaders is being shaped today. This episode is also sponsored by the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, a global leader in intellectual property education, innovation, and research.  RESOURCES: About Franklin Pierce School of Law About Megan Carpenter About The Women's LeadershIP Initiative 

Bajo el lema "Innovar, avanzar, crecer. Juntos, más fuertes" programa especial desde el Auditorio Sur de Ifema conducido por Luis Vicente Muñoz. Un II Encuentro organizado por INDRA con la participación de José Vicente de los Mozos (CEO de INDRA), Ricardo Fluxá (Presidente TEDAE), Fernando Seco (Vicepresidente Ejecutivo de CESUR), General Enrique Campos Loarte (Director del INTA), José María Cela Espín (Director del Departamento de Ingeniería del BSC), Alfredo Estirado (Presidente de TRC), Luis Corral (CEO de Piedrafita), Susana Pascual (CEO y Fundadora de PixelsHub), Alberto Reguera (Responsable de Defensa y Aeroespacial de Multiverse Computin), Guillermo Fernández de Peñaranda (Chief Executive Officer y General Manager de Airtificial), Luis Pérez Freire (Director General de GRADIANT), Félix Pérez Martínez (Catedrático Universidad Politécnica de Madrid), Carlos López Ardao (Profesor Titular de la Universidad de Vigo), José Miguel Mateos Roco (Vicerrector de Investigación y Transferencia de la Universidad de Salamanca), Susana Gaytán (Directora general adjunta de Comité Paralímpico Español), Fernando Riaño (Director de Relaciones Institucionales y Sostenibilidad de Grupo Social ONCE) y Jesús Presa (Chief Communication & Marketing de INDRA)

What happens when counterfeiting, crypto, and trademarks collide? This episode of Brand & New takes you inside the fast-moving world of Web3, where brand protection meets blockchain. Host Willard Knox chats with Moish Peltz, Co-Managing Partner at Falcon Rappaport & Berkman LLP (USA), about the opportunities, and risks, facing companies in decentralized digital spaces. In his daily practice, Mr. Peltz coordinates between the Digital Asset Practice Group and all other practice groups of the firm. He also advises numerous venture technology companies on emerging technology and blockchain matters, with a focus on the intersection of IP and blockchain. He has been advising cryptocurrency ventures since 2014 and combines his knowledge of the blockchain with a decade of IP and business law experience where he helps entrepreneurs grow their businesses and brands and resolve disputes.From NFTs to stablecoins to enforcement strategies that actually work, in this episode of Brand & New, you'll learn why blockchain is reshaping how brands defend their identities online.This episode was recorded during INTA's 2025 Annual Meeting in San Diego, California.RESOURCES: About Moish PeltzNon-Fungible Tokens (NFTs): A Report From INTA (2023)"Back to the Future with Blockchain Domain Names: Toward A Global Policy to Fight Cybersquatting in Web 3.0" (The Trademark Reporter, July 2024)

