Podcasts about iprs

What do you do if you believe God isn't listening to your prayers? Reading or audio options of the book "Counsels on Diet and Foods", mentioned in this episode, may be found below:Read it online (HTML format)Read it on a PDF file, Listen to it (MP3 file), orPurchase a hard copy. Find all options available here: https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/384/info.This message was presented during the General Conference "Mission Family" worship on June 14, 2023. "Mission Family" comprises employees from Adventist Membership Service, Adventist Mission, ASTR, IPRS, IWM, and Secretariat (AVS and VividFaith are included in Secretariat).

Welcome to Top of the Morning by Mint, your weekday newscast that brings you five major stories from the world of business. It's Thursday, December 5, 2024. This is Nelson John, let's get started. India's appeal as a travel destination has yet to fully recover, with foreign tourist arrivals still falling short of their 2019 peak. In 2023, the country welcomed 9.24 million international visitors—a notable improvement from 2022, but still below the nearly 11 million seen pre-pandemic. Midway through 2024, the numbers suggest that breaching the 10 million mark this year remains unlikely. Why the sluggish recovery? While global tourism approaches pre-COVID levels, India lags, facing stiff competition from Southeast Asian neighbors and grappling with domestic challenges such as safety concerns, pollution, and inadequate infrastructure, writes Sumant Banerji. Honda Cars India is gearing up for a green future with plans to launch hybrid and electric vehicles by 2027 to comply with the upcoming stage-3 Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) norms. These regulations aim to reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions across an automaker's fleet. Despite challenges with the current rules, CEO Takuya Tsumura is driving the company's electrification strategy, with plans to introduce three electric models by 2026-27, including a battery electric vehicle based on the Honda Elevate mid-SUV model. Globally, Honda is targeting a fully electrified lineup by 2040, with two-thirds of its sales as electric vehicles by 2030, reports Alisha Sachdev. This shift marks a significant pivot in Honda's strategy to align with stricter emission standards and achieve its broader environmental goals. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) is poised to tighten its grip on surrogate advertising, with draft guidelines expected soon. These new rules aim to address loopholes in digital marketing and celebrity endorsements, particularly concerning the indirect promotion of restricted products like alcohol under the guise of unrelated items such as music CDs or glassware. Developed after consultations with stakeholders, including the beverage industry and consumer groups, the draft guidelines mandate that products used for promotions must be verifiably available in the market, not created solely for advertisements, reports Dhirendra Kumar. The proposed regulations also specify that only unrestricted products—those not banned or heavily regulated—can feature brand names without falling under the purview of surrogate advertising. Furthermore, these products must be registered with the relevant authorities and should avoid any direct or indirect association with restricted items. The Supreme Court is set to rule on whether lawyers can also work as journalists without breaching ethical boundaries. The case revolves around a Mohd. Kamran, a lawyer and freelance journalist, whose dual roles came under scrutiny after he filed a defamation suit against a former lawmaker. This sparked questions about whether such dual roles conflict with the Bar Council of India's (BCI) rules. The BCI generally prohibits lawyers from engaging in other paid professions to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure they remain focused on their legal duties. However, exceptions exist for non-salaried roles like journalism, as long as they do not interfere with a lawyer's primary responsibilities. The legal community is divided. Critics argue that juggling both professions could lead to ethical lapses, such as compromising client confidentiality. Supporters, however, believe lawyers could play a vital role in simplifying legal concepts for the public through journalism. Mint's legal correspondent Krishna Yadav breaks down the key legal issues and implications of this landmark case. Many independent musicians are losing out on significant royalties, particularly from streaming and social media platforms. Rakesh Nigam, CEO of the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS), told Lata Jha that while digital platforms offer substantial revenue opportunities, many artists fail to fully capitalize on them. IPRS works to educate artists about registering and tracking their music on these platforms to earn royalties from multiple streams, including live performances, radio, and digital downloads. Streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music, for example, pay royalties for both sound recordings and song compositions. However, many musicians miss out due to a lack of awareness about how to properly register and credit their work. Additionally, other revenue streams such as social media and sync licensing—where music is used in TV shows, films, and advertisements—remain underutilized by many artists, further limiting their earnings. Mint Primer: Are foreign tourists giving India a miss?Honda Cars bets on hybrid, electric line-up to meet stricter CO2 emission normsSurrogate advertising draft guidelines ready for public consultationMint Explainer: Can lawyers also be journalists?Independent artistes, musicians struggle to collect royalty from digital platforms; get support from managers, IPRS

