Podcasts about litigation

Robbie and Ashlee are back to discuss the news in September, including Robbie's harvest of a Cape Buffalo with his grandfather's rifle, Trump's Hunting Heritage Executive Order 14429, the Senate Farm Bill Advancing with Major Conservation Provisions, House Natural Resources Wildlife & Fisheries Legislation, Endangered Species Act Regulatory Changes & Litigation including wolves, Prairie Pothole Wetland Easement Policy Change & More Do you have questions we can answer? Send it via DM on IG or through email at info@theoriginsfoundation.org  Text us at 601-790-0607 with thoughts, comments and ideas for guests and episodes Support our Conservation Club Members! Classic African Hunting: https://classicafricanhunting.com/  Monarch Marketing See more from The Origins Foundation: https://bit.ly/BloodOrigins_Subscribe Music: Migration by Ian Post (Winter Solstice), licensed through artlist.io This podcast is brought to you by Bushnell, who believes in providing the highest quality, most reliable & affordable outdoor products on the market. Your performance is their passion. https://www.bushnell.com  This podcast is also brought to you by Silencer Central, who believes in making buying a silencer simple and they handle the paperwork for you. Shop the largest silencer dealer in the world. Get started today! https://www.silencercentral.com  Don't forget to go subscribe to our new The Origins Foundation Podcast Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/@TheOriginsFoundationPodcast - who knows, you may be a lucky subscriber who wins some cool stuff from our partner companies! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode, we have a special guest from the AFJ Justice team. We are joined by our colleague Morgan Flitt an Alliance for Justice Senior Dorot Fellow. With Morgan we will be covering the upcoming cases that will be heard by the US Supreme Court this session. Many of these cases – affect everyday people and the issues they care about,  climate change, gun rights, voting, immigration and LGBTQ+ rights. Then we will talk about how nonprofits can get involved with supreme court advocacy, nominees, and more while staying nonpartisan and being mindful of lobbying limits. Attorneys for this Episode Brittany Leonard Susan Finkle Sourlis Morgan Flitt   Intro to Justice Program: Brittany ·      Our justice team works on both federal and state judicial appointments and elections and runs numerous invaluable resources including our judicial vacancy tracker and helps keep us and the public informed about nominees. This includes the decisions they make after they've been confirmed, and how cases in federal courts – especially the supreme court – are impacting our civil rights and democracy.   ·      Today, we are thrilled to be joined on the pod by our friend and colleague Morgan Flitt. Morgan is a fellow attorney who serves as the Senior Dorot Fellow on the Federal Courts team. ·      Today we want to talk about the upcoming cases in this supreme court term, what we should be keeping an eye on, the potential impacts for our c3 partners, and what nonprofits can do during this term and future terms to advocate.   Cases to watch out for this term (4 across 4 differenttt critical issue areas) ·      Climate Change o      Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County (No. 25-170) §     Issue: Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate; and (2) whether this court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear this case §     Brief context: The Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County and the City of Boulder sued Exxon Mobil and Suncor, arguing that they should share in the costs of mitigating climate change because they knowingly contributed to causing it through producing, marketing, and selling fossil fuels while misrepresenting its dangers. The companies argued federal law preempted these claims, but the lower court agreed with the Board and the City of Boulder. §     Consequences: If the Supreme Court sides with Big Oil and Gas Companies, giving them blanket federal immunity from state tort law, this could potentially wipe out the dozens of climate deception cases that states and localities have filed around the country. §     Argument: Oct 5, 2026   ·      Voting and democracy o      Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota (No. 25-1017) §     Issue: (1) Whether the National Voter Registration Act or a federal consent decree prohibits Arizona from requiring voter-registration applicants to produce "satisfactory evidence" of U.S. citizenship when registering with a state registration form; and (2) whether the NVRA prohibits Arizona from implementing a program within 90 days of a federal election to cancel the registrations of voters who are not U.S. citizens. §     Brief context: In 2022, Arizona passed two additional hurdles to voting. First, they required new voter registrants to provide a physical "documentary proof of citizenship." Secondly, Arizona enabled county recorders to conduct citizenship audits of voter registration rolls against both state and federal databases. Mi Familia Vota and others filed suit against the Republican National Committee (RNC) to block these state laws from going into effect. The Ninth Circuit sided with Mi Familia Vota. §     Consequences: Siding with the RNC to greenlight these additional hurdles would render another blow to voting access and our democracy. Such demands would screen out lower income voters, people who have changed their names, naturalized citizens, and anyone who doesn't happen to have easy ways to obtain a passport or their birth certificate. It would also open the door for other states to impose similar inequitable requirements. §     Argument: December 8, 2026   ·      LGBTQ+ Rights o      International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson (No. 25-840) §     Issue: Whether parents have standing to challenge a law or policy that deliberately displaces their decisionmaking role as to "gender transitions" of their children, and in so doing creates present and likely future impediments to their ability to parent their children as they deem best for them. §     Brief context: Washington took "modest steps to address the crisis of transgender youth homelessness" by updating its laws to allow minors in shelters to access "health care — including gender-affirming care — without contacting their parents." Staff must still make good faith efforts to notify the minor's parents and are only allowed to withhold information if sharing it would cause harm to the minor. In response, the International Partners for Ethical Care and a group of parents challenged these laws, claiming they chill speech and "deliberately displace their decision-making role." The Ninth Circuit court of appeals dismissed their case for lack of legal standing. §     Consequences: The issue of legal standing is often political, and if the Court grants these parents standing, it could open the door for special interest groups to manufacture so-called grievances to bring challenges to school curricula, library books, vaccination policies, and confidential reproductive care. ·      It would also advance yet another challenge to the medical necessity of gender-affirming care for transgender people while protecting the abuse of anti-LGBTQ+ parental rejection. §     Argument: December 7, 2026   ·      Gun Safety o      Viramontes v. Cook County (No. 25-238), consolidated with Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566) §     Issue: Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. §     Brief context: When Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya were barred from owning AR-15 style weapons after they were banned in Cook County, Illinois, they joined two gun-rights organizations and filed a suit arguing that the law banning the sale, transfer, and possession of semiautomatic rifles violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Both an Illinois district court and the Seventh Circuit sided with Cook County and upheld the assault weapons ban. What will happen if the ban is overturned? §     Consequences: A decision overturning this ban could void other assault weapons bans in Connecticut, California, New York, and a dozen other states — bans that have drastically reduced mass shootings, including school shootings, compared to states without such bans. §     Argument: December 2, 2026   What c3s can do: ·      Supreme court advocacy is nonpartisan—you are free to stand for or against cases before any court or get involved in the cases. o      Litigation at the supreme court o      Amicus briefs o      Educating the public about cases and impacts of opinions Advocacy and lobbying work about the courts: ·      Nominee advocacy—Advocate for or against nominees to supreme court (lobbying) o      Remember the lower district courts and circuit courts as well o      Remember the lobbying rules if you are a c3: must track and report your lobbying the IRS and stay within your lobbying limits. Great place for c4s to get involved because they can lobbying in an unlimited amount. ·      Ethics advocacy—ask congress for more oversight or ethics rules (Lobbying if it will require a legislative vote). ·      Supreme court reform: increasing the size of the bench, retirement requirements, and more   Resources ·      Alliance for Justice, Being a Player ·      Alliance for Justice, Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices ·      Alliance for Justice, Judicial Nominee Tracker ·      Alliance for Justice, Supreme Court Reform ·      See more of our coverage of critical Supreme Court cases this term here.

SBC President Willie Rice's first major address to the Executive Committee set out a vision for renewal, doctrinal clarity, greater transparency, and a renewed commitment to gospel mission. William Wolfe and Jon Whitehead discuss what that vision could mean for the Southern Baptist Convention—and the work ahead as Southern Baptists look toward Indianapolis.   The conversation covers abuse-prevention efforts across SBC entities, the proposed Truth and Unity Amendment, legal concerns about enforcing doctrinal commitments, trustee accountability, declining Cooperative Program giving, and Rice's call to reach people in the United States and around the world by 2033.   Follow Willy Rice: https://x.com/WillyRice https://www.sbc.net/sbc-president/   Timestamps: 00:00 Podcast introduction 00:37 The road to Indianapolis and the issues facing Southern Baptists 03:37 The state of the SBC 08:07 The influence of an SBC president and the long-term reform effort 11:41 Willy Rice's message of hope for the convention 12:52 Abuse reform and the SBC's response 20:03 The debate over the abuse-crisis narrative and denominational responsibility 27:26 Introducing the Truth and Unity Amendment 28:05 Rice's case for doctrinal clarity 29:25 Gender, pastoral roles, and cultural change 38:49 Legal concerns about enforcing the amendment 45:00 Litigation risk and the purpose of a convention 48:07 Transparency and rebuilding trust 49:06 Rice's call for trustee engagement 50:59 Trustee responsibilities and financial oversight 58:33 Cooperative Program giving and the trust deficit 1:02:49 Rice's vision for gospel mission 1:05:30 Mobilizing Southern Baptists to reach others 1:08:16 Domestic evangelism and Baptist identity 1:09:50 Closing thoughts and the road ahead   ––––––   Follow Center for Baptist Leadership across Social Media: X / Twitter – https://twitter.com/BaptistLeaders Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/people/Center-For-Baptist-Leadership/61556762144277/ Rumble – https://rumble.com/c/c-6157089 YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@CenterforBaptistLeadership Website – https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/   To book William for media appearances or speaking engagements, please contact him at media@centerfor­baptistleadership.org.   Follow Us on Twitter: William Wolfe - https://twitter.com/William_E_Wolfe Richard Henry - https://twitter.com/RThenry83   Renew the SBC from within and defend the SBC from those who seek its destruction, donate today: https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/donate/   The Center for Baptist Leadership Podcast is powered by American Reformer, recorded remotely in the United States by William Wolfe, and edited by Jared Cummings.   Subscribe to the Center for Baptist Leadership Podcast: Distribute our RSS Feed – https://centerforbaptistleadership.podbean.com/ Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/center-for-baptist-leadership/id1743074575 Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/0npXohTYKWYmWLsHkalF9t Amazon Music // Audible – https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ababbdd-6c6b-4ab9-b21a-eed951e1e67b BoomPlay – https://www.boomplaymusic.com/podcasts/96624 CastboxFM – https://castbox.fm/channel/id6132313 CastroFM – https://castro.fm/podcast/67110759-1bb9-4fd9-abcb-34113d42e945 CurioCaster – https://curiocaster.com/podcast/pi6894445 Fountain – https://fountain.fm/show/IURohE0rZPJr5h81wxbX Goodpods – https://goodpods.com/podcasts/center-for-baptist-leadership-565673 iHeartRadio – https://iheart.com/podcast/170321203 iVoox – https://www.ivoox.com/en/podcast-center-for-baptist-leadership_sq_f12419733_1.html Listen Notes – https://lnns.co/2Br0hw7p5R4 MoonFM – https://moon.fm/itunes/1743074575 PlayerFM – https://player.fm/series/3570081 PocketCasts – https://play.pocketcasts.com/podcasts/ddd92230-e3ff-013c-e7de-02cacb2c6223 PodcastAddict – https://podcastaddict.com/podcast/center-for-baptist-leadership/5090794 Podchaser – https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-center-for-baptist-leaders-5696654 PodcastRepublic – https://www.podcastrepublic.net/podcast/1743074575 TrueFans – https://truefans.fm/center-for-baptist-leadership YouTube Podcasts – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFMvfuzJKMICA7wi3CXvQxdNtA_lqDFV

To open the season, host Eli Mazour brings together three journalists who cover intellectual property for a living: Olivia Rafferty of IP Fray, Nisha Shetty of IAM, and Inbar Preiss of MLex.They discuss what happens when patent litigation concentrates in a few courts, from Germany's dominance at the Unified Patent Court to the rise and fall of Judge Alan Albright in Texas. They also cover consolidation in the video codec patent pool market, Europe's fight over AI and copyright (including cases involving OpenAI, Suno, and Google's Gemini), why mainstream media struggles to cover IP, and what each journalist is watching next.Clause 8 is presented by:Junior AI - Your legal team's documents, drafted in your team's style. https://junior.lawP Copilot - Discover, manage, and protect your IP. https://ipcopilot.aiChapters:00:00 Introduction & meet the panel00:56 How each journalist got into covering IP07:42 The SEP regulation's rise, withdrawal, and EU court challenge11:53 US patent policy shifting with each administration13:40 Why most UPC cases are filed in Germany17:08 The Judge Albright controversy20:03 The EU's standardization regulation review23:50 Patent pools consolidate: the Via and Access Advance merger26:58 AI collides with copyright law30:26 Why mainstream media struggles to cover IP37:40 What's on the radar for next yearSubscribe to the Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/@clause8Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

California's billionaire tax is on the ballot this November, and it raises more questions than answers. From lost government revenue to legal battles that could drag on for years, what would this first-in-the-nation wealth tax actually do?Hosts Kyle Hulehan and Erica York are joined by Tax Foundation Senior Fellow Jared Walczak to break down what the measure could mean for California's budget, economy, and taxpayers. They cover the risk to state revenue that funds public education, the effects on businesses and startups, the valuation and constitutional challenges ahead, why wealth taxes failed across Europe, and whether California would ever collect a dime.0:00 Preview: What if California has to refund it all?0:15 What is California's Billionaire Tax Act (Prop 40)?2:30 Lessons from Europe: Why 11 of 14 wealth taxes were repealed4:40 Why are wealth taxes so hard to enforce?7:00 Legal vulnerabilities: Retroactivity and snapshot residency10:45 Commerce Clause problems: Apportionment and fair relation12:50 Has the U.S. ever had a wealth tax?15:05 Economic effects: Taxing stocks vs. flows18:20 Does "one-time" really mean one time?20:55 The cost of billionaire migration and lost innovation21:20 Can California actually administer this tax?22:50 Steep penalties for taxpayers and appraisers24:15 No rules, tight deadlines25:30 Voting vs. economic interest: The founder problem28:15 What happens to California's finances?29:00 The $100 billion revenue estimate vs. reality31:40 Litigation and the refund risk33:55 Wrap-upSupport the showFollow us!https://twitter.com/TaxFoundationhttps://twitter.com/deductionpodSupport the show