Latviešu zinātniece Inta Gribonika pēta cilvēka ādas spēju funkcionēt kā aizsargbarjerai ar savu īpašo imunitāti. Viņas pētījumi apliecina, ka āda ir kas vairāk par robežu starp mūsu iekšējiem orgāniem un ārējo pasauli.  Diendienā spītējot mūsu apkārtējai videi, laikapstākļiem un dažkārt mūsu pašu rīcībai, āda centīgi sargā mūs no apkārtējas pasaules un kalpo par mūsu ķermeņa imunitātes vairogu. Talkā tai nāk dažādi vēlami mikroorganismi, apturot infekciju pirms tā tikusi tālāk organismā. Kādā veidā āda mūs sargā ikdienā, skaidro mikrobioloģe, Lundas universitātes pētniece Gribonika un dermatoloģe, Rīgas Stradiņa universitātes Dermatoloģijas un veneroloģijas katedras vadītāja un docente Elga Bataraga. Ir dzirdēts, ja ātri dzīst kāds skrāpējums, tad ir laba imunitāte. Vai tas ir mīts vai patiesība, vai varam mērīt savu imunitāti, skatoties uz to, cik ātri vai lēni mūsu brūces pazūd? "Brūces ir ļoti dažādas. Dažkārt ir pat imūnās šūnas, kurām vajadzētu mūs pasargāt. Ja imūnsistēma nestrādā kārtīgi, tad imūnās šūnas var padarīt brūci vēl sāpīgāku un dzīšanas procesu vēl daudzkārt grūtāku. Es gluži nevilktu paralēles," atzīst Inta Gribonika. "Brūču dzīšanā bieži vien ir ļoti svarīgs arī kopējais veselības stāvoklis, vecums noteikti. Bieži vien jāskatās, vai nav vitamīnu vai kādu citu vielu deficīts, kas to var ietekmēt. Tiešu vienādības zīmi būtu grūti likt. Protams, citādi veselam cilvēkam mēs gaidītu, ka dzīšanas procesi būs ātrāki, bet tā arī reizēm mūsu audi mēdz izveidot tādus rētaudus, kas negribēti aktīvāki," skaidro Elga Bataraga. "Hipertrofiska rēta "draudzīgāka" pacientam, bet keloīdu rētas, kad audi ir aktīvāki, nekā mēs gribētu un savā veidā ietver specifisku iekaisumu, to biežāk var redzēt jauniem cilvēkiem, arī kādam bērniņam. Arī savā praksē man diemžēl ir bērniņi, kuriem pēc kaut kādām noteiktām medicīniskām manipulācijām āda nevis vienkārši sadzīst, bet izveido šādu negribētu, cietu, sāpīgu rētaudu sakopojumu. Mums gribētos domāt, jo jaunāks, jo veselāks, ar labāku, aktīvāku imūno sistēmu. Bet ne vienmēr," turpina Elga Bataraga. Atbildot uz jautājumu, vai var pateikt, kurā vecuma posmā ādas imunitāte ir visspēcīgākā, Elga Bataraga skaidro, ka līdzīgi kā ar dažādiem vīrusiem, ko izslimo bērni mazā vecumā, arī ādai ir raksturīgas dažādas vīrusa infekcijas, un bērniem ir vieglāk ar tām inficēties nekā pieaugušajiem.  "Arī āda ir var kādu laiku, nu tīri no tāda imunitātes viedokļa mācīties, un tad varbūt pieaugušā vecumā mēs esam pret daudz ko noturīgāki, ar pieredzi nekā agrīnākā vecumā. Bet man būtu arī grūti uzstādīt tādu vienu ideālo vecumu," atzīst Elga Bataraga. "Protams, mēs vienmēr runājam arī par noteiktām ādas novecošanās īpatnībām, un imunitāte arī ādā vēlākā vecumā samazinās. Vienu ideālāko vecuma grupu man laikam būtu grūti nosaukt. Droši vien, jāņem kaut kāds vidusposms, kad mūsu āda ir gana gudra, bet vēl nav sagurusi." Zinātnes ziņas Zinātnieki beidzot izskaidro, kāpēc grūtniecēm ir rīta nelabums. Saskaņā ar Nacionālo veselības institūtu datiem, ar nelabumu saskaras līdz pat 80% agrīnās stadijas grūtnieču. Bet - pat ja tās šķiet kā mocības, rīta nelabums varētu būt evolūcijas gudrs paņēmiens, lai aizsargātu gan pašas mātes, gan mazuļus.  Vietnē “Live Science” skaidrots, kāpēc zāles, ko lietojam slimošanas laikā, vairumā gadījumu ir negaršīgas. Veikts arī līdz šim lielākais pētījums, kurā analizēta tādu faktoru kā higiēnas un reibuma pakāpes ietekme uz odu maltītes izvēli, proti, vai odiem varētu būt īpaša vēlme pamieloties ar to cilvēku asinīm, kuri vairāk patērē alkoholu. Maldugunis purvā izraisa dīvaina ķīmiska reakcija. Publicēts jauns starptautiskas pētnieku komandas raksts: aizdegšanās avots varētu būt mikrozibens jeb sīkas, spontānas elektrības dzirksteles, kas rodas ūdens pilienu virsmu lādiņu atšķirību dēļ.