Speaker: Dr Kalpana Tyagi, Assistant Professor, Maastricht UniversityAbstract: Data protection, privacy and copyright may be closely aligned, yet distinctly respond to the common element, that is data – comprising of personal as well as non-personal elements. While data may not be copyright-protected, works (at least in their current form) are copyright-protected. As the Generative AI tools become more advanced, data and copyright-protected works may cease to bear any direct resemblance to pre-existing works. This can be attributed to the rise of synthetic data. While synthetic data may facilitate compliance with the 2016 EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it also heralds notable challenges for the current IPR (particularly copyright) framework. This interplay between law and technology - in light of its inter- & intra-disciplinary complexity - remains under-explored in the literature. At the CIPIL seminar, Dr. Tyagi presents her research findings on this interplay between copyright (and other IPRs) as well as data protection and privacy in the context of synthetic data and Generative AI.Biography: Kalpana Tyagi is Assistant Professor of Intellectual Property and Competition Law in the European and International Law Department, Maastricht University. She holds a multidisciplinary PhD (summa cum laude) from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich where she worked as Max Planck Fellow for Innovation and Competition until 2015. She also holds a bachelor's degree in marketing and business strategy (I division) from College of Business Studies, New Delhi (2002), a bachelor's degree in law (I division) from the Department of Law, New Delhi, an LLM degree in International Business Laws (I division) from Singapore and China (2009) and a specialized master in European Law and Economics (magna cum laude) from University of Hamburg, Bologna and Ghent (2012). Her main areas of interest relate to the interface of intellectual property rights and competition law, particularly in the context of digitalization.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Dr Kalpana Tyagi, Assistant Professor, Maastricht UniversityAbstract: Data protection, privacy and copyright may be closely aligned, yet distinctly respond to the common element, that is data – comprising of personal as well as non-personal elements. While data may not be copyright-protected, works (at least in their current form) are copyright-protected. As the Generative AI tools become more advanced, data and copyright-protected works may cease to bear any direct resemblance to pre-existing works. This can be attributed to the rise of synthetic data. While synthetic data may facilitate compliance with the 2016 EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it also heralds notable challenges for the current IPR (particularly copyright) framework. This interplay between law and technology - in light of its inter- & intra-disciplinary complexity - remains under-explored in the literature. At the CIPIL seminar, Dr. Tyagi presents her research findings on this interplay between copyright (and other IPRs) as well as data protection and privacy in the context of synthetic data and Generative AI.Biography: Kalpana Tyagi is Assistant Professor of Intellectual Property and Competition Law in the European and International Law Department, Maastricht University. She holds a multidisciplinary PhD (summa cum laude) from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich where she worked as Max Planck Fellow for Innovation and Competition until 2015. She also holds a bachelor's degree in marketing and business strategy (I division) from College of Business Studies, New Delhi (2002), a bachelor's degree in law (I division) from the Department of Law, New Delhi, an LLM degree in International Business Laws (I division) from Singapore and China (2009) and a specialized master in European Law and Economics (magna cum laude) from University of Hamburg, Bologna and Ghent (2012). Her main areas of interest relate to the interface of intellectual property rights and competition law, particularly in the context of digitalization.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Send us a Text Message.In conversation with Rumpa Banerjee, Head of Marketing, Communication & Member Relations at the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS). IPRS was established in 1969 and has been a witness to all the major milestones achieved by the music industry. Today, for an artist, registering with a copyright society is a non-negotiable and in this episode we dive into the workings of IPRS, how it interacts with other industry stakeholders and its importance to songwriters. If you are an artist or artist manager debating registering with IPRS or any copyright society for that matter, this episode is especially for you. Join us as we bust myths and dispel concerns around this subject, and don't forget to take notes!The Lex Talk Music theme is written and composed by Sanjeev T.This podcast is purely for informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Kindly consult a legal practitioner for specific advice on legal issues/ disputes. © Sandhya Surendran, 2024. All rights reserved.

In this episode, Harper Batts, partner in Sheppard Mullin Silicon Valley's Intellectual Property Group and co-leader of its Semiconductor Industry Team, joins host Scott Maberry to discuss the different forums for patent lawsuits, the complex nature of resolving semiconductor patent disputes, the timing to resolve the lawsuits and more.   What We Discussed in This Episode: What are the different venues to resolve patent disputes? What sort of timing is associated with the different forums? Why has there been an uptick in filing lawsuits in international venues? Besides money, what sort of damages or relief can parties get? What is the benefit of showing competitive harm? How do you best litigate these complex matters in front of a jury?   About Harper Batts Harper Batts is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group located in the firm's Silicon Valley office. He is also the leader of Sheppard Mullin's Post Grant Proceedings (PTAB) Group and Semiconductor Industry Team. Harper has almost two decades of experience as an intellectual property litigator and client counselor. Harper has obtained institution on more than 90% of the IPRs he has filed – a number unmatched across the country. Numerous Fortune 500 clients have relied upon his experience to represent them in highly contentious patent disputes in venues across the country. He has been selected multiple times as a Top IP Attorney in California by the Daily Journal (including this year), and IAM Patent 1000 noted that Harper “performs adroitly in post-grant proceedings on both the patent owner and petitioner sides.” In 2022 and 2023, he obtained institution of numerous petitions for inter partes review, obtained numerous final written decisions finding all claims unpatentable, and obtained an exceptional case finding and an award of attorney's fees in the Central District of California in 2020. He focuses on immediately determining the most relevant and effective pressure points against an adversary to quickly resolve a dispute with minimal disruption and cost to a client. Harper is one of the leading attorneys for handling complex PTAB challenges across a variety of technologies. Harper has represented patent challengers and patent owners in more than 80 CBM and IPR proceedings. He has extensive experience in cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as well as related appeals. About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information Harper Batts Scott Maberry Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