California's billionaire tax is on the ballot this November, and it raises more questions than answers. From lost government revenue to legal battles that could drag on for years, what would this first-in-the-nation wealth tax actually do?Hosts Kyle Hulehan and Erica York are joined by Tax Foundation Senior Fellow Jared Walczak to break down what the measure could mean for California's budget, economy, and taxpayers. They cover the risk to state revenue that funds public education, the effects on businesses and startups, the valuation and constitutional challenges ahead, why wealth taxes failed across Europe, and whether California would ever collect a dime.0:00 Preview: What if California has to refund it all?0:15 What is California's Billionaire Tax Act (Prop 40)?2:30 Lessons from Europe: Why 11 of 14 wealth taxes were repealed4:40 Why are wealth taxes so hard to enforce?7:00 Legal vulnerabilities: Retroactivity and snapshot residency10:45 Commerce Clause problems: Apportionment and fair relation12:50 Has the U.S. ever had a wealth tax?15:05 Economic effects: Taxing stocks vs. flows18:20 Does "one-time" really mean one time?20:55 The cost of billionaire migration and lost innovation21:20 Can California actually administer this tax?22:50 Steep penalties for taxpayers and appraisers24:15 No rules, tight deadlines25:30 Voting vs. economic interest: The founder problem28:15 What happens to California's finances?29:00 The $100 billion revenue estimate vs. reality31:40 Litigation and the refund risk33:55 Wrap-upSupport the showFollow us!https://twitter.com/TaxFoundationhttps://twitter.com/deductionpodSupport the show

 Joining Macca and Paul live on air,  is a true powerhouse in the global movement for equality. A former head of global litigation for Apple, she went on to serve nearly a decade as the Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign—quadrupling its size and turning it into the United States’ premiere LGBTQIA+ civil rights organization. She has navigated the highest corridors of corporate and political power to fight for our rights, and today she remains one of America's sharpest minds on workplace equality, constitutional freedom, and civil rights strategy. Welcome to Saturday Magazine, Elizabeth Birch. Workplace Equality & DEI Backlash At events like the Picturing Equality Symposium, you emphasize corporate responsibility. How are American companies holding the line on LGBTQIA+ inclusion in an era where DEI programs are being actively targeted by conservative legal activists?” “When you led litigation at Apple in the 90s, corporate advocacy was radical. Is the current corporate pullback just a temporary trend, or a long-term threat to workplace safety? In Australia some organisations are noticing a pull-back in public support – how do you keep corporate engagement up in tough times? Press Freedom & Constitutional Safeguards “With media outlets being stripped of access or threatened by political figures, do you feel the average American realises how tied LGBTQIA+ rights are to a free, independent press?” “Do you see a path for legal challenges against these press exclusions under First Amendment law, or have the courts shifted too far right to offer protection?” Do you see light at the end of the tunnel?  Healthcare Bans & The Resistance “The North Dakota Supreme Court's decision to uphold the youth healthcare ban is a devastating blow. Where do families and advocates turn when state supreme courts shut the door on constitutional appeals?” “Given the wave of state-level restrictions, where are you seeing the most effective resistance—is it in federal court battles, ballot initiatives, or grassroots mutual aid?” The post Sat, 26th, Sept, 2026: Elizabeth Birch; Fmr Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) (1995–2004); fmr Worldwide Dir. of Litigation at Apple Computer. appeared first on Saturday Magazine.

In this episode of The Animal Law Podcast, Mariann Sullivan speaks with Eric Glitzenstein, Director of Litigation at the Center for Biological Diversity, about what he calls the most extreme attack on the Endangered Species Act in its history. They break down two unprecedented actions by the Trump administration: the elimination of the long-standing regulatory definition of “harm” that protected endangered…