London has once again been recognized as the world's leading city brand, topping the Brand Finance Global City Index for the second consecutive year. But what does it mean for a city to be a “brand,” and what factors contribute to London's enduring global appeal?In this episode of Brand & New, we explore how London has built and sustained its reputation as a destination admired worldwide for all the right reasons: its dynamic business environment, its rich cultural heritage, its academic and scientific excellence, and its ability to innovate and adapt. And as INTA gets set to head to London for its 2026 Annual Meeting, we ask what lessons other cities  and global businesses can learn from London's example.We are joined by two distinguished voices, Konrad Jagodzinski, Place Branding Director at Brand Finance, and Tracy Halliwell MBE, Director of Tourism, Conventions, and Major Events at London & Partners. Together, they discuss how London continues to thrive as a global brand and why its blend of commerce, culture, and creativity keeps it at the top of the world stage.This episode of Brand & New is hosted by Willard Knox.Related Resources:About Konrad JagodzinskiAbout Tracy HalliwellAbout Brand FinanceBrand Finance lobal City Index 2024 About INTA 2026 Annual Meeting

Comisia și Consiliul European au organizat marți seara audieri și dezbateri pe tema Republicii Moldova. Acestea au avut loc după ce la prânz Maia Sandu a ținut un discurs în plenul Parlamentului European. Iar miercuri ar urma să fie votată o rezoluție privind viitorul european al Chișinăului. Invitatul Moldova Zoom este europarlamentarul Siegfried Mureșan, unul dintre inițiatorii rezoluției care reiterează sprijinul Parlamentului European pentru aderarea Republicii Moldova la blocul comunitar.   Și un reportaj din Zona de Securitate de pe Nistru, dintr-un sat care se învecinează cu regiunea separatistă pro-rusă Transnistria.   Știrile zilei: Președinta R.Moldova, Maia Sandu, a ținut un discurs în plenul Parlamentului European despre apărarea democrației, în ajunul alegerilor cruciale din 28 septembrie. „Dacă democrația noastră nu poate fi protejată, nicio democrație din Europa nu este în siguranță”, avertizează președinta moldoveană, spunând că Moldova este poligonul de testare al Rusiei, ținta reală fiind Uniunea Europeană. Preşedinta Comisiei Europene, Ursula von der Layen ține în aceste momente discursul său anual cu privire la starea Uniunii, în care prezentă principalele priorităţi şi viziunea UE pentru anul următor. În cadrul sesiunii plenare a Parlamentului European urmează să fie votată, miercuri, o rezoluție prin care va fi reiterat sprijinul Parlamentului European pentru aderarea Republicii Moldova la blocul comunitar. Forul cere Rusiei să înceteze acțiunile destabilizatoare și să își retragă trupele și muniția din regiunea separatistă transnistreană. Rezoluția mai cere începerea negocierilor pe capitole pentru aderarea Republicii Moldova la UE. Vicepreședintele Parlamentului European, Victor Negrescu, a lansat idea ca 2028 să fie anul aderării Moldovei la bloc. În Republica Moldova, un candidat la funcția de deputat a fost arestat în propria casă de așa-numitele forțe de ordine din regiunea separatistă Transnistria. Vladimir Meleca este președinte al filialei Partidului Liberal (PL) din regiunea transnistreană și candidat la funcția de deputat. Acesta a fost arestat în locuința sa din Crasnogorca, din