Uveljavitev in uporaba pametnega videonadzora sta se še pred kratkim zdeli rezervirani samo za Kitajsko, ki si varstvo osebnih podatkov in človekove pravice razlaga drugače kot Evropska unija. Zdaj videonadzor, ki deluje ob pomoči umetne inteligence, (začasno?) uvaja tudi Francija. Zagovorniki pravijo, da je nujen zaradi varnosti tako množičnih prireditev, kot so olimpijske igre, nasprotniki pa so ostri, saj nekaj, kar krši človekove pravice, ne sodi v središče Evrope.Pika Šarf je zaposlena pri informacijskem pooblaščencu kot svetovalka za mednarodne odnose. Zmerno optimistično zre v prihodnost in razlaga pripravo evropskega akta o umetni inteligenci, ki prinaša definicijo umetne inteligence in uporabo deli na kategorije glede na tveganja, ki jih uporabe prinašajo. Zapiski: Vprašaj podkast Odbita do bita! Odbita do bita: Drobni tisk tehnoloških podjetij, intro Odbita do bita: Drobni tisk tehnoloških podjetij, 1. del Odbita do bita: Drobni tisk tehnoloških podjetij, 2. del Uvodna stran - IPRS EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligence | News | European Parliament Clearview AI - Wikipedia Paris 2024 Olympics: Concern over French plan for AI surveillance - BBC News Razpravi o odbitih temah se lahko pridružite na Discordu. Dosegljiva sva na naslovu: odbita@rtvslo.si

Mark Leather has spent his entire professional career as one of sport's most respected and sought-after physiotherapists, working alongside the likes of Sunderland FC, Liverpool FC, Burnley and Brighton. He is also the course leader on the MSc Football Science & Rehabilitation and MSc Football Medical Leadership & Performance at UCLan, as well as a guest columnist for the Daily Mail newspaper commenting on sport related injuries. Mark joins Rob for an all-encompassing conversation about what drew him to life in service of others and making sure they are healthy and well, how he managed to rise to the top of his sector, and why dedication, hard work, resilience matter so much. KEY TAKEAWAYS We are sometimes drawn to the world of football, but it can take time to realise that playing the game isn't always necessary. There are many different pursuits that sit inside the game itself. We don't always have the perspective needed when we're young. it can be hard to keep our focus and look to the future. Finding our niche as a child is difficult. It takes dedication to get to the top, and also a great deal of hard work. You can love a subject, but fail to succeed because you don't want to put in the hard yards. Never be afraid to change your course if your instincts are telling you to follow a different path. Your instincts are always trying to guide you towards something better. BEST MOMENTS 'I've always been interested in football in particular' 'The onus is on the individual to use it or lose it' 'You don't get anywhere without inspiration, desire and hard work' 'I never really viewed this as work' VALUABLE RESOURCES Leader Manager Coach Podcast      ABOUT THE GUEST Mark Leather qualified as a physiotherapist in 1983 where he spent 4 years in the NHS before moving into professional football. He spent 6 years as the Head Physiotherapist for Liverpool FC. He was Head physiotherapist at: Sunderland FC Preston North End Burnley Brighton Head of Performance and Medicine at Bolton Wanderers Football Club.     Head Physiotherapist at Wigan Warriors RLFC Worked at the Commonwealth Games in 1986 and the World University Games 2007. Formerly the Physiotherapist for the England Futsal Team. Senior lecturer at The Football Association. Consultant Physiotherapist for IPRS a leading company in injury treatment and prevention services.    Mark is now course leader on the MSc Football Science & Rehabilitation and MSc Football Medical Leadership & Performance at UCLan.   Alongside this, he is the Director at Mark Leather Physiotherapy Ltd and a guest columnist for the Daily Mail newspaper commenting on sport related injuries. ABOUT THE HOST Rob Ryles is a UEFA A licensed coach with a League Managers Association qualification and a science and medicine background. He has worked in the football industry in Europe, USA and Africa; at International, Premiership, League, Non-League and grassroots levels with both World Cup and European Championship experience Rob Ryles prides himself on having a forward thinking and progressive approach to the game built through his own experience as well as lessons learned from a number of highly successful managers and coaches. The Leader Manager Coach Podcast is where we take a deep dive examining knowledge, philosophies, wisdom and insight to help you lead, manage and coach in football, sport and life. CONTACT METHOD https://www.robryles.co.uk/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMPYDVzZVnA https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertryles/?originalSubdomain=ukLEARN MORE HERE Football, coach: https://www.patreon.com/robrylesThis show was brought to you by Progressive Media

In episode 107 of the #ipseries podcast, I share some insights and tips on how to deal with IPR issues in the translation industry and for museum owners, based on Yilin Wang's case against the British Museum over their use of her translations of a Chinese revolutionary poet, Qiu Jin, without properly crediting or compensating her the translator. What do you think? Do you have any thoughts or experiences on translation rights and museum IPRs? Please share your comments via our email ipseriesinfo@gmail.com #BritishMuseum #ChinasHiddenCentury #TranslationRights #MuseumIPRs #YilinWang #QiuJin #NameTheTranslator #Paythetranslator #copyrightinfringement #intellectualpropertyrights #translation --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rita-chindah/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rita-chindah/support

Please join Troutman Pepper's Intellectual Property and Health Sciences practice groups for our podcast series focused on strategies, trends, and other happenings in post-grant proceedings.In this episode, Troutman Pepper Partner Andrew Zappia moderates a discussion with fellow firm Partner Gunnar Leinberg and Associate Christina Shifton on patent-eligible subject matter disputes under 35 USC Section 101 in IPR and PGR proceedings.