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 179 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's Interview guest is Peter Berg. If you don't know Peter, he is the Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and is also serving as the VPP president. We talk about the industry association of in-house practitioners VPP, politics, patent strategy at Infineon, litigation ready patents, NPEs, acquisitions, the German emloyees invention act and many more things. So stay with us for this very interesting interview. Before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! The USPTO has issued its first AI-related disciplinary action, published on August 27, 2026 in In re Brian E. Mitchell (Proceeding No. D2026-16) before the Office of Enrollment and Discipline. The underlying settlement was signed by the attorney on July 20, 2026 and by the OED Director on July 21, 2026, with final approval given on July 27, 2026 by Tricia Choe on behalf of USPTO Director John A. Squires. The action resulted in a public reprimand against California patent attorney Brian E. Mitchell after a generative AI tool produced a claim comparison chart containing fabricated citations to the patent’s internal file history. The case underscores that AI-generated hallucinations must be verified by a human before filing. InterDigital has escalated its patent dispute with Disney across three fronts within a month. On August 25, 2026, InterDigital filed two new actions at the Unified Patent Court: a preliminary injunction request at the Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_3044/2026) and a main infringement action at the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_3043/2026), covering Germany, France and the Netherlands. Both target Disney+ Premium’s switch to the VP9 video codec, which InterDigital says still infringes patent EP 2 465 265, a patent the Mannheim division had already found valid and infringed in an earlier ruling that also branded Disney an unwilling licensee; the Düsseldorf action adds a second patent, EP 2 605 473, covering the Up Next continue-watching feature. On September 2, 2026, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted InterDigital an injunction against Disney covering Germany and the Netherlands over a separate patent protecting seamless playback continuation when switching between devices, upholding the patent’s validity in the same ruling. It was InterDigital’s third UPC injunction against Disney. Then, on September 15, 2026, InterDigital filed a damages claim for EUR 101.7 million against Disney at the Munich Regional Court I (case no. 7 O 8870/26), based on a November 2025 finding that Disney+ infringes InterDigital’s HDR video patent EP 2 132 923; the claim also covers viewers in 19 European countries served through a Frankfurt-based server location. For companies relying on codec or connectivity technology, the dispute is a reminder that switching to a different standard does not automatically avoid infringement if the asserted patent is drafted broadly enough. The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled on September 3, 2026 in G 1/25 that a patent description only needs to be amended to match amended claims if a discrepancy between the two causes a requirement of the EPC, such as clarity, novelty or inventive step, not to be met. The EPO’s Board of Appeal 3.3.08 fully revoked Moderna’s key mRNA patent EP 3 590 949 following a two-day hearing that concluded in mid-September 2026, on the grounds that the claimed subject matter extended beyond the original application. The revocation removes the basis for Moderna’s earlier wins against BioNTech and Pfizer in Düsseldorf and London. On September 15, 2026, US sportswear maker New Balance filed a trademark suit against Decathlon’s US units, Decathlon America LLC and Decathlon USA LLC, in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (case no. 1:26-cv-14235). New Balance argues that the K logo on its Kiprun running shoe line, when mirrored, reads unmistakably as an N and imitates the N mark it has used for roughly 50 years, claiming post-sale confusion. On September 8, 2026, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled in Case C-298/23, Inter IKEA Systems v Vrijheidsfonds, on a referral from the Brussels Enterprise Court, that the owner of a well-known trademark can prohibit its use by a political party unless the party sets out the specific reasons why its freedom of expression outweighs the trademark owner’s interests. The case arose from the Vlaams Belang party’s 2022 campaign promoting a migration plan styled as IKEA assembly instructions. And now for the interview with Peter Berg! In this episode of IP Fridays I talk with Peter Berg. He is Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and President of VPP, the German association for in house IP professionals, since May 2025. Berg is an electrical engineer by training and leads a team at Infineon that manages a portfolio of more than 12,000 patent families, while the company simultaneously enforces its rights offensively in Germany, the US and China. That combination of hands on portfolio work and association leadership makes him one of the rare guests who can speak to both the operational detail of one of Europe’s largest patent portfolios and the political side of Germany’s IP landscape. The guest: Peter Berg and the VPP Peter Berg is an electrical engineer who became Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and, since May 2025, President of the VPP, the association representing in house patent professionals in Germany. His team manages a portfolio of more than 12,000 patent families while running an offensive enforcement program across Germany, the US and China. That mix of operational and political experience is exactly why I wanted him on the podcast. Germany’s national IP strategy: more than a promise on paper I asked Berg what has become of the national IP strategy promised in Germany’s coalition agreement, and what happens if it does not materialize during this legislative term. His answer was clear. The question is no longer whether the strategy will arrive, only how comprehensive it turns out to be. If it falls short of what industry needs, the profession will simply push for adjustments afterward. Berg names three levels that need attention. First, society as a whole, from kindergarten to retirement, needs to understand that intellectual property underpins our prosperity rather than being a line item in the accounts. Second, academia and professional education. Third, startups and the broader Mittelstand, where well funded structures are still missing. The German Patent and Trademark Office has an educational mandate but far too small a budget for it, and the regional patent information centers are underfunded as well. Berg makes a point that is easy to miss from outside Germany: the patent office reports to the Ministry of Justice rather than to an innovation focused ministry, even though its real purpose is to strengthen the economy. That three ministries, research, economy and justice, are now working on the strategy together strikes him as genuine progress. Litigation ready patents: how Infineon manages 12,000 patent families Infineon has roughly tripled its turnover since 2017 while keeping portfolio size largely stable. The answer, Berg says, is quality over quantity. Inventors pitch their ideas to a panel of senior technical experts and patent attorneys, and the process does not stop there. The draft itself is reviewed by multiple stakeholders, and once the notice of allowance arrives and the patent is granted, it goes through another review. The criteria stay consistent throughout: technology assessment, market size, detectability, circumventability and fit with Infineon’s own roadmap. Internal discipline alone does not make a patent litigation ready, though. That requires real experience with conflict, and most of that experience comes from the defensive side, where Infineon has plenty of practice finding weaknesses in patents asserted against it. Being on the offensive, Berg says, is a different level of learning entirely, whether in court or in licensing negotiations where the other side is not sure it would get a fair outcome if the case went to trial. In practice this also means systematic pruning. Internally Infineon calls the relevant phases US8 and US12, the years when annuity costs peak in the US portfolio, by far the most expensive part of the estate. Berg says his team knows every one of the more than 12,000 patent families in detail, and offensive enforcement is focused on the markets that matter most for electronic products: Germany, the US and China. An injunction at a trade show: national courts versus the UPC One concrete trigger for this conversation was an ex parte preliminary injunction Infineon obtained at a German trade show, without the defendant having filed a protective letter in advance. For Berg, enforcement at trade fairs is nothing new, it has been part of the playbook for years, now extended to venues outside Europe that Western companies have used less often in the past. His view on the UPC is nuanced. He credits the court with a strong start, good management and judges selected for quality rather than politics, and praises the body of case law it has built in a little over three years. On the other hand, some member states are still missing, a comprehensive body of case law takes time to develop, and costs do not fit every business case, especially where achievable damages barely justify the expense. Infineon in any case validates most European patents in only a handful of countries rather than dozens, so the practical difference between national and UPC enforcement is smaller than it might seem. For smaller cases the option to opt out and litigate nationally alongside UPC rights remains important, even though systematically double patenting is not something Infineon pursues for cost reasons. Four systems at once: coordinating cross border enforcement Infineon’s legal and patent departments have grown together over 25 years into a fully integrated international organization, with teams in Europe, North America and several Asian countries that, by Berg’s account, communicate on close to a weekly basis. Add to that a strong network of outside counsel. The commitment to management is not to shy away from any jurisdiction where the need arises. Berg is careful that patent attorneys do not spend their entire careers doing only litigation or only prosecution. Attorneys who rotate into a litigation team bring that experience back into their regular business support afterward, and that cycle in turn improves the quality of new filings. Litigation has become part of daily business, but never something a team slides into unprepared. Going on the offensive against a competitor requires planning several steps ahead. IP due diligence in practice: the Marvell Brightlane deal I found Berg’s answer on the Marvell Brightlane acquisition, Infineon’s 2.5 billion dollar deal for Marvell’s automotive Ethernet business that closed in August 2025, particularly revealing. In the semiconductor industry, he explains, IP is rarely primarily the patent portfolio. What matters more are frozen technologies and so called IP blocks, reusable design blocks that enable fast product development. Infineon almost never acquires a company because of its patents. Being a large, established player, its own portfolio is usually broad enough to secure a new technical area against incumbent competitors. The real work starts after signing. It means listening without being pushy, understanding the new colleagues’ processes and tools before deciding how to integrate the portfolio. Since none of Marvell’s IP staff joined Infineon in this deal, the team had to build up portfolio expertise using the acquired engineers and set up an operational patent committee, then plan which areas of the portfolio were already strong and where investment was still needed. The faster that integration decision gets made, Berg says, the better, because product development can never be allowed to stall because of an acquisition. The Cypress lesson: NPE exposure from legacy portfolios One risk many companies underestimate in acquisitions is patents an acquired business sold to a non practicing entity, or NPE, before the deal closed. That happened with Cypress Semiconductor in 2016, after its merger with Spansion left it with an oversized portfolio it did not need. Cypress sold around 2,000 patents to the NPE organization IP Value, and only a few years later Infineon acquired Cypress. Because the sale included a retained license for Cypress’s own business, Berg sees no exposure for Infineon from those specific patents today. The broader issue of NPE enforcement, though, remains real. Realistically there are many dozens of new cases a month, often directed at customers or the wider ecosystem rather than at chipmakers directly. Even when Infineon is not the target, it has to support its customers whenever its own technology is implicated. For the industry as a whole this consumes a great deal of resources without moving innovation forward, a point that comes up especially often at this time of year in Munich, when IP practitioners from around the world gather for meetings. Post quantum cryptography: patent density ahead of standardization In December 2024 Infineon became the first company to achieve a CC EAL6 certification in post quantum cryptography, one of the highest security certifications available. Berg describes two angles to the work. On one side, Infineon develops its own chipsets to enable quantum computing itself, already a real business rather than pure research. On the other side, customers across Infineon’s application fields need to be prepared for what he calls quantum day, the point at which powerful quantum computers become available, including to bad actors. Because that day may only be three to five years away, infrastructure needs to be built now so it can handle new cryptographic approaches. On standard essentiality he is measured rather than evasive. There are certainly patents in this field from Infineon and others, but security standards have historically leaned toward royalty free licensing rather than the large patent clusters seen in cellular communication from 2G through 5G. Whether that pattern repeats for post quantum cryptography, he cannot say, but Infineon is preparing for either outcome. Germany’s Employee Invention Act: opportunity or burden Asked whether Germany’s Employee Invention Act is an opportunity or a burden for the country’s innovation ecosystem, Berg does not hold back. With more than 30 years of experience, he estimates that 99 percent of all inventions are simply the regular work product of engineers in R&D, requiring no extra incentive at all. In countries without an equivalent law, employees are demonstrably just as innovative and just as willing to share their inventions with the company. His core objection is that invention does not equal innovation. Procurement, production, quality management and many other functions all contribute to a product’s success, not just the named inventors. That the inventor alone receives extra compensation while everyone else does not strikes Berg as unfair, especially since Infineon already rewards its top engineers appropriately regardless of statutory requirements. He calls the law a bureaucratic nightmare that should be abolished or at least radically simplified. Smaller organizations, he notes, often just ignore it or implement it badly, and every company Infineon has acquired with German operations has come with its own legacy mess to clean up. Artificial intelligence in day to day patent work at Infineon On AI, Berg describes three layers. The first is established tools: patent search, translation between the team’s main working languages, and, for about two years now, drafting replies to office actions. As with any tool, the benefit only shows up with repeated use at real volume, which is why Infineon works deliberately with outside counsel to broaden adoption across the team. The second layer is ongoing testing of new tools, limited mainly by the time available to evaluate them. The third is everyday office use. Since spring 2025, everyone from paralegals to attorneys has been able to use AI tools broadly within a secure environment. The bar stays the same throughout: if AI output is not at least as good as an attorney’s prior work, it is not worth using, or the cleanup afterward eats up any time saved. Where it does work, responses to standardization proposals, for instance, can be produced far faster. One question Berg expects to face next year, without yet having an answer: how should efficiency gains be split between the company and outside counsel once both sides benefit from AI? Three messages for the IP community I closed by asking Berg for the most important messages he would want to give our listeners, mostly IP professionals in companies and law firms. His first message: think about IP strategy from the end, starting with what needs to be asserted against whom and for what purpose in ten or twenty years, rather than letting today’s deadlines dictate everything. Only that kind of multi year plan, combined with a sound cost benefit ratio, produces genuinely litigation ready patents. His second message is again about artificial intelligence: anyone who has not started training with it yet risks missing the wave, and this is not a skill built overnight. His third message is aimed at anyone not yet connected to peers in the profession: use the associations and networks that already exist to build that exchange, a thought that ties neatly back to the VPP, where our conversation began. And here is the full transcript: Peter Berg: Hi, I’m Peter Berg, Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and President of VPP, the Association of In-house Patent Practitioners in Germany. And you are listening to IP Fridays. Rolf Claessen: Today’s interview guest is Peter Berg. If you don’t know Peter, he is an electrical engineer by training and is the Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and also serving as the VPP president. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Peter Berg: My pleasure. Rolf Claessen: So first I want to talk about VPP. You succeeded Beat Weibel from Siemens as VPP president in May 2024 and have publicly called for Germany to finally deliver on the coalition agreement promise of the national IP strategy. So politics, what are the two or three most concrete things that strategy must contain? What happens if it doesn’t get done in this legislative period? Peter Berg: First of all, I think I need to correct you. It was May 2025, so not that long as a standing president. But if you mention national IP strategy, national means here for Germany. I think the question isn’t anymore whether or what happens if we don’t get that strategy. I think that is now on its way. The question is rather how good and comprehensive the national IP strategy will be, and if it’s just not enough from an industry perspective, I would say then we adjust afterwards. Of course, there is a big paper out from the BDI, the German Industry Association, published in 2024, and I need to focus on something which is really close to my heart. If you ask me the main content it should have, it is first of all better IP education, and I see there are kind of three levels. One is really society as such, so each and everybody from kindergarten to retirees, we need to acknowledge in the knowledge society that IP is central for our well-being. We have to respect the IP of others. We have to be proud to create IP, not just treat it as an entry in the accounts. Yeah, society at large. The second level is really academia and education in our professional environment. And finally, life is difficult for startups, people who want to create a new company, and small and medium-sized enterprises. There is good stuff out there. The German Patent and Trademark Office has a mandate to educate, but a very small budget to do so. In a federal country like Germany, there are local support systems, be it the chambers of commerce or the patent information centers. The structure is there, but it’s underfinanced, and Germany has to gear up on that one. So besides IP education, I believe solid national IP institutions are key. This is also a funding issue, be it headcount or technology. Think of the German Patent and Trademark Office, think of the courts, be it on the infringement side or the nullity side, so the Federal Patent Court. We need to back up nationally the European institutions, since we believe not every case is worth taking to the UPC, so for smaller cases we need a good national system as a backup. And government needs to have that in mind and not rely too much on European institutions alone. Finally, facilitate the IP transfer from universities and research institutions into industry. Right now it’s all about startups, et cetera, but that kind of IP transfer starts first of all with people leaving university, leaving those research institutions and joining industry, be it as staff or through research contracts. And finally, of course, startups are the area where Germany needs to catch up in particular. Perhaps I need to add for non-German listeners, there is a particularity in Germany in that the IP institutions, like the Patent and Trademark Office, report into the Ministry of Justice, although it’s an instrument for thriving innovation and building a solid economy. So it’s right now a totally new thing for this country that three ministries, research, economy and justice, are working together on this national IP strategy, with only recently some good progress. Rolf Claessen: You’ve said publicly that Infineon’s primary focus is patents that provide clear competitive advantages, and that for you it’s about litigation-ready patents. That’s a very specific phrase. How do you define it operationally, and how has the pruning of your more than 12,000-family portfolio changed in the last two years? Peter Berg: Yeah, I think that’s a process which lasted much more than two years, and it’s never over. This is work in progress. Thinking back to 2017, I joined Infineon, and the company has developed very nicely since. I think we roughly tripled turnover but kept the portfolio size roughly stable, despite acquisitions, despite that growth, also in R&D, et cetera. We’ve even been able to shrink costs since then, and I believe we’ve achieved our strategic goals, now with a good, or let’s say not yet good enough, cost-benefit ratio. And the answer to that equation is quality. Now, we as patent practitioners might call it differently, but at the end it comes down to the fact that, most likely for all companies and for practitioners who support companies in private practice, you need a collaboration platform. That means for Infineon, the inventors are key. They are involved in decision-making, so they pitch their invention to senior technical experts, my team members, and patent attorneys, and the quality of that expert panel makes a big difference. Then come repetitive reviews, not just once the decision to file is taken, but the draft itself is also reviewed by multiple stakeholders. Then we get the notice of allowance, the patent is granted, another review, and later on we try to apply consistent criteria: what’s the technology assessment, what’s the market size, is it detectable, is it easy to circumvent, et cetera, and does it fit with our own roadmap. And of course it would be nice if you could easily compare it with a competitor’s roadmap, or take the time to speculate on certain market changes which might be disruptive. And I believe if you apply that consistently over a sufficiently long period, you get patents you could call litigation-grade or litigation-ready. What is then missing, though, is real experience with conflicts against competitors and how the courts look at that. So the truth comes out once you go to court. On the defensive side, of course, we have tons of experience trying to find weaknesses in patents being asserted against Infineon, et cetera. But I think it’s another level of learning to be on the offensive, and that might play out in court, but it might also play out in licensing negotiations, where the other side is sufficiently unsure whether they would get an outcome they believe would be fair if they went to court with those patents. You asked me about the