raionul Grigoriopol, din Transnistria. Reținerea a fost efectuată de patru indivizi care s-au prezentat ca fiind angajați ai așa-numitului minister al securității de stat de la Tiraspol. Actul a fost precedat de o percheziție, în urma căreia au fost confiscate bunuri personale, inclusiv telefonul mobil, calculatorul și diverse publicații. Reținerea lui Meleca vine în contextul în care Guvernul de la Chișinău așteaptă eliberarea mai multor deținuți politici, după ce a condiționat asigurarea tranzitului gazelor naturale către regiunea transnistreană de eliberarea acestor cetățeni deținuți ilegal, notează TV8. În a doua jumătate a zilei de ieri, Partidul Liberal a anunțat că Vladimir Meleca a fost eliberat de organele separatiste, dar i s-a intentat un dosar pentru declarații politice și i s-a interzis să plece din Transnistria. Marina Tauber, considerată o apropiată a oligarhului fugar Ilan Șor, și alți lideri ai blocului pro-rus Pobeda, au ajuns în vizorul Serviciului Federal de Securitate din Rusia (FSB) pentru sustragerea banilor pe care Kremlinul le trimitea pentru destabilizarea situației din Moldova. În 2023, membrii grupării ar fi deturnat circa 10 milioane de dolari din fondurile alocate de Moscova, arată o anchetă realizată de Deschide.md. Sursele publicației din interiorul blocului Pobeda susțin că sumele sunt chiar mai mari și că circa 70% din fondurile transferate în ultimii ani de Rusia pentru finanțarea ilegală a partidelor au dispărut fără urmă. Alexandru Bălan, fost director adjunct al SIS din Republica Moldova a primit un mandat de reţinere pentru 24 de ore după audierile de la sediul DIICOT. Procurorii români susțin că activitățile sale au pus în pericol securitatea națională a României. Bălan ar fi fost implicat în divulgarea neautorizată a unor informații secrete de stat către ofițeri din cadrul Comitetului Securității de Stat – KGB al Belarusului. Cehia expulzează un diplomat belarus acuzat de spionaj, a anunțat Ministerul Afacerilor Externe de la Praga. Cazul are legătură cu ancheta în care este vizat fostul director adjunct al SIS, Alexandru Bălan. Serviciul de Informații și Securitate din Cehia a declarat că, împreună cu serviciile românești și maghiare, a „desființat o rețea de informații belarusă care se construia în Europa” și care recruta agenți și aduna informații sensibile. Și premierul polonez Donald Tusk a anunțat marți arestarea unui „agent din Belarus” și expulzarea unui diplomat din această țară aliată a Rusiei pentru „activitate agresivă” împotriva Poloniei, relatează AFP. „Arestarea este rezultatul cooperării în special cu serviciile de informații din România și Cehia”, a scris Tusk pe X. Ministrul polonez de interne a indicat că în operațiune au fost implicate și serviciile de informații din Ungaria și Republica Moldova. Polonia va închide granița cu Belarus joi, 11 septembrie, la miezul nopții, ora locală, ca urmare a exercițiilor militare Zapad-2025 (Vest-2025), desfășurate de comun cu Rusia în apropierea frontierei estice a UE și NATO. Anunțul a fost făcut marți de premierul Donald Tusk, scrie Reuters. Exercițiile sunt anunțate în perioada 12-16 septembrie și au stârnit îngrijorări în materie de securitate în statele membre NATO vecine, Polonia, Lituania și Letonia. Îngrijorările s-au accentuat după ce în dimineața zilei de astăzi drone rusești au intrat în spațiul aerian al Poloniei și au fost doborâte de forțele armate poloneze. 