Eli Mazour is a Partner with Harrity & Harrity LLP where he leads the firm's patent prosecution team.  Eli's practice focuses on helping large technology companies build valuable, high-quality SEP portfolios in an efficient manner.  In this role, he develops and implements best practices for managing workflow and innovative, data-driven patent prosecution strategies for reaching favorable results at the USPTO. Eli also helps clients evaluate existing patent portfolios, identify strategic areas for patenting, and create processes for harvesting disclosures of patentable inventions. In addition, he has been involved with licensing negotiations, patent infringement investigations, clearance of products (freedom to operate opinions), and patent litigation. As a result, he is keenly aware of the pitfalls to avoid and opportunities to grasp during patent prosecution. Eli is also the creator and host of the Clause 8 podcast, which features interviews with the most interesting members of the IP community.Eli has a strong track record for drafting SEPs for clients that have high-quality SEP portfolios such as Qualcomm. In the SEP Couch podcast, Eli elaborates on why SEPs are so special and different from other patents. He explains that drafting SEP claims is much more complex since the language used in an invention disclosure may be different compared to the language used in a standards document. And a standard still develops and changes which makes it even more difficult to keep mapping claims to evolving standards section. Eli works closely with the inventors while also monitoring standards development. He also interviews the USPTO examiners to better understand what scope of a claim will likely be accepted.SEPs must not only be essential but also valid. An additional feature described in a claim creates the risk that prior art exists somewhere. Therefore, if a feature does not make it in a standard, he rather focuses on claim language to use more specific language.The USPTO allows third parties to submit prior art in a so-called inter partes review (IPR) presented before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This possibility has created new business models such as the company Unified Patents which helps its clients to “kill” SEPs in targeted invalidation campaigns. Such practices have increased the requirements for drafting valid patents, even though Eli explains that especially large SEP holders such as Qualcomm have such a high-quality patent portfolio that it does not matter if a few patents are found invalid. There is a proposal for patent reform in the US patent system (USPTO's new Catch-22) that could make it much more difficult to file IPRs, but Eli does not believe it will pass.Finally, Eli comments on the EU Commission's draft of a proposed SEP regulation which includes a register of essential SEPs. Eli argues that he cannot see how third parties should be able to efficiently determine essentiality which is a very complex task that may take days or even weeks to just claim chart one patent.

Decentralization of data management is a key feature of blockchain technology that can enable more efficient and reliable management of IPRs.

In this Silicon Valley Tech & AI episode presented by GSD Venture Studios Gary Fowler interviews Dr. Anurag Rai. Guest: Dr. Anurag Rai, Director, Kalchuri LNCT Group Incubation Centre Dr. Anurag S D Rai is Director (Innovation, Incubation and Collaboration), Kalchuri LNCT Group Incubation Center, LNCT Group of Institutes & Universities; formerly Executive Officer at AIC-RNTU Foundation Supported by ATAL INNOVATION MISSION, NITI AAYOG; and also Mentor of Change at ATAL INNOVATION MISSION, NITI AAYOG, GOI, also mentor at MeitY Startup Hub, GOI. Along with this he is catalyst to the startup eco-system in connecting startups to the relevant industry and venture firms also as an innovator mentoring startups and budding entrepreneurs in different aspects of their entrepreneur journey. Formerly Associate Professor in Rabindranath Tagore University, Raisen at Department of Electrical & Electronics Engineering and formerly Assistant Professor at UIT RGPV Bhopal. His research area are Renewable technology, Microgrid, Wind Technology, Small Signal Stability, Power electronic application to power systems and having 9 years of working experiences in Industry and Academic. He has published more than 60 research papers in International and National Journals also guided 21 Mtech Power System Research Scholars. He is Professional Member of Engineering council of India ECI, also Skill Council for Green Jobs Certified Solar Trainer. He is Master trainer of Entrepreneurship of PMYUVA and have 6 IPRs in Renewable Technology. He is BOSCH Certified Trainer for Skill Entrepreneurship. Presently Having 110+ incubated startup at KLIC-LNCT and they are also connected globally. He is State Secretary to MSME & Startup Forum Bharat also Bhopal Chapter President also.

In this episode we share information about IPRs, students join us to discuss their tips for success, and we meet our newest member of the counseling team.

It is rare to find someone in the field of intellectual property, in particular patent law, who is a scholar and a practitioner. Today, we have with us Jay Kesan who is both. Listen in for a great episode full of information about the PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) and the impact it has had on the patent system after 10 years. In this episode, Jeff Harty and Jay Kesan discuss: Jay's professional career as both a law professor and a practicing patent attorney/litigator. The impact of IPRs and PGRs on the patent system. Challenging the validity of a patent in an IPR proceeding versus district court litigation. Key Takeaways: The PTAB was created as an alternative forum for challenging issued patents. It was hoped that the PTAB would provide a lower-cost means of challenging already-issued patents.In the past few years, the number of patent validity challenges has leveled out to about 1,500 IPRs per year.The vast majority of IPRs involve parallel district court infringement actions.The USPTO, under its new director, has issued new guidelines for discretionary denials of PTAB proceedings. A fair comment, at this stage, would be that these discretionary denials are only going to continue to decrease even when there is parallel district court litigation. “If you're a patent owner and you believe that your patents are being infringed and you're contemplating an infringement action, you have to take into account the new world that you have to deal with.” — Jay Kesan   About Jay Kesan: Jay P. Kesan, Ph.D., J.D., is a well-recognized and accomplished patent attorney with more than 25 years' experience. His work encompasses all aspects of patent enforcement, patent strategy, and licensing. He has been lead counsel or co-counsel in numerous patent lawsuits in various federal district courts around the country. He has argued numerous appeals before the Court of Appeals in the Federal Circuit. He has also served as lead counsel in more than 30 IPRs and argued several times before the PTAB. He has been actively involved in every aspect of patent litigation as counsel, Special Master, appellate counsel, technical expert, legal expert, and mediator. Jay has a Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering from the University of Texas at Austin and worked for several years as a research scientist at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center. As a result, he works with clients on IP disputes that involve a wide variety of technologies and innovations. Jay is also an active empirical scholar, and his recent works have focused on cyber risk and patent policy. He has published numerous articles and six books on patent law and policy and cybersecurity and privacy with an emphasis on empirical research methodologies. He is a professor and H. Ross and Helen Workman Research Scholar at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is an active and widely cited scholar. Connect with Jay Kesan: Website: https://jaykesan.com/ Email: jay@jaykesan.com Books: https://jaykesan.com/books/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JayKesanP LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaykesan/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCENwROk5ywajSVoJWUX9SBA/featured Connect with Jeff Harty: Website: https://nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-harty/Email: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643/