pruning of all this. So what is our approach there? There is a kind of forced pruning rate which we believe is necessary, to make it mandatory for everybody to identify the weakest patents in the respective portfolios. We focus on the years where costs are highest, what we internally call US8 and US12, since a big chunk of money needs to be spent on annuity payments for the US portfolio, which is the dominant one, and for the rest of the world it’s rather towards the end of the patents’ lifecycle. Now, having a good team, people who really like the technology and stay in charge for a long time, I could proudly say that my team knows every one of those 12,000 patent families well, and not just on the German or the US side, but really focuses on the jurisdictions with the biggest markets for electronic products. And there we see offensive litigation as a good choice, and that is Germany, the US and China. Rolf Claessen: Yes, talking about patent quality is really a hot topic right now, especially in industry and at the EPO, I guess, but that’s a topic for a different hour, probably. But talking about litigation-ready patents, you recently obtained possibly the first ex parte preliminary injunction at a German trade show in recent history, without a protective writ having been filed by the defendant. What does that show about your view on German national courts versus the UPC for this kind of enforcement? Peter Berg: I mean, first of all, litigation is not an end in itself, and in the markets a semiconductor company like Infineon operates in, a product might implement potentially hundreds or thousands of patents. So litigation itself doesn’t resolve all of that, but it has its place in our strategy execution. You’ll understand that I can’t get into specifics of any of the litigations you hinted at. But enforcement of trademarks, and I think you mentioned a patent case, trademarks and patents at trade fairs has been part of our activities for years, and sometimes you can catch somebody by surprise. It’s all about good preparation. But what I believe is more important is that we also prepare for venues so far less used by Western companies, be it China, et cetera. So being litigation-ready means looking into different venues. The UPC is certainly one of them, but there’s more beyond that. Enforcement for us is not only a German or European measure. I personally believe national courts and the UPC will both have a role to play in the future. There are pros and cons to each, which need to be evaluated case by case. I need to congratulate the UPC, which had a great start, good management, good communication about what they do, and a selection of judges based on quality, not politics. In a little more than three years, they’ve built up a pretty good body of case law. On the downside, some countries are still missing, building a really comprehensive body of case law will take time, and the cost side is still a concern, meaning that not every kind of business case reaches damages high enough to justify it, and there’s a certain risk that the case won’t be decided quickly by the court. In such situations, it might not make sense to go to the UPC. We have, I guess, quite a few companies in the electronics or mechanical engineering field where we don’t validate European patents in dozens of countries, maybe two, three, four, and over time it might be even fewer. So geographically, the difference between US, UPC and national enforcement isn’t that big. That’s why the alternative, and I mentioned this a bit at the beginning regarding the national IP strategy, needs to stay a good alternative. So the possibility to opt out and litigate nationally in lesser business cases remains, from my perspective, important, and we continue to use that as well. Rolf Claessen: Yes, and also the hurdle for double patenting has been lowered a little, so you can still have national patent rights in parallel with UPC patent rights. That’s also an advantage, probably. Peter Berg: Yeah, I think that was almost an invitation to say, you know, if you’re not sure whether the unitary patent is your choice, you can do both in parallel. True. But again, all we need to do is achieve our goals with a good cost-benefit ratio, so systematically double patenting is not really the way forward for us. Rolf Claessen: Right. Yeah, that was a very interesting insight about German national courts versus the UPC. But in fact you’re also litigating across borders, in many different countries, for example the US, Europe, Germany, and other countries, in China maybe. So what does coordinating enforcement across all these different systems simultaneously actually look like from the inside, and was it always the plan to have such complex litigation and enforcement systems, or did it evolve? What’s your take on this? Peter Berg: Yeah, at Infineon, our legal and patent departments, as we call them, have grown together over the last 25 years, roughly the age of our company, into an organization that doesn’t just have broad general legal or semiconductor application market expertise, for us that’s automotive, consumer goods, industrial and IoT, but is an organization that’s been tested by hundreds of assertions against us and our customers, and by negotiations with operating companies and NPEs. So that comes with experience. If I look now at our organization, not just my own team but legal in general, we have patent and legal teams in all the hotspots, and that’s grown in the last couple of years too. It’s Europe, of course North America, and various countries in Asia, and it’s a fully integrated international organization. We know each other and communicate, it feels like, on at least a weekly basis. Not to forget a good network of outside counsel to execute enforcement wherever strategic needs require it. That’s kind of our promise to management: we don’t shy away from any jurisdiction, if the need is there we can act and set up a team. Perhaps we’ve learned more on the defensive side, which we can now translate into offensive action. And I guess you’re somehow relating your question to a specific litigation against a Chinese competitor, and that’s not a litigation you kind of slide into. You need to plan a few steps ahead. Litigation has become part of our daily life, and the key moment is always, once it’s decided that this is going to happen, to set up a team for the new litigation. It starts to feel like a routine operation. The staffing depends of course on the technical area of the enforcement, the jurisdiction, and the workload of existing attorneys. And the good thing is that once we rotate patent attorneys into a litigation team, it’s great experience for them, that leads to expertise, and since we try not to over-specialize, so that people don’t only do litigation or only do prosecution, that experience from litigation is a great asset when they go back to supporting a certain business unit doing prosecution work. And coming back to your first question, that personal experience also helps in creating litigation-ready patents over time. Rolf Claessen: Yes, you’ve also acquired a couple of companies, and I have a question about a certain deal, especially the Marvell Brightlane acquisition and the IP due diligence. This $2.5 billion Brightlane deal closed in August 2025 and presumably transferred a substantial patent portfolio in the automotive, let’s say networking, technology field. How much of that big deal is really about buying IP, and how does a deal like that change your daily work in your IP function the day after closing? So once you’d signed the deal, did your daily life change? Peter Berg: It depends on the size of the deal. A couple of questions in there. Let me start with IP in the semiconductor industry, my industry, and that’s more than patents, trademarks and design rights. Speaking to practitioners and R&D colleagues, IP for them is rather frozen technologies and what we call IP blocks, design blocks which enable fast product designs that you can reuse. And if I take that as a basis, although each acquisition is different, IP plays a very big role because it should enable us to bring new products to market quickly, et cetera. Seldom does Infineon acquire a business because of its patent portfolio. Being a large, established player, our existing patent portfolio should be good enough to move into whatever technical area is of interest, and to make sure incumbent competitors couldn’t easily attack us when entering that field. Now, you mentioned the Marvell acquisition. We call it rather the Marvell automotive Ethernet acquisition. From Marvell’s perspective it was a smaller part of their business, which they sold to Infineon about a year ago. How should I say it, you get the assets but you get relatively little IP. So it’s more that you try to familiarize yourself with the assets and how they fit our business case, et cetera. Of course there is due diligence to get an idea and to make sure that everything that should belong to the business is transparent, but the more important part comes after the acquisition. Once the business is owned by Infineon, all the other functions handle their own areas of responsibility. For us, when it comes to IP rights, it’s about reaching out to the new colleagues, helping them for the first couple of days, but also leaving them alone, because there are so many changes they have to go through, and not being overly pushy. Understanding their current processes and tools, and their view of their own portfolio, is important at that point. So you hold back a little and see what they do and why they do it, sometimes you can learn from their best practices. But there comes a moment when we need to finally decide how to integrate the portfolio, and which of our processes and tools they have to adopt, and the faster you make that decision, the better. Since in the case of Marvell none of the IP staff joined us, the task was to build up a portfolio using the expertise of the senior engineers, get a good operational patent committee running, and develop a plan for which areas of the portfolio are good enough and which need to grow, in line with the growth of the business. It’s now more than a year ago, but that was an interesting time, and I doubt many people listening are aware of it, but a big thank you to everybody involved back in 2025. Rolf Claessen: From your answer I get that your job involved a lot of listening, basically, to the needs of the teams that joined your company, right? Peter Berg: At least as much talking as listening. Of course they want to know as well how we do things and what’s expected of them. So first of all it’s about reaching those people and making sure, and this is also a concern, that if everything changes for them, then perhaps the patenting process isn’t the most important thing. Product development is key, and making sure there’s no interruption so they can keep their timelines, et cetera. So being very mindful of that setting. But you’re right, it’s not just about telling them, it’s about listening to them and finding the right moment to switch. Rolf Claessen: Right, I have a very different question now, about NPEs, non-practicing entities, and exposure. I think some NPEs acquired patent families that trace back to Cypress, just before you bought it, or around the time of your acquisition. Are these patents, held by these NPEs, now a problem for Infineon? Peter Berg: That would be it, right? Actually, no, let me give some context first. Companies in distress, or with an overly large patent portfolio for their business, sometimes sell patents at a certain point in their history. Regarding Cypress Semiconductor, that happened around 2016, after they merged with a company called Spansion and ended up with a large combined portfolio they didn’t need. At that point Cypress teamed up with an NPE organization called IP Value and sold them around 2,000 patents, that’s public knowledge, and only a few years later Infineon acquired Cypress. So that was done by Cypress before it became an Infineon company. But good practice is, if you sell a patent, you retain a license for your own business, so in that sense I don’t feel any exposure from those patents. But of course this touches on the general topic of exposure to NPE enforcement, which is a concern in the electronics industry. Realistically, hundreds is perhaps too much, but many dozens of new cases a month, often against our customers or the wider ecosystem. But since it involves technology implemented in our products, even if the enforcement doesn’t target semiconductor players directly, we need to support our customers, and that is a kind of a load we need to help carry. But these are typically patents that somebody else sold to an NPE. You were also asking whether acquiring businesses brings new opportunities as well as new risk. I think that’s natural, and we shouldn’t shy away from that kind of risk. If we, like any other company, go for the big, high-margin, fast-growing businesses, the stakes are high in those areas, and you can’t complain if these also turn out to be litigious marketplaces, because many people want to be there. Around this time of year, since it’s Oktoberfest season here in Munich, many IP practitioners from around the world gather for meetings and share their view on the world. Everybody talks about AI, and NPEs try to acquire whatever patents are on the market that could be the basis of stronger or weaker infringement actions against that part of the industry. From an industry perspective, this consumes a lot of resources and doesn’t really help accelerate innovation in our space. Rolf Claessen: Good that you have a solution for the patent families that were acquired before you acquired Cypress. And now, turning to a very different topic, cryptography. You’re also working on quantum cryptography and post-quantum cryptography, a difficult word, and you, Infineon, were the first to obtain a certification, a really high certification in post-quantum cryptography, the so-called CC EAL6 certification, a very high certification in cryptography for our listeners, in December 2024. Now this field of technology is heading towards standardization. How patent-dense is Infineon’s patent stack in this field, and how are you thinking about the potential standard-essentiality of this new post-quantum cryptography technology, where maybe the American standards from the NIST institute become the infrastructure, or the standard? Peter Berg: It’s a big field with different components. We take the quantum challenge seriously at Infineon, but there are two elements to it. You spoke more about cryptography, but for us, as a semiconductor player, on one hand we want to enable quantum computing with our own chipsets, and we support two different technology streams there, it’s not just development, it’s already a real business. On the other hand, we need to educate and enable customers in the application fields we serve to prepare for that quantum day, the day quantum computing becomes available, and not only to the good guys. You need to think about this now, because it might be just three, four, five years away, you don’t know for sure. It means investing in infrastructure able to handle post-quantum cryptography and security in communications, because you need certain computing power and different ways of handling cryptography algorithms compared to today. Today’s approaches won’t be enough, you need better ones, and you mentioned one at the beginning, which Infineon has proposed. That’s not easy. If you invest in a core today, you’re investing in something like a power station, which stays connected to the internet for a long time, so you need infrastructure robust enough to handle post-quantum cryptography. Regarding the patent stack question, yes, certainly there are several patents in this field owned by Infineon, but also by others. In general, I believe, both in semiconductors and in security more broadly, this tends toward royalty-free licensing, and standard setting has in the past been marked by the avoidance of the big patent clusters we saw building up in cellular communication, from 2G through 5G. I don’t see that happening in the post-quantum cryptography field, but who knows, so we prepare for whatever scenario comes. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if the Infineon patents end up in a big pool or something later on, and you get all these license fees. Peter Berg: I wouldn’t mind, yeah. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see. Right, now turning to another topic, maybe, for example US colleagues ask me a lot about the German employee invention law. It’s very different from other countries, especially the US. Do you see the German employee invention law rather as an opportunity or a burden for Germany’s innovation ecosystem? Peter Berg: As IP professionals in larger corporations in Germany, we’re so used to that law that we hardly challenge its usefulness. To your question, though, with more than 30 years of experience, I’d say that 99% of all inventions are made by engineers in R&D as part of their regular job, nothing extra on top, so they don’t need an extra motivation for it. And we see it in other countries too, where that kind of law doesn’t exist, and people are just as innovative and just as ready to share their inventions with us as an IP organization, with or without the law. So it doesn’t seem to fulfill the role some see as a competitive edge for Germany, and because of that inventor law, people just end up being more cautious, or more descriptive, about their work results. There are more reasons why I believe this is obsolete. Invention does not equal innovation. There are many other colleagues in a company, in procurement, production, quality management, et cetera, and all of them contribute to a product becoming a bestseller. It’s not a single person, and it’s not just one team’s result, and somehow it doesn’t feel fair that the inventor gets an additional bonus and the others don’t. In any case we’d give our top engineers a premium anyway, and we reward inventors in all other countries, with the law or without it, without any worldwide mandate for that kind of remuneration. So from a corporate perspective we don’t need a law to help us work out the benefits and share them with our top inventors. The law is a bureaucratic nightmare. It needs to be abandoned, or at least radically simplified. In smaller organizations, I guess it’s often just ignored or badly implemented. Believe me, every company we’ve acquired with operations in Germany has left us a bit of a heritage to clean up. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, I understand. Now for a different topic, AI, the use of AI. We as patent attorneys talk about this a lot, it’s a big topic, how to use AI, whether to use AI, and how to use AI in law firms. But can you tell us about the use of AI in the operations of your team? Peter Berg: Recently we discussed this and agreed on kind of three layers to it. First, good use of established AI tools. AI, in that sense, isn’t something that started three years ago with ChatGPT. It began with search, patent search, then translation, at least between the major languages like German and English, which most of my team masters, and then, I’d say about two years ago, drafting and replies to office actions. So there are established tools, and as with every tool, you need to use it repeatedly, at a certain volume, to really benefit from it. We try to work with the best of these established tools, driving wider adoption within the team and partnering with our law firms, since a substantial part of the legal work is done by our outside counsel. So this is a bit of a joint exercise. Second, there are constantly new tools coming up, which we try to test. There are many, so the time we have available to look into them is the limiting factor. I’d like to test more, because there might be a new frontrunner coming up that we should definitely try ourselves. But last, and certainly not least, we try to implement AI into everyday operations, into the office environment itself. The company made a good decision in spring to allow wide adoption of AI-specific tools in a secure environment, and that has opened up a lot of opportunities for everybody, paralegals and attorneys alike, and now it’s about fostering an open exchange on what’s possible and what’s not. And finally, since Infineon, like most corporations, doesn’t do everything in-house, there’s the question of what the benefits are that we can plan around, so that we get better quality. If the quality of the AI results isn’t as good as the attorney’s results before, then we shouldn’t use it, or we’d spend so much time cleaning it up afterwards that nobody could tell the difference. Second, we can now do things that weren’t possible before, because they were too tedious or took too long, or we get faster turnaround times, so we can respond more quickly to standardization proposals, what used to take many days we can now do in a few days, while still trusting the quality of the output. And only then comes what’s often discussed as efficiency gains, and the question that will probably be asked next year is how we split the pie: if both we and outside counsel benefit from using AI, what do we do with those benefits, how much stays with outside counsel, and how much should also benefit my budget? Rolf Claessen: But I clearly see the advantages of using AI, I’m using it myself, especially for cases like oppositions, where in earlier times you had to read through some 30 papers, patents and books, and now you can just ask the AI where you find a certain feature across those 30 documents. So it’s really useful in a lot of cases. Now my last question to you, and maybe the most important one, what do you think are the three most important messages you want to convey to our listeners, who are mostly IP professionals, both in-house and in law firms? Peter Berg: Do you want me to repeat things I said before, or can I think freely, in general? Free thinking, of course. Okay. Many of the things we spoke about now were about what to do next, and how to execute certain things, how to prepare. I believe that if you think about IP strategy, you think about it from the end: what do I need to assert, against whom, for what purpose, before building a portfolio of IP rights. So it’s not just about the deadlines you have today and tomorrow, which you somehow have to get through, but about taking a step back and thinking, what should this be good for in 10 or 20 years’ time. If you do that, it helps you get to litigation-grade patents and litigation readiness. We’re all busy, and there are so many things we need to do today and tomorrow, so it’s easily forgotten to look a little further down the road. So I’d say, think about a multi-year plan to achieve your goals, and there are hardly any moments, unless perhaps you’re one of the big AI platforms with unlimited resources, where that isn’t true. So plan for multiple years, but with a good cost-benefit ratio in mind. And I can’t really avoid mentioning AI here. It’s having a major impact on our operations. We’ve talked about it, we’ve tested it, but ramping it up is a different matter, and I think next year will be decisive. That’s really the full value chain, from interacting with our inventors to get better quality ideas, all the way to claim charting and negotiating, the bread-and-butter activities of patent attorneys, drafting office action replies is of course part of that too. I’m really keen to see that happen, and I’m trying to keep my team ahead of the wave. And I can only encourage everybody in our profession, if you don’t yet have a contact, team up with friends or colleagues in the profession, use the various associations that exist in our profession to network and discuss. The worst thing is to miss the train, and it takes time, this isn’t something you become good at overnight, so it needs time to train, and it’s good to start now. Rolf Claessen: Yes, that’s a very good point, and closing where we began, with the VPP, exchanging ideas among colleagues really is key, I think, important. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays, on our podcast. That was really interesting, and I think our listeners can learn a lot from this interview. Thank you very much. Peter Berg: Don’t mention it, it was a pleasure talking to you, and for me it was also the first time doing this kind of podcast. Thank you. Rolf Claessen: Thank you