In this episode of Brand & New, we're bringing you the human story behind the headlines. Willard Knox sits down with Mariya Ortynska and Yuliya Prokhoda from the National Association of Patent Attorneys of Ukraine (NAPA) for a conversation that redefines what it means to practice law under impossible circumstances. From distributing laptops during air raids to maintaining client deadlines while missiles fall, these attorneys embody resilience. This episode isn't just about trademark law or patent prosecution; it's about the unbreakable human spirit and the belief that innovation and legal protection must continue, especially in humanity's darkest hours.  *This episode was pre-recorded during INTA's 2025 Annual Meeting, May 17-21, in San Diego, California.   Resources:  About NAPA About Mariya Ortynska About Yuliya Prokhoda INTA Resouces: The Status ofIntellectual Property in Russia and Ukraine 

durée : 00:05:40 - C'est une chanson - par : Frédéric Pommier - Jusqu'au 29 juin, il présente une large rétrospective de ses dix dernières années de création au Grand Palais à Paris. Au micro de Frédéric Pommier, l'auteur, réalisateur, plasticien et metteur en scène Mohamed El Khatib témoigne de son affection pour la chanson "Inta Omri" d'Oum Kalthoum.

On this episode of Brand & New, INTA Chief Policy Officer Heather Steinmeyer sits down with David Gooder, INTA's newly appointed Senior Advisor and former Commissioner for Trademarks at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In this insightful conversation recorded at INTA's 2025 Annual Meeting in San Diego, California, Ms. Steinmeyer and Mr. Gooder explore the evolving role of global intellectual property (IP) offices, as well as the delicate balance IP offices must strike between serving their users and advancing broader competitiveness goals. Mr. Gooder shares his unique perspective from both sides of the IP ecosystem, having worked as chief trademark counsel at Jack Daniels Properties before leading the USPTO's trademark operations through five transformative years. As he transitions into his new role helping INTA deepen collaboration with IP offices worldwide, this conversation offers valuable insights into the future of IP protection and the strategic importance of trademark systems in fostering global competitiveness. Resources:  About David Gooder INTA Welcomes David Gooder as Senior Advisor (INTA, May 2025) David Gooder to depart USPTO (USPTO, February 2025)  

This week on News Now, host Taylor Inman unpacks three major stories from across Northwest Montana. Flathead County confirms its first measles case in decades as health officials race to contain potential exposure amid concerns about local vaccination rates. New U.S. Census data shows Kalispell's population has surged nearly 25% since 2020, making it the fastest-growing city in Montana — and raising questions about infrastructure, housing, and long-term planning.Plus, fallout continues in Whitefish after the traffic stop of a Venezuelan immigrant led to his detention by Border Patrol. Law enforcement leaders weigh in on when — and why — local officers involve immigration officials. It's a packed episode covering the week's most pressing issues from the Flathead Valley and beyond.Read more from this week's show: Measles case confirmed in Flathead CountyUS Census: Kalispell has grown nearly 25% since 2020 Law enforcement agencies respond to questions spawned by recent detention of Venezuelan immigrantRead more local and state coverage: Crews clearing the Going-to-the-Sun Road battle fewer avalanches this yearHotel guest accused of ransacking room ordered to pay restitution Review: A fishing story woven intA big thank you to our headline sponsor for the News Now podcast, Loren's Auto Repair! They combine skill with integrity resulting in auto service & repair of the highest caliber. Discover them in Ashley Square Mall at 1309 Hwy 2 West in Kalispell Montana, or learn more at lorensauto.com. In Season 3 of Daily Inter Lake's Deep Dive podcast, we explore the devastating fire that struck the small town of Noxon, Montana. By the end of the day on February 27, 2024, three-quarters of the town's business community were wiped out. Listen to the two-part story on any audio platform you prefer, or watch the series on our YouTube channel.Visit DailyInterLake.com to stay up-to-date with the latest breaking news from the Flathead Valley and beyond. Support local journalism and please consider subscribing to us. Watch this podcast and more on our YouTube Channel. And follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X. Got a news tip, want to place an ad, or sponsor this podcast? Contact us! Subscribe to all our other DIL pods! Keep up with northwest Montana sports on Keeping Score, dig into stories with Deep Dive, and jam out to local musicians with Press Play.

Dan's new book and why it feels nice to read. Origins of eleven and twelve. Experimenting on Spiderman. Dark photons and the double slit experiment.