James ‘Jamie' Love is Director of Knowledge Ecology International. His training is in economics and finance, and work focuses on the production, management and access to knowledge resources, as well as aspects of competition policy. The current focus is on the financing of research and development, intellectual property rights, prices for and access to new drugs, vaccines and other medical technologies, as well as related topics for other knowledge goods, including data, software, other information protected by copyright or related rights, and proposals to expand the production of knowledge as a public good. James advises UN agencies, national governments, international and regional intergovernmental organisations and public health NGOs, and is the author of a number of articles and monographs on innovation and intellectual property rights. He talks about access to information being one of the emerging issues of his generation, and how he got wrapped-up in the idea of making access to information more equal and less expensive for everyone. James recalls the failed push for a database Treaty at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the EU's stubbornness by adopting the Database Directive, and how this, and term extensions, are textbook examples of the ‘copyright ratchet.' He highlights the dangers of things creeping into international trade agreements, which can tie up politicians' hands to change course. James touches on the WTO debates on vaccines in relation to the pandemic. He shares first-hand insights on the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty on access to published works for blind and visually impaired persons, including the many attempts to push back against it. James warns of the continuous push for a WIPO Broadcasting Treaty, and the pressure exerted by rights holders on policymakers. Finally, he concludes by observing how the lengthy negotiations on a Broadcasting Treaty, now ongoing for 25 years, has worn out the opposition against it, as priorities shift to other things.

Jamilia Grier is a privacy and regulatory attorney with over fifteen years of experience. She is licensed in New York and Connecticut and has worked in a wide range of industries including financial services, technology, hospitality, and manufacturing. She is also experienced in working with different countries and cultures and has significant expertise in cross-border transactions. She handles matters concerning corporate law and contracts and is well-versed in data privacy and protection.She currently serves as CEO & managing partner of ByteBao. Her experience includes leading Data & Privacy Operations at Standard Chartered Bank and the Legal Compliance team for Marriott International based out of China and Singapore.Ever wanted to know more about the laws surrounding NFTs and DAOs?Then this is the episode for you.Highlights:6:55 What are NFTs?8:26 IPRs in NFTs 9:44 Where does copyright subsist?11:32 Copyright in a high drop NFT project?13:58 What happens if there is no licensing agreement?15:16 Any legal recourse for NFT holders?16:44 Effectiveness of DMCAs18:44 How can you mitigate the scope of your liabilities?19:41 Liability for copyright infringement if your NFT infringes the original owner's IP rights?20:45 Are NFTs a type of security?25:45 Would you face greater regulation from the SEC if your NFT has a social purpose?27:55 Hearing about WOW Pixies28:37 The role of a lawyer in a DAO29:35 What is a DAO?30:53 Why DAOs aren't a decentralised VC32:58 Incorporating Web2 legal structures for a DAO37:51 Legal documentations for a DAO41:27 Giveaways44:14 Airdrop issues

This week, we interview Brian Matsui: Is the USPTO bonus system for APJs still vulnerable if challenged by a factually-armed patent owner? And how much clearer can the Federal Circuit be—District Court judges have significant discretion on inequitable conduct. Every other week, BCLT Executive Director Wayne Stacy conducts interviews with a Morrison & Foerster team member to discuss the Federal Circuit’s recent patent decisions. We all know the basic holdings. The key, however, lies in the nuances of how the Federal Circuit reached its decision. If you want to know more—with an eye toward predicting the future—we have the nuanced information for you. SPEAKERS Brian Matsui, Wayne Stacy Wayne Stacy 00:00 Welcome, everyone to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology's Expert Series Podcast. I'm Wayne Stacy, the Executive Director for BCLT. And today, Brian Matsui from Morrison Foerster will walk us through a few of the recent interesting rulings from the Federal Circuit. Brian, thanks for joining us again. Brian Matsui 00:20 Thanks a lot, Wayne. Wayne Stacy 00:21 Well, Brian the last two weeks have been lied at the Federal Circuit on on precedential decisions. But we did get two interesting cases. So I'd love to start with the Mobility Workx case, which is another constitutional challenge to the PTAB structure. As we maybe haven't had enough yet. We get another one that's fairly unique. So you want to tell us about this one? Brian Matsui 00:45 Yeah, I mean, this is sort of like the ghost of Arthrex, or something like that, since we're right around the time of Halloween right now. This is another IPR appeal, and the patent owners claims were cancelled. So again, since it's a constitutional challenge, we don't ever get to the merits of the actual IPR decision on what happened to the claims themselves. There were a couple of constitutional issues here. The patent owner requested to remand under the Supreme Court's Arthrex decision, you know, which, of course everybody knows, found an appointment clause violation. But actually, rather than just remanding the case and being done with it, the Federal Circuit first addressed a couple other constitutional challenges that the patent owner made. And I think that's probably the reason why we have a precedential opinion here, rather than just a straight remand, the Federal Circuit was able to sort of address these two issues and potentially, you know, foreclose them or make them more difficult for future litigants that want to raise them. Wayne Stacy 01:46 So Brian, one of the issues that that came up earlier in this case, and that seems to be coming up frequently is the government forfeiture arguments. You want to explain why the government keeps raising and losing this one? Brian Matsui 01:59 That's a good question. I mean, I think to take a step back, we should just look at why the government's involved in this case, because you know, it's an IPR dispute. And, of course, you know, the government can defend and does defend the final written decisions, but they're not usually in these IPR decisions. And whenever you raise a constitutional challenge to a federal law on appeal, you have to tell the Court of Appeals that you're doing so, so the court can tell the attorney general, and then the Department of Justice typically comes in and intervenes to defend the law. And that's what happened here. And what the government has been doing in these types of constitutional challenges to IPRs,