Welcome to our three-part series exploring how AI is being used, and sometimes misused, by employees across the employment lifecycle from job applications, day-to-day employment, to workplace disputes. Each episode explores what this means for employers, the risks to watch for, and the practical steps your organisation can take. In this episode, we explore the growing use of GenAI by employees in workplace disputes, which can often result in voluminous and complex documentation and entrenched positions, and the practical steps employers can take in response.

In September 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia preliminarily enjoined the EPA from sending four Clean Air Act waivers to Congress for potential repeal under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). These waivers have allowed California to enact its own vehicle emission standards. Judge Beryl Howell held the CRA's bar on judicial review does not reach an agency's threshold determination that its action is a "rule," and found California had standing to challenge the EPA's June 2026 press release announcing it was transmitting the rules to Congress. What may happen next in this case; and what does this litigation suggest about the limits on using the CRA as a deregulatory tool? Join us for a panel discussing the decision and the broader state of play on CRA issues under the current administration.Featuring:Michael Buschbacher, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCAndrew Ceonzo, Counsel to U.S. Senator Schmitt and the Senate Judiciary Committee(Moderator) Daniel M. Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives

In Episode 218 of The Practice Podcast, Jeff Bast and Brett Amron welcome Bast Amron attorney Thomas Santi for a conversation about his path to the legal profession, his first year as an attorney, and the lessons he has learned transitioning from law school to the practice of commercial litigation and insolvency law.Thomas shares how an early interest in technology, coding, and science initially led him to consider several different career paths. Ultimately inspired by his father and godfather, he pursued law, completing college at 20 and graduating from law school at 23. A bankruptcy course during law school eventually led to an introduction to Bast Amron and an opportunity to join the firm as a law clerk.Although Thomas initially expected to pursue transactional work and was skeptical about litigation, his experience at Bast Amron changed his perspective. Now one year into practice, he reflects on discovering that he genuinely enjoys litigation and discusses some of its less visible realities, from the significant role of discovery to the communication and interpersonal skills required to work effectively with clients, opposing counsel, judges, and other professionals.Thomas also shares advice for law students and young lawyers: work hard, stay open to opportunities, and do not be too quick to say no. His own path demonstrates how an unexpected class, introduction, or professional opportunity can shape a career in ways you may not anticipate.Key Topics:Thomas Santi's path from coding and technology to lawCompleting college and law school on an accelerated pathHow a bankruptcy course led him to Bast AmronTransitioning from law clerk to attorneyLessons from his first year in litigationDiscovery and the realities of litigation practiceCommunication and interpersonal skills for young lawyersStaying open to unexpected career opportunitiesStreaming on YouTube, Spotify, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. We are also in the top ten percent of listened-to podcasts globally.

What does a litigation finance underwriter actually look for before investing in a law firm? Adam Rosen, Managing Director and Head of Underwriting at Rocade Capital, joins Mirena Umizaj Dumas to share what he has learned from working on both sides of litigation finance. Before moving into underwriting, Adam litigated mass tort cases at Ashcraft & Gerel, experience that now shapes how he evaluates law firms, case portfolios, and opportunities for funding. In this episode, Adam and Mirena discuss what makes a plaintiff law firm ready to raise capital, why case-level data matters during underwriting, and where firms often fall short. They also cover Rocade Capital's acquisition of Law Finance Group, the growing political and regulatory pressure surrounding litigation finance, and what law firm owners should understand about Management Services Organizations before giving up additional control. Topics include: • What lenders look for before financing a law firm • Why case-level data matters when raising capital • Rocade Capital's acquisition of Law Finance Group • Political and regulatory pressure on litigation finance • What law firm owners should know about MSOs • Adam's transition from litigation to underwriting Learn more about Adam Rosen and Rocade Capital. The Heart of Law is hosted by Mirena Umizaj Dumas, Founder and CEO of Mirena and Company. Learn more about Mirena and Company. Podcast production by Bebo Hajec of EMH Group.
Strategic Marketing. Without the Agency Overhead.


Student loan default and repayment rates have continued to be calculated through years of dormant collections, and some institutions could soon face single-year default rates high enough to threaten their Title IV eligibility. That risk is arriving alongside final OB3 rules, sweeping accreditation proposals from the AIM negotiated rulemaking, and midterm elections that will reshape every committee governing higher education. In this Washington Update episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Tom Netting, President of TEN Government Strategies. The conversation covers the federal regulatory and political changes that put institutional Title IV eligibility at risk and how the 2026 midterms could change them. Netting has advocated before Congress, federal agencies, and state governments for more than 35 years on behalf of private institutions of higher education. He walks through the final OB3 rules on earnings accountability and graduate and professional loan limits, the AIM Neg Reg proposals on transfer of credit and accreditor independence, the diffusion of the Department of Education across other agencies, and the committee-by-committee stakes of the midterm elections. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, provosts, and enrollment executives evaluating their institution's exposure to default rate penalties, accreditation changes, and the next round of negotiated rulemaking. Topics Covered Why default and repayment rates calculated during dormant collections threaten Title IV eligibility The OB3 earnings accountability metric and the Department's push for early implementation Litigation over graduate and professional loan limits and the exclusion of nursing AIM negotiated rulemaking proposals on transfer of credit, outcomes assessment, legal compliance, and accreditor independence How the midterm elections could reshape the Senate HELP, House Education and the Workforce, Veterans' Affairs, and Appropriations committees Real-World Examples Discussed Borrowers who enrolled in 2017 or 2018 and have not made a single loan payment heading into 2026 Nursing programs left off the professional degree list, triggering litigation that has halted enforcement of the loan limits for those programs The House advancing ten bills to codify the Department of Education's dismantling while the Senate HELP Committee rejected the idea on a bipartisan basis Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership Model your default and repayment rate exposure now, because no regulatory accommodation exists yet for rates calculated during years without collections. Review transfer credit policies and program-level outcomes, because accreditors will be responsible for enforcing both under the AIM proposals. Do not wait for the midterms to change the rules, because the Department plans post-election negotiated rulemaking on change of ownership, administrative capability, and financial responsibility regardless of the outcome. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/washington-update-title-iv-risk-midterms-neg-reg/ #HigherEducationPolicy #NegReg #ChangingHigherEdPodcast

Tax strategy is one of the most misunderstood and underutilized tools in litigation. In this episode of the ABA Law Student Podcast, tax law expert Jeremy Babener shares how he developed a passion for and career in tax law and settlement consulting. Jeremy breaks down the mechanics of structured settlements, explaining how tax attorneys collaborate with trial lawyers behind the scenes to preserve settlement value for plaintiffs. The discussion clarifies the key differences between tax controversy, estate planning, and tax planning, while debunking the myth that tax law requires complex math. Learn why tax law boasts high career satisfaction, how tax principles touch practice areas from family law to personal injury, and why taking a basic tax course is an essential move for any future attorney.Plus, our newest student co-host, Charnese Ballard joins Todd and Eve to bring her own perspective to the episode.  We're looking forward to hearing all she brings to the table over the rest of the season.(00:00) - Intro: Unlocking Tax Strategy in Litigation (01:45) - Welcome New Co-Host Charnese Ballard (02:35) - Guest Introduction: Jeremy Babener's Tax Career (04:32) - From Federal Tort Claims to U.S. Treasury Tax Policy (08:41) - Understanding Structured Settlements and Tax Strategy (13:32) - Collaborating with Trial Lawyers as Settlement Counsel (17:54) - Tax Controversy vs. Estate Planning vs. Tax Planning (22:25) - Debunking the Math Myth: Strategy and Statutory Interpretation (26:33) - Why Every Law Student Should Take Federal Income Tax (32:33) - Public Policy, IRS Disputes, and Career Satisfaction (38:07) - Host Debrief: How Tax Principles Touch Every Practice Area (44:20) - Class Selection Advice: Broadening Horizons in Law School Click here to view the episode transcript.

0:08 – “It's a barbarity, it's a form of medical torture.” That's what advocates say about ICE's treatment of pregnant, postpartum, and nursing women. In the first nine months of the Trump administration, there were 18 miscarriages among pregnant people held in ICE detention. Then, last fall – Immigration and Customs Enforcement stopped counting pregnancy loss under their watch altogether. We speak with Maanvi Singh, national immigration reporter for the Guardian, who co-reported the new investigation on ICE's medical care and data-keeping. We also speak with Anthony Enriquez, attorney and Vice President of U.S. Advocacy and Litigation at the Robert and Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center, representing women in ICE custody. More reading: Revealed: ICE lost count of miscarriages, while detaining a record number of pregnant women (The Guardian) 0:33 – Contaminated food and water, retaliation for speaking out, and medical neglect leading to deaths and tragedy – those are the stories not only of people detained by ICE, but also the daily reality of the nearly 2 million people incarcerated in the U.S. today. We're joined by Jeremy Busby, a writer and activist incarcerated in Texas. He is the founder of JoinJeremy, a nonprofit supporting incarcerated journalists and writers. Seth Stern is chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation. Links: JoinJeremy.org I've Seen Prison Conditions Kill. That's What's Happening at Delaney Hall. Jeremy Busby, Truthout The post “It's a barbarity”: Advocates call for ICE to stop detaining pregnant women; Plus, medical neglect and retaliation in U.S. prisons appeared first on KPFA.

It's back.  WIPL is back … but with a Nashville twist. Described as one of the "most inspiring and empowering women's conferences in the legal space," Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) offers an opportunity for unprecedented exchange with women in-house and outside counsel.  This premier legal event, gathering 900+ senior female legal leaders for top-notch networking with peers and mentors, has relocated to Nashville, Tennessee this year.  And there was no way Legal Speak wouldn't make it's way there ... bringing you all the best interviews with speakers and moderators from the amazing panels. In this episode, Host Cedra Mayfield had a reunion with of the former hosts of Legal Speak.  Vanessa Blum, Vice President of Innovation at ALM and Alaina Lancaster, Editor in Chief of Litigation and Law.com returned to the mic to share some WIPL thoughts.   Host: Cedra Mayfield Guests Vanessa Blum & Alaina Lancaster Producer: Charles Garnar Be sure to look for all the episodes from this year's WIPL conference on Law.com, Apple and Spotify.

In this episode, host Michelle Cannon engages with Lozano Smith Litigation Practice Group Co-Chair Sloan Simmons and Student Practice Group Co-Chair Kyle Raney to discuss the current state of the law in California under Mirabelli v. Bonta and Mahmoud v. Taylor.  The discussion reviews developments and what is anticipated in the courts through the conclusion of 2026 in relation to these cases and parallel litigation, and covers best practices and policy options for school officials due to the current status of the law. Show Notes & References 1:34 – Case background: Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) 606 U.S. 522 (Client News Brief 28 – July 2025) 10:24 – Advice for local education agencies (LEAs) on how to respond to overly broad opt-out requests 11:18 – Status of Mozert and Peloza cases (Mozert v. Hawkins County Bd. of Ed. (6th Cir. 1987) 827 F.2d 1058; Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 1994) 37 F.3d 517) 12:25 – California Department of Education (CDE) guidance on Mahmoud 12:38 – Case background: Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026) 607 U.S. 492 (Client New Brief 9 – March 2026) 16:28 – Regino vs. Blake (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2026) 2026 WL 121667 (now pending on appeal before Ninth Circuit) 20:36 – Litigation before Ninth Circuit on Assembly Bill (AB) 1955; Chino Valley Unified School District, et al. v. Newsom, et al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-3686; City of Huntington Beach et al. v. State of California, Court of Appeals Case No. 26-25 21:44 – Background on AB 1955 (Client New Brief 8 – March 2026) 30:52 – Takeaways for LEAs on pending litigation cases 32:26 – Recommendations for updating LEA policies and practices 34:51 – More takeaways for LEAs and staff   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Mark is joined by Morgan Wright, former Chief Security Advisor for SentinelOne and founder/CEO of the National Center for Open and Unsolved Cases, to discuss the ongoing debates surrounding artificial intelligence. Morgan puts current "AI doomsday" concerns into historical perspective by drawing parallels to nuclear deterrence, while identifying China as the primary national security threat in the emerging digital cold war. He also argues against government "kill switches," suggesting that legal liability and private sector innovation are the best mechanisms for managing emerging technology risks.

If you’re a customer with a pre-paid package with a business and it closes, will you ever get your money back? True Fitness and True Yoga customers and employees were left in the lurch last week after the businesses shuttered. Many have unused memberships, packages and services, and members have reported losses of more than $609,000. And it’s not just gyms. Prepayment packages are common at nail salons, spas, interior design and renovation firms, and bridal studios. When these businesses close, what happens to consumers’ money, and are there ways consumers can be better protected? In this episode of The Usual Place, Natasha chats with: • Jeremy Ko, a fitness entrepreneur who has opened 25 fitness gyms and three climbing gyms, and had to close three of them, and • Debby Lim, a senior partner in Dentons Rodyk’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group. She was also affected by the recent closure of True Fitness, having been a member since June 2025. Highlights (click/tap above): 2:08 What’s happening with the fitness industry? 6:44 Red flags that customers could possibly look out for 10:17 Is this the end of the “mega-gym” concept? 14:11 Why are True Fitness and True Yoga under “provisional liquidation”? 18:25 Why Jeremy’s gyms don’t offer prepayment packages 21:15 The hard-selling vs just saying no 26:08 Law reform needed to “save us from ourselves”? 30:10 Why aren’t more businesses signing up for CaseTrust accreditation? 34:39 Is consumer protection anti-business? Host: Natasha Ann Zachariah (natashaz@sph.com.sg) Read Natasha’s articles: https://str.sg/iSXm Follow The Usual Place podcast on IG: https://str.sg/8KNT Follow Natasha on LinkedIn: https://str.sg/v6DN Filmed by: Studio+65 Edited by: Eden Soh & Hadyu Rahim Executive producer: Danson Cheong Producers: Natasha Ann Zachariah, Elizabeth Law & Zachary Lim Follow The Usual Place Podcast and get notified for new episode drops every Thursday: Channel: https://str.sg/5nfm Apple Podcasts: https://str.sg/9ijX Spotify: https://str.sg/cd2P YouTube: https://str.sg/theusualplacepodcast Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg --- Follow more ST podcast channels: All-in-one ST Podcasts channel: https://str.sg/wvz7 Get more updates: http://str.sg/stpodcasts --- Get The Straits Times app, which has a dedicated podcast player section: The App Store: https://str.sg/icyB Google Play: https://str.sg/icyX -- #tup #tuptrfSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of the "Point-of-Sale Finance" series, Jason Cover is joined by colleagues Erin Edwards and Simon Fleischmann from Troutman Pepper Locke's Consumer Financial Services practice to shift the lens from regulatory compliance to litigation risk. The conversation broadens the frame beyond Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) to the full point-of-sale credit ecosystem (Pay in 4 products, embedded installment loans, retail installment sales contracts, and private label retail cards), explaining why litigation risk turns less on how a product is marketed and more on what the consumer saw, what they were told, and what happened when something went wrong after checkout.The episode traces the impact of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 2024 BNPL interpretive rule and its May 2025 withdrawal, making clear that regulatory retreat does not reduce exposure. Instead, it shifts the battleground to state statutes, private plaintiffs, and existing federal law. Simon and Erin then dig into Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) litigation on both ends: the front-end permissible purpose question when a credit report is pulled at checkout, and the back-end furnishing duties triggered when payments, refunds, and disputes are reported to credit bureaus. The discussion also covers the surge in pro se litigation, autopay and fee theories emerging as class actions under Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and the merchant-side risks around refund flows and dispute handoffs.The episode closes with a practical triage framework for managing point-of-sale litigation risk, including how to audit checkout scripts, preserve authorization and disclosure records, and structure merchant contracts to reflect operational reality — so that when a dispute arises, the evidence file is already built. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this Season 3 episode, co-hosts A. Valerie Mirko, Partner at Armstrong Teasdale LLP and leader of the firm's Securities Regulation and Litigation practice, and William Nelson, Senior Counsel at Eversheds Sutherland, are joined by Peter Chan, Partner at Baker McKenzie and former Assistant Regional Director at the SEC, for a deep dive into prediction markets. Peter draws on his expertise to break down how these markets work, key compliance considerations for in-house counsel and compliance professionals, and the evolving regulatory landscape at both the agency and congressional levels. Tune in for a timely overview of the regulatory, compliance, and investor protection issues that financial services professionals should have on their radar.Listen to recent past episodes of this series on the Brief Encounters channel, or see the whole series in one place on the show's PLAYLIST. Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.

“They can take it away.”Catherine Austin Fitts warns that programmable money could fundamentally change financial freedom and explains why stablecoins may pose an even greater threat than CBDCs.

In this edition of our banking litigation podcast, we consider some recent cases that will be most relevant to in-house lawyers at banks and financial institutions. This episode is hosted by John Corrie, a partner in our banking litigation team, who is joined by Ceri Morgan and special guest Alexander Gridasov. Speakers: John Corrie (Partner), Ceri Morgan (Knowledge Counsel), Alexander Gridasov (Senior Associate). You can find out more about the cases covered in this podcast on our blog at the following links: Court of Appeal finds no breach of so-called Quincecare duty in “derivative” action brought by APP fraud victims against PSP https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-07/court-of-appeal-finds-no-breach-of-so-called-quincecare-duty-in-derivative-action-brought-by-app-fraud-victims-against-psp Banking litigation podcast episode 51: Quincecare special – March 2025 https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-03/Banking-litigation-podcast-episode-51--Quincecare-special-%E2%80%93-March-2025 Court of Appeal finds administrator appointment arguably invalidated because of appointor's improper purpose https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-08/court-ofappeal-finds-administrator-appointment-arguably-invalidated-because-of-appointors-improper-purpose Multi-party claims: Court of Appeal upholds decision allowing over 5,000 motor finance claims to be brought together https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-04/multi-party-claims-court-of-appeal-upholds-decision-allowing-over-5000-motor-finance-claims-to-be-brought-together All aboard the omnibus claim form? https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-08/all-aboard-the-omnibus-claim-form High Court adjourns landmark securities class action trial due to risk of prejudice to overlapping criminal proceedings https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-04/Blog-post-template-text-only-version High Court considers appropriate split for trial of s.90 and 90A FSMA claims in Entain litigation https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-07/high-court-considers-appropriate-split-for-trial-of-s90-and-90a-fsma-claims-in-entain-litigation UK government consults on measures to speed up and simplify competition class actions regime https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-07/uk-government-consults-on-measures-to-speed-up-and-simplify-competition-class-actions-regime Law Commission to consider introduction of opt-out consumer class actions regime https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-04/law-commission-to-consider-introduction-of-opt-out-consumer-class-actions-regime

The billable hour isn't dead—but the way clients think about paying for legal work is changing.In this episode, I'm joined again by Jonathan Sablone of Sablone Advisory LLC to talk about the business side of litigation: what lawyers charge, what clients actually want from their fee arrangements, how companies manage legal spend, and what happens when litigation itself becomes an investment.We start with attorney fees. Jonathan walks me through fixed fees, capped fees, value-based pricing, and the monthly fixed-fee model he uses as fractional general counsel. One theme comes through pretty clearly: for clients, the issue isn't always getting the lowest possible price. Certainty and value matter. Knowing what something will cost—and what you're getting for that money—can be just as important.Of course, litigation has a habit of making budgets difficult. The other side gets a vote, cases evolve, and a matter that looked manageable can turn into scorched-earth litigation. We talk about the tradeoffs that come with alternative fee arrangements, how pricing can affect staffing and incentives, and the pressure in-house legal departments face to stay within budgets while defending the company.Then we turn to litigation finance, particularly how corporations use third-party funding to pursue affirmative claims without consuming the legal budget they need for defense work.Jonathan explains how funders evaluate cases, why having a strong claim is only the beginning, and why economics, strategy, timing, risk, and potential return all matter. We also get into litigation finance as an alternative asset class, why institutional investors are attracted to its potential returns and lack of correlation with broader markets, and how delays in the court system can change the investment equation.And if a company thinks it has a case worth funding? Jonathan has some practical advice: don't just call a funder and dump a million documents into a data room. Prepare the case for funding first. Understand the economics. Explain the strategy and timeline. And identify the weaknesses before the funder finds them.It's a conversation about legal fees, litigation budgets, risk, return, and the increasingly sophisticated economics behind modern litigation.Jump in to hear Jonathan's perspective on what clients really want from their lawyers, how litigation finance is changing the options available to companies, and why the business of litigation deserves as much attention as the legal strategy itself.If you enjoy the episode, subscribe, share it with a colleague, and leave a review. And I'd be interested to hear: What fee arrangement—or litigation funding model—have you seen work particularly well?______________________________________Thanks for listening! If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps. If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more. Tom on LinkedInEmerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedInEmerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site 

This week, I had the pleasure of speaking with Karen R. Harned, Director of Litigation and Legal Policy for the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), to discuss the hot off the press decision in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, the federal challenge to Oregon's Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law. We discuss NAW's mission, the role of NAW's Legal Policy Center, which Karen, as Director of Litigation and Legal Policy, leads, the reasons NAW sued the state of Oregon, and what Judge Michael H. Simon determined in his ruling of August 27, 2026. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2026 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

What is driving rising litigation and insurance costs in Texas—and what does Texans for Lawsuit Reform want lawmakers to do about it?On this episode of Texas Talks, host Brad Swail sits down with Ryan Patrick, the new CEO of Texans for Lawsuit Reform, to discuss his vision for the organization and its priorities heading into the 90th Texas Legislature.Patrick draws on his career as a prosecutor, judge, U.S. Attorney and private-practice attorney to explain why he believes Texas needs to refocus on civil justice and tort reform. He discusses the impact of large verdicts and litigation on insurance premiums, businesses and consumers, as well as TLR's concerns about medical damages, litigation surrounding commercial vehicles, and the incentives created by the current system.The conversation also looks ahead to the next legislative session, where Patrick says TLR will pursue reforms addressing medical damages, staged accidents, insurance fraud, liability involving criminal activity, and other areas of Texas civil law.Patrick also explains how he hopes to lead a new generation at TLR while building on the organization's three decades of work in Texas.00:00 — Introducing Ryan Patrick00:50 — From Prosecutor to Judge to U.S. Attorney03:18 — Why Patrick Joined Texans for Lawsuit Reform04:59 — A New Generation at TLR07:06 — Refocusing on Tort & Civil Justice Reform09:28 — Texas Courts & the Case for Reform13:48 — Venue Shopping & Consistency in the Courts16:40 — Litigation, Insurance Premiums & Rising Costs19:26 — How Lawsuits Can Impact Small Businesses23:03 — Medical Damages & TLR's Next Reform Push28:32 — Do Large Verdicts Make Texans Safer?30:34 — When Insurance Becomes Unaffordable33:04 — How Texas Compares with Other States40:41 — Staged Accidents & Insurance Fraud41:36 — Priorities for the 90th Legislature47:21 — TLR's Strategy for the Next Session48:10 — Final Thoughts Watch Full-Length Interviews: https://www.youtube.com/@TexasTalks Follow us on social mediaX: @Texas_DispatchInstagram: thetexasdispatchLinkedIn: The Texas DispatchTikTok: texas_talks_podcast Find more at The Texas DispatchYour source for state news, policy, and investigative journalism.https://thetexasdispatch.com

A business partnership is often the first deal an entrepreneur ever does, long before any M&A or capital raise. In this solocast, Corey Kupfer steps back from the usual deal categories to talk about what it actually takes to be in a partnership, drawing on his own partnerships across multiple businesses and decades of helping clients form, evolve, and separate theirs. Corey Kupfer is an attorney, dealmaker, and negotiator with more than 35 years of experience. Beyond drafting the documents for new partnerships, he has guided partners through evolution, buyouts, and separations, and he serves as a mediator for partners working to part ways well. WHAT YOU'LL LEARN: This episode covers the due diligence founders most often skip, how partnerships fall out of alignment over time, what a partnership agreement can and cannot protect, why no employee ever matches an owner's commitment, and how to separate through a negotiated exit rather than a costly fight. COREY'S PARTNERSHIP JOURNEY: Corey has been in several partnerships over the years, starting with a law firm partnership formed in the 1990s that ended over economic differences and a different view of perceived value, then reconnected warmly with those partners decades later. He also built a real estate investment partnership with his partner Dan that stayed strong through the great recession because of aligned values and superb communication. His last partnership ran from 2010 to 2015 and ended in a difficult split over vision, values, and culture. Even so, that chapter deepened his work in the RIA space and introduced him to clients and colleagues he values to this day, a reminder that even partnerships that end can create lasting good. KEY INSIGHTS: The personal and cultural due diligence matters most and gets skipped most. Even when you already know someone well, you still need an honest conversation about this specific venture, your shared vision and values, and your goals and timelines. Partnerships evolve because the business, the people, and the market all change. Following where clients and the market lead is usually smart, but that evolution can pull one partner into alignment with a new direction while leaving the other behind, even when they started out aligned. The agreement is a roadmap, not a guarantee. An operating agreement or shareholders agreement can set the methodology for a split or buyout, but whether partners actually stay together comes down to trust, respect, communication, and a willingness to evolve. Litigation is rarely the best way to separate. The damage to the business, clients, and employee retention often means everybody loses, and the opportunity cost of the distraction is something people almost never calculate. A partnership is one deal type among many. Go in eyes wide open, get as clear an agreement as possible upfront when you cannot yet know who it will affect, and keep checking whether the partnership stays in alignment and integrity for you. Perfect for entrepreneurs weighing a partnership, founders navigating a separation, and anyone who wants to structure the deal before there is anything to fight about. FOR MORE ON THIS EPISODE: https://www.coreykupfer.com/blog/businesspartnerships FOR MORE ON COREY KUPFER:https://www.linkedin.com/in/coreykupfer/ https://www.coreykupfer.com/ Corey Kupfer is an expert strategist, negotiator, and dealmaker. He has more than 35 years of professional deal-making and negotiating experience. Corey is a successful entrepreneur, attorney, consultant, author, and professional speaker. He is deeply passionate about deal-driven growth. He is also the creator and host of the DealQuest Podcast. Get deal-ready with the DealQuest Podcast with Corey Kupfer, where like-minded entrepreneurs and business leaders converge, share insights and challenges, and success stories. Equip yourself with the tools, resources, and support necessary to navigate the complex yet rewarding world of dealmaking. Dive into the world of deal-driven growth today! Episode Highlights with Timestamps [00:00] - Why business partnerships are often the first deal an entrepreneur ever does [03:28] - The due diligence you owe yourself, even with friends and family [07:33] - How partnerships and the people in them grow apart over time [09:20] - A PR firm buyout and an operator versus developer split, when growing apart is nobody's fault[13:44] - Corey's own partnerships, from a 1990s law firm to real estate with Dan to the 2010 to 2015 split[19:46] - Why no employee ever matches an owner's commitment, and why it can still feel good to be the only decision maker[23:32] - Building a clear agreement on decisions, economics, and the what ifs[25:57] - Separating well, opportunity cost, and the CPR process from Authentic Negotiating Host BioCorey Kupfer is an expert strategist, negotiator, and dealmaker with more than 35 years of professional deal-making and negotiating experience. He is an entrepreneur, attorney, consultant, author of Authentic Negotiating, and professional speaker whose firm helps clients structure business partnerships, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, and capital raises. He is the creator and host of the DealQuest Podcast. Related EpisodesEpisode 351 - Solocast 77: A solocast breaking down joint ventures, strategic alliances, and the exit provisions that work like a partnership prenup. Episode 336 - Devan Gonzalez: A real world business partnership where the partners set up a clear conversation to keep friendship and business separate. Episode 366 - Jodi Hume: The emotional dimensions of exits and the decisions founders face when it is time to move on. Keywords/Tagsbusiness partnerships, partnership due diligence, vision and values alignment, operating agreement, shareholders agreement, buyout, negotiated exit, partnership separation, opportunity cost, mediation, authentic negotiating, CPR framework, entrepreneurship, deal-driven growth, DealQuest Podcast, Corey Kupfer

John is joined again by producer Alexis Hyde for a second mailbag episode of Law Disrupted.  In it, John responds to questions submitted by listeners rather than conducting a traditional interview.  Topics include the future demand for lawyers, artificial intelligence, international legal practice, career development, and the experiences that shape effective litigators.Despite AI's growing ability to draft documents, analyze discovery, and perform other legal tasks, John expects the number of lawyers to increase over the next three years.  Although AI might someday reduce human involvement in less complex legal fields, demand for junior lawyers has not yet declined at sophisticated litigation firms.  At the highest levels of the profession, highly skilled lawyers remain essential.A law firm founded today should integrate an AI platform throughout its practice, with lawyers trained to become sophisticated users.  Because existing legal technology does not always fit specialized litigation workflows, firms have an incentive to develop proprietary systems tailored to their work. Geopolitical tensions have also transformed international legal practice.  Work in China has moved away from advising Western companies investing there and toward representing Chinese companies in disputes around the world.  As the domestic Chinese economy has faced challenges, Chinese companies have increasingly looked outside China for growth.  And, as Chinese companies expand their operations internationally, they encounter the same contractual, regulatory, and intellectual-property disputes faced by other global companies.  Meanwhile, India and Japan have become attracted extensive private-equity investments, driven respectively by economic growth in the case of India and undervalued assets in Japan.  To be successful, a young lawyer does not need a single defining mentor.  Young lawyers learn by observing talented colleagues and adversaries and by doing the work themselves.  Remaining focused and competitive is key to a highly successful career.  Litigation is an especially exciting field for young attorneys because every case requires learning new industries, facts, personalities, and legal issues. John has had a wide variety of experiences outside practicing law, including competing in the Ironman World Championship in Hawaii multiple times, owning a Michelin star restaurant and a museum, collecting art, and creating an artist residency program.  Experiences from these activities have strengthened his litigation skills by expanding his knowledge, ability to develop effective analogies and metaphors, and connect with people.  Finally, settlement decisions often reflect considerations beyond legal merits.  Reputational damage, adverse publicity, embarrassing disclosures, and the possibility that serious allegations will receive attention even if later dismissed can create substantial leverage and motivate parties to resolve otherwise defensible claims. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. QuinnProducer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

DEI was supposed to be dead in Arizona!