Would anyone tolerate Federal judges being paid based on the number of cases they dispose of? Probably not—it looks bad and erodes faith in the system. With faith in the USPTO at a low point, why then does the USPTO compensate PTAB judges using a bonus system that appears biased? Judge Newman elegantly points out that the appearance of propriety is critical to build faith in any adjudicative process—including those at the PTAB. More on Sarah Guske and Eliot Williams, Baker Botts. SPEAKERS Sarah Guske, Wayne Stacy, Eliot Williams Wayne Stacy 00:00 Welcome, everyone to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology's Expert Series podcast. I'm your host, Wayne Stacey, the Executive Director of BCLT. And today we're talking about the USPTO. And a few issues that the next director might want to look into quickly. Two issues in particular, were recently raised by Judge Newman, the bias and appearance of bias and the director review ability of institution decisions. So both of these came up in a wonderful dissent written by Judge Newman in the mobility works case. To talk about these issues today. We have two experts from Baker Botts, Sarah Guske and Eliot Williams. Thank you both for joining us today. Sarah Guske 00:41 Thanks for having us. Eliot Williams 00:42 Good to be here, Wayne. Wayne Stacy 00:43 So I want to talk about the the bias issue first, this case had a really interesting section in the majority opinion about how PTAB judges are bonused. And how bias may or may not arise from those bonuses. So Eliot, I wanted to kick it to you first, you want to give a little background on how PTAB judges are paid and why somebody might perceive a bias. Eliot Williams 01:09 Yeah, this is definitely an interesting issue that comes out of out of this this opinion. And, you know, here the patent owner obtained some information through the Freedom of Information Act, although I think generally most practitioners knew this was how PTAB judges are paid. But essentially, the way they're evaluated, they're obviously several components that go into that. But one of them is sort of how many decisions they write. And for PTAB judges, those come in a couple from a couple different places. One is the institution decision, which I'm sure we'll talk more about in this conversation, which is kind of the beginning of an PTAB trial proceeding. And it's the first the first step in deciding whether the petitioner has made enough of a showing that patents may be invalid to sort of begin the trial. The second phase is in the final written decision, which is of course, the decision that comes at the very end of the trial. The third thing that PTAB judges can do, however, is to write decisions in ex parte appeals, which has nothing to do with these sort of IPRS and PTAB trials, but has to do with just regular prosecution coming up from the examiner core. And, so in this particular case, what the petitioner noted is, the patent owner should say noted is that because the PTAB judges are paid based on the number of decisions they write, or that goes into their bonus calculations, they have an incentive to institute, because they know that if they write the institution decision, they would then have the chance to get another, you know, piece of work product out at the end of the process when they write the final written decision. So that essentially, as I understand it, was the argument that was being made

Please join Troutman Pepper's Intellectual Property and Health Sciences practice groups for the fifth installment of their podcast series on strategy, trends, and other happenings at the PTAB. Moderated by Troutman Pepper Partner Maia Harris, this episode features Troutman Pepper Partners Michael Goldman, Edwin (Ted) Merkel, and Andrew Zappia, who focus on the PTO's recent announcement to extend its Motion to Amend (MTA) Pilot Program. Our speakers discuss MTAs generally, pilot program details, as well as strategies and further considerations on seeking amendments during IPR as opposed to other available post-grant options. Be on the lookout for our next episode of this podcast series, where we will discuss arguments on secondary considerations during IPRs.