It's Thursday, September 3rd, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Iranian Muslim leaders killed 33 Christian ministers recently Iranian authorities have killed at least 33 Christian ministers in the past few months. The pastors were serving with Iran Alive Ministries, a Texas-based organization that supports house churches in the country. Authorities also arrested 131 Christians associated with the organization. Some of them are now on death row.  Despite this persecution, the ministry reports 5,849 Muslims have converted to Christianity this year. Iran Alive founder Hormoz Shariat  told the Baptist Press, “Christian prisoners consider prison as their place of ministry and they are leading many people to Christ.” The Apostle Paul was also a witness in prison. Acts 16:25 says, “But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.” Iran-American War reaches sixth month The war between Iran and the United States continued into its six month last week. The United States carried out strikes on Iran's southern coast on Tuesday. Iran fired on U.S. bases in the region. It's the biggest exchange between the two countries since July, according to Reuters.  Despite ongoing conflict, oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz have rebounded to about two-thirds of pre-war levels.  Christian convert from Iran received asylum in Canada A Christian convert from Iran recently received asylum in Canada after being deported from the U.S. Twenty-seven-year old Artemis Ghasemzadeh entered America in 2024. If returned to Iran, she would face extreme persecution. International Christian Concern noted, “Refugees fleeing religious persecution have traditionally been granted asylum on American soil, but they faced more stringent border and refugee laws under the Trump administration. Ghasemzadeh pursued asylum in Canada after lawyers advised her that the United States was unlikely to allow her to return.”  Litigation over the Abortion Kill Pill delated until after midterms Litigation in the U.S. over the abortion kill pill is being delayed until after the midterm elections in November.  The case began last December. Florida and Texas challenged the original approval of the abortion drug mifepristone in 2000 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  However, a federal judge paused the lawsuit on Sunday until at least December 1. If successful, the lawsuit would make the abortion drug unavailable in all states. Florida removing all Flock cameras Florida is removing all Flock cameras from state roads. Flock cameras automatically read license plates and capture vehicle data for law enforcement, neighborhoods, and businesses. The Florida Department of Transportation recently revoked permits for license plate readers, including Flock cameras along highways. The cameras are the subject of privacy concerns across the nation, especially alleged misuse of the cameras by police officers.  Listen to comments from Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. DESANTIS: “I'm all about having law enforcement have tools to be able to hold criminals accountable. I think that's important that we do that. No one's been stronger on law enforcement than me. But I don't want to have this become a surveillance state.” American church attendance up Churches are seeing more people attend worship services in recent years. A new survey from Lifeway Research found 54 percent of U.S. Protestant pastors report a growing church. Thirty-percent report a plateaued church. And 16 percent report a declining church.  Scott McConnell, executive director of Lifeway Research, noted, “Given the trajectory of many churches before COVID, we expected to see more pastors reporting declines in attendance. However, we continue to see a majority of pastors saying their attendance is higher than two years ago.” Archeological proof that Christ's tomb in garden And finally, recent archaeological discoveries in Jerusalem support biblical accounts. Francesca Stasolla is an archaeology professor at the Sapienza University of Rome. Last year, she led an excavation focused on the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. The site is believed to be the location of Jesus' crucifixion and the empty tomb. The area was used as a stone quarry before Roman occupation. Later it was used for agriculture and tombs. The archeological effort discovered ancient seeds and pollen there. Stasolla told Fox News Digital that the pollen and seeds date to “between the use of the quarry and the Roman age, when the area had a funerary use”, meaning it was used for burying the dead. This aligns with the New Testament. John 19:41 says, “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, September 3rd, in the year of our Lord 2026. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

AI is changing litigation - but is the defense bar keeping pace? On Episode 282 of The Lawyer Stories Podcast, Benny Gold sits down with Rob Martorana, Head of Partnerships at Theo Ai, for a fascinating conversation about artificial intelligence, litigation intelligence, case strategy, and the future of legal technology. Rob brings a unique perspective to the conversation. His career has taken him from serving as an Assistant District Attorney and practicing law to years in litigation finance and now the rapidly evolving world of legal AI. We discuss the technology and investment gap between the plaintiff and defense bars, why defense litigation has historically been difficult to standardize, and how AI can help legal teams better understand massive amounts of litigation data. Rob also shares his perspective on case valuation, settlement benchmarking, litigation finance, risk and exposure analysis, and how technology may change the way lawyers evaluate and manage cases.

In this episode of the National Crawford Roundtable podcast the guys talk about the SCOTUS ruling 5-4 that Trump's Ballroom/military complex can proceed during litigation. They also discuss Trump's oil deal with Venezuela, securing U.S. control over 65-billion barrels of oil at cost, and also helping to rebuild Venezuela, without taxpayer dollars. The guys look into Trump's deal with 9 more pharmaceutical companies this week, bringing the total number of these companies offering "Most Favored Nation" reduced prices for drugs sold to the U.S. And they pose the question, "Does AI have a liberal bias, and what effect might that have on elections?

For more information about the bankruptcy cases see https://cases.stretto.com/SVM/(Bankruptcy Case Numbers and Bankruptcy Debtor Names):26-10966Searles Valley Minerals Inc.26-10967Trona Railway Company LLC26-10968Searles Domestic Water Company LLC

Jeff is back after a long absence, and he explains why: the bipartisan insanity in America left him too disgusted to record, even for the nation's 250th birthday. He remembers the 1976 bicentennial, when kids collected special quarters, flags flew everywhere, and Americans actually liked their country. Compare that to now. What changed? Muslim terror supporters are winning elections coast to coast: Mamdani's New York, where tax dollars fund Israel-bashing puppet shows for four-year-olds, and Michigan, where Abdul El-Sayed will cruise into the Senate after answering a synagogue terror attack with "hurt people, hurt people." Jew hate is now the one issue uniting the far left and the Nazi right — and it wins. And Jeff is officially done defending Trump. Iran "unconditionally surrendered"? They're still firing missiles, rebuilding nuclear sites, and executing protesters while Trump begs for a deal and dangles F-35s in front of Turkey's fanatical dictator Erdogan. Compromised by Qatari billions or just a moron — either way, America's last chance is gone. Next week: Jeff finally takes on the Lindsay Clancy case.

In this episode of the SEER 100 podcast series, hosts Naveed Nanjee and Rishab Mahajan sit down with Todd Kim, former Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division and now a litigator at Pillsbury Law. This episode traces a century of environmental enforcement, from early common-law nuisance claims to today's sprawling statutory framework of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and CERCLA. Drawing on his experience across government and private practice, Mr. Kim discusses how landmark matters like the East Palestine train derailment and the Jackson, Mississippi water crisis shaped his "principled, practical, problem-solving" approach, and looks ahead to the challenges reshaping the field, including climate change litigation, PFAS contamination, environmental justice, and the growing role of AI in compliance and monitoring.

John is joined by producer Alexis Hyde for a special mailbag episode of Law Disrupted.  John responds to questions submitted by listeners rather than conducting a traditional interview.  Topics include how to become a great litigator, what distinguishes Quinn Emanuel's approach to litigation, and how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal landscape. Great litigators develop through experience and observation: working alongside accomplished lawyers, watching strategies develop, executing those strategies, and eventually teaching others.  The progression resembles the medical maxim “watch one, do one, and teach one.” Quinn Emanuel's litigation philosophy centers on achieving the best possible results, delivering value at a fair cost, and building long term relationships.   The firm's reputation as the “most feared” litigation firm is based on an annual survey of 350+ corporate general counsel conducted by independent consulting firm BTI.  For each of the last five years, those surveys have identified Quinn Emanuel as the firm the general counsel would least want to face in litigation.  Aggression is not always the best litigation strategy.  Depending on the case, restraint may be more effective.  No matter which strategy applies, lawyers should seize the initiative, identify the issues that will ultimately decide the case before the opposition does, and focus discovery and strategy on those issues rather than wasting resources on matters that will not affect the outcome. Artificial intelligence is fastest-growing source of new litigation.  Agentic AI raises questions about computer access, e-commerce, intellectual property, patentability, product liability, autonomous systems, mental-health harms, and responsibility for unpredictable machine-learning decisions.  Data centers present a wide range of potential disputes involving financing, permitting, construction delays, and changing local restrictions.  Recent litigation involving Perplexity and Amazon, a case in which Quinn Emanuel represented Perplexity, illustrates how existing computer-fraud statutes are being tested by new AI technologies. AI is not only transforming how law is practiced but in identifying claims.  New services identify potential lawsuits by comparing regulatory requirements with public information and detecting possible violations.  AI may also accelerate dispute resolution by giving parties earlier and more complete insights into evidence, risks, and case strengths, potentially encouraging earlier settlements. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. QuinnProducer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jay Vaughn is a Board Certified Truck Accident Law Advocate at Hendy Johnson Vaughn, P.S.C., whose practice focuses on trucking litigation, traumatic brain injuries, wrongful death, and other serious personal injury matters. In this episode, Mirena Umizaj Dumas and Jay discuss what separates a true trucking litigation specialist from a generalist firm, the insurance coverage details attorneys often overlook, and why referral fee sharing can become one of the most expensive ways to grow a practice. They also explore how artificial intelligence is changing client behavior after a recent client found Jay's firm by searching ChatGPT and Claude before Google. Jay shares the human side of the work as well, including the moment he recognized the effects of a client's brain injury before she did, how he manages the emotional weight of serious cases, and why trucking lawyers ultimately hope their work makes preventable crashes far less common. Learn more about Jay Vaughn: https://justicestartshere.com/about-us/team/jay-r-vaughn/ The Heart of Law is hosted by Mirena Umizaj Dumas, Founder and CEO of Mirena and Company. Podcast production by Bebo Hajec of EMH Group. Strategic Marketing. Without the Agency Overhead. https://www.emhgroup.co

Take control of your retirement strategy. BOOK A FREE CALL with Directed IRA and learn how to put your IRA to work beyond Wall Street!Download the slide deck here!In this episode of the Directed IRA Podcast, host Mat Sorensen sits down with Kris Kjolberg, Managing Director & Head of Capital Strategy at Pravati Capital, to break down litigation finance—a growing alternative asset class that many investors may not be familiar with.Mat and Kris discuss how litigation finance works, why law firms need access to capital, and how private lenders can step into a space where traditional banks often can't. Kris explains the difference between financing individual litigation cases and providing portfolio financing to law firms, along with the potential returns, underwriting process, risks, and what investors should understand before considering this type of investment.In This Episode, They Cover:What litigation finance is and how this emerging asset class worksThe difference between single-case litigation finance and law firm portfolio financeWhy traditional banks often cannot lend against law firm receivables and casesThe potential 16–24% industry yield range discussed for law firm portfolio financingHow litigation finance can provide non-correlated exposure within an alternative investment portfolioHow Pravati Capital evaluates law firms and investment opportunitiesThe importance of underwriting, diversification, case duration, and concentration riskPravati Capital's experience across 8,000+ transactions and 250+ law firmsThe risks investors should consider, including extension risk, regulatory risk, and repayment riskHow litigation finance can potentially fit into a self-directed IRAWhat the investment process looks like, including the investor data room and due diligenceAccredited investor and qualified purchaser requirementsFund structure, investment minimums, and the track record discussed during the episodeTo learn more about Pravati Capital go to pravaticapital.comConnect With Kris KjolbergEmail: kris@pravaticapital.comPhone: (623) 521-7343DisclaimerThis podcast and its content are provided for educational and informational purposes only and are not intended to provide investment advice. Nothing discussed in this episode should be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or endorsement to invest in any particular investment, fund, or asset.Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. Viewers and listeners should conduct their own due diligence and consult with qualified financial, legal, and tax professionals before making any investment decisions. Directed IRA does not provide investment advice or recommend specific investments.For questions or to learn more about this episode's topic, book a call with an IRA specialist here: https://directedira.com/appointment/Interested in learning more about alternative investments? Join us this year at the Alternative Asset Summit October 22 & 23, where you'll hear from industry experts and connect with like-minded investors exploring new ways to build wealth: https://altassetsummit.com/Other:Mat Sorensen: https://matsorensen.comMark J. Kohler: https://markjkohler.com/ KKOS: https://kkoslawyers.comMain Street Business https://mainstreetbusiness.com

Day Break | Doomsday, Deception & the Government Power Grab --- 00:00 - Monologue 19:14 – Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist discusses the economic implications of tariffs on Canada and argues that President Trump has an opportunity to address what he calls the “inflation tax” on capital gains. He examines how inflation affects taxable investment gains and what potential reforms could mean for investors and the broader economy. 28:11 – Col. Josh McConkey, Air Force Colonel, combat physician, and candidate for Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina. McConkey discusses the Lindsay Clancy murder trial and the women gathering outside the courthouse in support of Clancy. He examines the circumstances surrounding the case, the arguments being made by supporters, and the broader questions the trial has raised. 38:13 - Monologue Featuring Ivey Gruber 47:17 – Don Brown, North Carolina Republican U.S. Senate candidate, former Navy JAG officer, and former federal prosecutor. Brown discusses the mounting legal questions surrounding Anthony Fauci following his congressional testimony. He examines the scope of President Biden's pardon and whether there are potential legal issues or conduct that may fall outside its protections. 57:32 – Jonathan Dever, former Ohio State Representative, retired attorney, former CEO of Commercium Financial, COO of Proximity, Inc., and author of the forthcoming Grift trilogy. Dever discusses government spending and accountability, focusing on cases where taxpayers may be funding positions, programs, or contracts without receiving the work or results they were promised. 1:16:42 - Monologue 1:25:37 – Katie Heid, News Director for Michigan News Source. Heid delivers the Michigan Rundown, examining questions surrounding missing money and the firing of an executive director at an Arab American business organization. She also discusses the latest dispute surrounding Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and access to the state's voter rolls. 1:35:27 – Tyler Martinez, Director of Litigation at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation's Taxpayer Defense Center. Martinez discusses a legal challenge involving home distilling and asks whether the federal government's restrictions can legitimately be justified through Congress's taxing power. He examines the constitutional arguments and why the dispute could warrant Supreme Court consideration. 1:44:13 – Ivey Gruber, President of the Michigan Talk Network and co-host of Day Break. Gruber discusses the Trump administration's efforts to revoke thousands of visas from individuals accused of violating U.S. laws or visa requirements. She and Steve also return to the Lindsay Clancy trial, discussing the case and the controversy surrounding the public reaction to it. --- Check out our brand new podcast, 'Forgotten America'... Episode 24 is live NOW at Steve Gruber on YouTube! Link below: https://youtu.be/UrGZQdE62jA

Rancho Mesa President and CEO Dave Garcia sits down with Todd Lewis, Vice President of Claims at Republic Indemnity, to discuss the growing challenges facing California's workers' compensation system, including rising litigation and cumulative trauma (CT) claims. They explore how AI is helping claims organizations investigate and manage claims more effectively, along with practical strategies employers can use to reduce claim disputes, support employees, and foster a stronger workplace culture.Show Notes: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe to Rancho Mesa's Newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠, Republic IndemnityHost: ⁠⁠⁠⁠David GarciaGuest: Todd LewisEditor: Jadyn BrandtMusic: "Home" by JHS Pedals, “Breaking News Intro” by nem0production© Copyright 2026. Rancho Mesa Insurance Services, Inc. All rights reserved.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway joins the program to outline major enforcement actions. Attorney General Hanaway breaks down state settlements suspending sales of 7-OH kratom derivatives—commonly marketed as synthetic opioids in gas stations—and discusses federal efforts placing the compound on controlled substance schedules. The discussion covers federal law enforcement surging into St. Louis to target violent crime, along with consumer protection litigation against Dollar General over shelf-to-register price discrepancies. Hashtags:#CatherineHanaway #MissouriAG #Kratom #7OH #DollarGeneral #StLouisCrime #ConsumerProtection #MoPol #TalkRadioGuest List:Catherine Hanaway, Missouri Attorney General, discussed legal agreements suspending 7-OH kratom distribution, federal law enforcement partnerships in St. Louis, and price transparency enforcement.

Shakespeare and law school might not be as far apart as you thought. Guest Len Niehoff is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School and the author of the recent book Meeting Shakespeare at the Bar: Reading the Bard Through the Lens of the Law, a book written for both lawyers and non-lawyers offering practical insights into how Shakespeare's works illuminate the questions of law, ethics, and advocacy. As an innovative professor and a lifelong fan of the Bard, Niehoff began studying, and encouraging students to study, Shakespeare's interest in the rule of law, what puts the rule of law at risk, personal responsibility, and how law can be twisted into the unlawful. “It was kind of a natural transition to turn to Shakespeare,” he says. Indeed, Measure for Measure and The Merchant of Venice have trials at their heart. But Niehoff and his students look at how the law works it into other plays, such as Julius Caesar, MacBeth and Hamlet. Now imagine a group of lawyers meeting up with Shakespeare one evening at a local bar, sharing war stories, funny moments, and issues of ethics, and morality and the law. That's the book. Niehoff's fascinating examination of Shakespeare's work and the law may have you thinking about the human condition differently. Have a question, comment, or suggestion for an upcoming episode? Get in touch at MRogson@SkywardInsurance.com or JAReederJr@gmail.com. Resources Mentioned:  “Meeting Shakespeare at the Bar: Reading the Bard Through the Lens of the Law,” by Leonard M Niehoff “Tanner v. United States”, Justia  “Cattle: Related Cases,” AnimalLaw.info Twombly and Iqbal, “Twiqbal,” Wikipedia “The Crucible,” by Arthur Miller “Shakespeare Unlimited Podcast,” Folger Shakespeare Library “Macbeth,” Shakespeare, full play “Titus Andronicus,” Shakespeare, full play “Henry VI, Part 2,” Shakespeare, full play “Othello,” Shakespeare, full play “Hamlet,” Kenneth Branagh, full movie, free, YouTube American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section Subscribe to Litigation Radio: https://play.megaphone.fm/rhyxdryztyy2v3itq6sdlq

Send me a DM here (it doesn't let me respond), OR email me: imagineabetterworld2020@gmail.comToday I'm honored to have back on the show, LDS abuse whistleblower, survivor, investigative researcher, journalist and reporter, creator of LDS Abuse, excommunicated lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, loving father, nature lover, and a man on a mission to help members of the spiritual body known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints know what to expect from their church if they become victims of abuse: Justin Riggs aka LDS AbuseIn our last two episodes, Justin took us on a deep dive into the heart of institutional failure and the hidden structures that protect it. We first examined the case of Gordon Bowen - a world-famous advertising executive whose alleged patterns of abuse, financial misconduct, and decades-long ties to top LDS church leaders revealed a system prioritizing brand protection over victims. Through court documents, journals, and public records, we traced how an abuser remained connected to apostles and prophets even after excommunication, while survivors were left without recourse. We then expanded that conversation into the deeper roots: the quasi-religious secret societies, fraternities like Sigma Chi and Pi Kappa Alpha, Skull and Bones chapters, and patronage networks that have infiltrated Utah's elite and church leadership for over a century. From humiliation rituals and death oaths to the Black Supper and the pipeline of power, influence, and gain, we explored how these systems condition compromise, enable cover-ups, and make justice for survivors so elusive. These themes - ritual abuse allegations, historical infiltration, and the prioritization of secrecy over the vulnerable - have been the foundation of Justin's recent work. Today, we build on that conversation even more, continuing to connect the dots with the same relentless, evidence-based courage that has defined this journey. At the center of it all stands Justin, also known online as ‘LDS Abuse'  - a singular voice for truth whose life story is both a profound personal odyssey and a beacon of hope for every survivor still searching for light in the darkness. Justin's path began in the quiet corridors of personal curiosity. A lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he once sought simply to understand how good people could fail victims of abuse. That curiosity quickly evolved into a rigorous, evidence-based mission and his research extends far beyond individual cases. Justin built a public archive of evidence that empowers others to see the patterns for themselves. This relentless pursuit came at great personal cost: his work led to his excommunication from the church he had known his entire life. Yet he continues, driven by the unshakable conviction that sunlight is the best disinfectant and that secrets only allow abuse to metastasize. Justin's work has connected the dots between ritual abuse allegations, historical infiltration efforts, and the LDS corporation's prioritization of brand protection. He has revealed a system where victims are funneled into therapy modalities that undermine legal recourse, and where even prophets and apostles have been implicated in shielding perpetrators. Through painstaking documentation, he has transformed private pain into public knowledge, given voice to the voiceless, and offered a roadmap for accountability. What makes Justin truly awe-inspiring is not only the depth of his research or the courage to expose even his own family's pain - it is the profound humanity that burns beneath the fire. He speaks of chain-breakers and he believes in a God of both justice and mercy. He weeps with survivors, fights alongside them, and extends grace even when it costs him personally. Justin stands as a model of intellectual courage and moral clarity. A survivor who refused to stay silent. A researcher who turned personal cost into collective light. A warrior whose unwavering stand continues to remind us that one dedicated soul, armed with evidence and fierce love for the vulnerable, can help break the chains for generations yet to come. His courage continues to shift what is possible. His humanity continues to heal. And his story continues to inspire every one of us to stand a little taller, speak a little louder, and refuse to look away.

Health Affairs Publishing's Jeff Byers welcomes Erica Socker of Georgetown University to the pod to discuss her recent Forefront article that explores how the Medicare Advantage quality bonus program is working in the wake of a Clover Health-CMS lawsuit over star ratings. They discuss the court's ruling, CMS's policy response, and why the case could become a catalyst for broader reforms to a program that now distributes billions of dollars annually. Related Links:Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Program: Court Decisions Spotlight Flaws (Health Affairs Forefront)Sign up for Health Affairs' free newsletter to catch up on our new articles, podcasts, and events.

There's a lot going on across the tech, media and legal landscape, from the potential $111 billion Paramount-Warner Bros. merger, to landmark social media addiction rulings and a series of even bigger upcoming trials.  Eriq Gardner is a founding partner and national correspondent at Puck who mostly writes about legal affairs. He joins Kara to unpack some of the biggest stories on his beat, including the latest on California Attorney General Rob Bonta's 12-state antitrust lawsuit against Paramount, the politics behind the deal and whether a settlement is imminent.  Kara and Eriq also discuss what, if anything, could put the brakes on President Trump's many defamation cases against media companies. Plus, they look at why publishers pursue litigation against some AI companies even while they're making content-licensing agreements with others.  Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher. Come see Kara for a live taping of On at the Odoo Experience conference in San Francisco on September 2. Register for the conference on Odoo's website. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Winning a referral is one thing. Earning the next one is where firms separate themselves. Joe Vito is the founding partner of Vito & Dollenmaier Law, a Chicago personal injury firm that has recovered more than $100 million in under four years. With five attorneys, a litigation-heavy practice, and a perfect 5.0-star rating, his firm has become a trusted litigation partner for firms looking to maximize difficult cases. In this episode, Joe shares how his team built a referral-based business without competing on advertising, why every client works directly with an attorney instead of a case manager, and how aggressive litigation combined with exceptional communication keeps referral partners coming back. You'll learn: Why litigation creates stronger referrals than simply settling cases quickly. How a 24-hour communication standard protects referral partner relationships. What turns denied liability claims into valuable settlements. Why assigning attorneys to every file improves both client experience and case outcomes. How referral-focused firms compete against national advertisers without matching their marketing budgets. If you're ready to build a digital presence that commands authority and attracts high-value cases, head over to Rankings.io. Like what you hear? Hit Subscribe! We do this every week. If you want to keep learning from the best voices in PI, join us at PIMCON 2026. Buy your tickets now! Subscribe to our newsletter and get the freshest news every Monday: newsletter.rankings.io Get Social! Personal Injury Mastermind w/ Chris Dreyer powered by Rankings.io is on Instagram | YouTube | TikTok

Send us Fan MailThe hardest part of getting help in public safety is not finding resources, it's knowing who you can trust when the stakes are your career, your reputation, and your sanity. We pick up part two with employment attorney Bridget Truxillo to talk candidly about where union support shines, where conflicts of interest can quietly derail you, and why an outside employment law perspective can be the difference between getting steamrolled and getting a fair process. We dig into the nuts and bolts that too many first responders never get taught: reading your policies, protecting your rights in internal affairs investigations, and understanding how body worn camera policy can shape what you're allowed to review before an interview. Bridget also shares how real change can happen long before a lawsuit, including putting agencies on notice and forcing policy updates that protect an entire department, not just one person. If you work for a government employer, we also talk about why suing the government is different and why strategy matters. From there, we connect the legal side directly to first responder mental health. We unpack why confidentiality is the lifeblood of therapy and employee assistance programs, what questions to ask a therapist about privacy, and how stigma still shows up in hiring decisions and leadership culture. The thread running through everything is simple: asking for help is not weakness, it's how you stay in the fight without losing yourself. You can find Bridget at https://ladylawshield.com/about-usIf you got something from this conversation, subscribe, share it with a coworker, and leave a review so more first responders can find it when they need it.Support the showYouTube Channel For The Podcast

What separates a good trial lawyer from a great one? The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 280 features Steven Gursten of Michigan Auto Law, nationally recognized trial attorney, author, speaker, and leader in auto accident, trucking, traumatic brain injury, and No-Fault insurance litigation. Steve has recovered some of the largest reported auto and truck accident settlements and verdicts in Michigan and has been recognized as a Lawyer of the Year and consistently among the state's top attorneys. In this episode, we discuss Steve's journey as a trial lawyer, what it takes to successfully litigate serious injury and trucking cases, trial preparation and advocacy, and the responsibility plaintiff lawyers have to their clients. We also talk about his work helping make the trucking industry and our roads safer, his leadership within AAJ, the growing role of AI in the legal profession and what it could mean for lawyers and their practices, and what Steve has learned teaching trial lawyers across the country. Steve also recently received the Gary Pillersdorf Courage Award from the Belli Society, adding another chapter to an incredible career advocating for injured people.

The Washington Stand's Casey Harper provides an update on the Meta trial over social media harm to kids, primary elections, and developments in Iran. Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society, shares details