Considering small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from an intellectual property (IP)perspective, it is all the more critical that SMEs don't play by the same rules as larger businesses. Indeed, SMEs and larger firms in the European Union perform very differently with regard to their ownership and use of IP rights (IPR). The European Patent Office (EPO), based in Munich, Germany, recently reported that, although only a smaller proportion of SMEs (9%) own or use patents, trademarks, or designs when compared to larger firms (60%), the advantage that these IPRs provide in terms of revenue per employee is far greater for SMEs (+68%) than for larger firms (+18%). Understanding the role, impacts, and challenges associated with IP assets in the SME context is therefore necessary to design successful R&D, branding, and financial strategies – whether from a policy perspective or at the company-level.Brand & New's guest is EPO Chief Economist Yann Ménière, who joined the Office in 2016. Though currently on leave as a result of his role with the EPO, Mr. Ménière is professor of economics at MINES ParisTech, in France, where he led the chair on "IP and Markets for Technology." His research and expertise relate to the economics of innovation, competition, and IP. In recent years, he has been focusing more specifically on IP and standards, markets for technology, and IP issues in climate negotiations., He has written articles for academic publications as well as a number of policy studies for the European Commission, the French government, and other public organizations. In addition to MINES ParisTech, he is still teaching the economics of IT standards at Imperial College Business School and the economics of IP law at the Law School of Université Catholique of Louvain in Belgium.Every two weeks, on Tuesday, Brand & New gives the floor to inspiring individuals, with a 360-degree vision, to help brand owners, intellectual property lawyers, and marketing and finance professionals (and beyond!) stay curious and agile in an ever-evolving business environment. This episode of Brand&New is sponsored by Appdetex.Brand & New is a production of the International Trademark AssociationHosted by Audrey DauvetContribution of M. Halle & S. Lagedamond - Music by JD BeatsFOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT INTA.ORGTo go further:About Yann Ménière (link to https://www.epo.org/about-us/services-and-activities/chief-economist.html)Also of interest:European Patent Office (https://www.epo.org/service-support/publications.html?pubid=225#tab3)High-Growth Technology Business Forum (https://www.epo.org/news-events/events/conferences/2021/high-growth-technology-business-forum.html)European Inventor Award 2021 (www.inventoraward.org)INTA: For SMEs (https://www.inta.org/resources/for-smes/)INTA Pro Bono Clearinghouse (https://www.inta.org/resources/pro-bono-clearinghouse/)Brand Value Special Task Force Report (https://www.inta.org/wp-content/uploads/public-files/perspectives/industry-research/Brand-Value-Special-Task-Force-Report-Executive-Summary-1.pdf)Brand & New: SMEs—Navigating IP Issues, a Discussion Between an Entrepreneur and His IP Counsel (https://www.inta.org/podcast/smes-navigating-intellectual-property-issues-a-discussion-between-an-entrepreneur-and-his-ip-counsel/)

A few weeks ago the Internet was buzzing because 2 British and owner of an outerwear retail company called #Timbuktu had trademarked the word #Yoruba and had opposed the registration of #CultureTree in registering #YorubaStars. In this new #IPSERIES, on "Are indigenous works subject to intellectual property protection and the International framework available to prevent misuse and misappropriation" #Yorubaisnotforsale I shared my thoughts on the topic? Do let me know what you think and be on the lookout for the podcast version. #intellectualproperty #podcast #trademarkopposition #indigenousworks #IPRs https://twitter.com/esmeraldo99/status/1401858829118328838?s=19 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/rita-chindah/support

This week's podcast discusses the facts and judgement of two case filed by IPRS against Entertainment Network (India) Ltd., and IPRS and PPL against CRI Events Private Limited & others for infringement of the underlying copyright subsisting in a sound recording.  Audio Source: An article published on the L&S website in February 2021: https://lakshmisri.com/insights/articles/a-legal-tussle-of-music-rights/#  Author: Godhuli Nanda, Sr. Associate (L&S)  Voice: Sahana Rajkumar, Principal Associate (L&S)   www.lakshmisri.com

In light of the #ENDSARS #ENDPOLICEBRUTALITY #SÓRÓSÓKE #ENDSWAT #ENDBADGOVERNANCE, this episode takes a look at IPRs that may exist as a result of the protest. We looked image rights, right of publicity, terms of use of a social media platform, social contract, data protection issues, IP in the digital age, ownership in the digital age and the relevant IPs such as trademark and copyright. Legal remedies and implications. ADR and litigating IP related dispute, Trademark strategy. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/rita-chindah/support

Wondering how IPRS's new rule applies to Indie musicians? Or whether it is a good option to become a member of IPRS? This episode addresses the issue of live streaming as well as explains what is publishing income, the role of IPRS and how it applies to the Indie scene in India. Original interview live streamed as a webinar. Parts of a song (03:00), Role of IPRS (10:00), Items to collect for IPRS (17:29), Reciprocal relationships with other societies (27:21), Sync (39:13), Radio and IPRS (47:49) and Live streaming and the Indie artist (54:00)

TV actor, Manmeet Grewal committed suicide on May 15 due to financial stress and lack of work. Listen to all that's making news in the world of #Entertainment & #Lifestyle today. Mallika Bhagat presents this episode.

The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS), incorporated in the 1960's as a copyright royalty collection body is registered as a Copyright Society by the Government of India under the Copyright Act, 1957 and is authorised to conduct the copyright business of issuing and granting licenses in respect of musical works and associated literary works (lyrics) in India. Rakesh Nigam is the Ceo of IPRS & he tells HrishiKay in this very meaningful chat in the #CeosWorkingFromSeries how Chairman Javed Akhtar & himself have worked hard in getting the issues of author/composers and owner publishers resolved. They've also declared an Emergency Relief Package to support members who are facing significant financial pressure during the Corona pandemic. The K Man is also eager to get advice from Rakesh on what newbie singers, composers & lyric writers should focus on so as to make sure they are not exploited unfairly. Listen on! “The HrishiKay Sessions” are produced & presented by Hrishikesh Kannan popularly known as HrishiKay. Thanks for listening. Should you want to experience more ….for starters hit “subscribe” / “follow” and check out more episodes & be notified when further sessions go up! If ur looking for Hrishi across media & social networking then here goes: Twitter : https://www.twitter.com/hrishikay Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/hrishikay Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/hrishikay Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/hrishikeshkannan Soundcloud : https://www.soundcloud.com/hrishikay LinkedIn : http://linkedin.com/in/hrishikay

This episode is the second and final part of our interview with Kevin Jakel, the founder and CEO of Unified Patents. On this episode, we continue the conversation with Kevin about how Unified Patents operates, discuss Unified Patents’ new program for targeting Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), debate whether the patent troll narrative has been overblown, talk about the patent quality problem, and delve into some other patent policy issues related to IPRs and the PTAB. We also find out what Kevin has in common with George Costanza!

Everytime a song is played anywhere, means it is a transaction. In 2015, PRS processed 300 billion transactions. In 2016, they processed 600 billion transactions! Under such a scenario, Achille tells us how the newly formed Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) in India will try to meet such challenges in today's times.

In episode 4 of the mini series, Achille talks about revenues generated by non-film songs. Not every piece of music is a song. It could be a background score, jingles, etc. Achille tells us how IPRS will allow their members (lyricist, composer) to register their works. And help monitor use of their creations on different platforms.

This episode talks about the importance and necessity of having a playlist (set list) to be submitted to IPRS before a concert happens. Get to know why it is the duty of every public event organiser to share such playlists in order to generate revenue for the copyright holders.

* Use coupon code PODCAST25 for 25% off this webcast * Webcast URL: https://www.theknowledgegroup.org/webcasts/inter-partes-reviews-post-grant-proceedings/ Since the enactment the America Invents Act (AIA), Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings have become the preferred legal routes in challenging patent validity and enforceability in various industries. With the proceedings' upheld constitutionality by the U.S. Supreme Court, it is even more critical for companies to be well versed with the nuts and bolts of IPRs and PGRs. Counsel should be equipped with offensive and defensive winning strategies in pursuing patent challenges before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). Join a panel of key thought leaders and professionals assembled by The Knowledge Group as they bring the audience to a road beyond the basics of bringing or defending against a patent validity challenge and as they delve into the depth-analysis of the current trends and recent case law involving IPRs and PGRs. Speakers will also provide the audience with practical strategies in bringing out the best in these proceedings in a rapidly evolving legal climate. For anymore information please click on the webcast url at the top of this description.

PepsiCo, the US-based food and beverages multinational, has sued nine farmers of Gujarat, some of them for Rs 1 crore each, for allegedly violating its intellectual property rights (IPR) in a registered potato variety. A court has given an injunction after finding that the samples were indeed PepsiCo’s variety, but the company might find it difficult to prove that the farmers obtained the seed illegally. India has two laws for protecting agricultural IPRs. Genetically-modified (GM) traits like bollworm resistance and herbicide tolerance in cotton, for instance, being artificial nucleic acid sequences, are protected by the Indian Patent Act. India also has a unique law, enacted in 2001, which protects the rights of farmers and communities in plant varieties they have conserved over time. For more podcasts from The Quint, check out our [Podcasts](https://www.thequint.com/news/podcast) section.

This is an important case from 2014. It is part of our post-Alice software series of Litigation Quality PatentCasts because it’s about an important decision that’s often cited in prosecution literature, in IPRs, and in litigation in favor of patent eligibility for software claims in certain circumstances. Alice is the Supreme Court decision, and it has set the bar and the two-step Alice test for analyzing whether claims are patent-eligible subject matter, or whether they’re too abstract, to be patentable.

Patent Enforcement Companies – Interview With Daniel Papst – UPC Update – Is There a Trademark Troll? – IPRs Constitutional? – IP Fridays – Episode 92 Startseite

The America Invents Act (AIA) significantly affects the Constitutional separation of powers by creating a new inter partes review (IPR) regime for challenging an issued patent under an Article II Executive Branch entity, the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB). In practice, the PTAB has become an alternative forum for accused infringers to attack patent claims with less risk and expense than in U.S. federal district courts. Combined with the reluctance and sometime refusal of Article III courts (including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) to exert authority over final application of patent law, the statutory adjudicative powers given PTAB judges give rise to separation of powers issues. -- As a result, patents that have successfully overcome validity challenges in a “final judgment” of a court are now subjected to double jeopardy in the PTAB, and those valuable but limited patent property rights can be challenged and taken away entirely within an Article II administrative forum. At least two cases pending cert before the U.S. Supreme Court challenge provisions of the AIA on separation of power bases (Cooper v. Lee and MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.), while another (Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee) challenging the differences between the PTAB’s and the courts’ claim construction regimes has already been decided. In Cuozzo, the Court upheld the PTAB/USPTO’s application of a different claim construction standard from the courts, tipping the scales against patentees who face a validity challenge during IPRs as compared against in federal district court. Critics of the AIA rules –and particularly IPRs– as applied by the USPTO/PTAB assert that they weaken patents and the patent system, and undermine the incentives for innovation that have driven economic growth for much of this country’s history. This teleforum will include a discussion of the Constitutional challenges to the AIA’s patent review provisions, including the Court’s hints in Cuozzo that it is aware of other Constitutional issues. -- Featuring: Mr. Rob Greenspoon, Founding Member, Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC; Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs, Senior Scholar,Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Antonin Scalia School of Law, George Mason University and Mr. Tejinder Singh, Partner, Goldstein & Russell. Moderator: Mr. Trevor K. Copeland, Shareholder, Brinks Gilson and Lione.

This episode of Fish Post-Grant Radio features Kevin Jakel, Founder and CEO of UnifiedPatents, who talks about his experience with post-grant proceedings and IPRs. Kevin has more than 12 years of intellectual property experience, and most recently served as Intuit’s Head of IP Litigation.

In the first part of a two part episode, partner David C. Gryce speaks with partners Imran Khaliq and Pamela Fulmer on details of Inter-Partes Review including discussions on filing requirements, standards for granting IPRs, types of discovery, amending c