Podcasts about Mannheim

Zum Start ins neue Jahr gibts eine besondere Folge. Daniel sollte Gülcan wiedertreffen, diese ist leider krank und zack: Evelyn Weigert springt ein – im November live in Berlin! Ob eine einzige Folge reicht, um rauszufinden, ob bei den beiden der Vibe stimmt? Vielleicht starten sie mit einer neuen Freundschaft in 2026? Jetzt reinhören! Hier gehts zu den 1 plus 1-Folgen mit Daniel Boschmann & Gülcan Kamps: https://www.ardaudiothek.de/episode/urn:ard:episode:4aca395613bb99fe/ Hier gehts zu den 1 plus 1-Folgen mit Evelyn Weigert & Atze Schröder: https://www.ardaudiothek.de/episode/urn:ard:section:97a4d9ab6b062438/ Alle Infos zum Podcast-Festival in Mannheim am 10.04.-12.04.2026 und die Tickets gibt es hier: https://www.swr.de/home/swr-podcastfestival-100.html Lass uns gerne eine Bewertung da! Feedback, Freundschaftsbriefe & liebe Grüße an: 1plus1@swr3.de. Eine neue Folge gibt es jeden Mittwoch auf SWR3.de, in der ARD Audiothek und überall, wo es Podcasts gibt. Mehr Infos zum Podcast gibt es auf SWR3.de. Hier geht's zu unserem Podcast-Tipp der Woche: Baborie & Rakers – Was war los gewesen? https://www.ardaudiothek.de/sendung/baborie-und-rakers-was-war-los-gewesen/urn:ard:show:ae22215d2ae085cf/ (05:59): Herausforderungen des Datings (08:57): Peinliche Flirt-Momente (15:03): Freundschaft (25:16): Gesundheit und persönliche Herausforderungen (32:38): Bildung und persönliche Entwicklung (38:51): Einfluss der Eltern auf die Persönlichkeit (40:02): Mut zur Peinlichkeit im Alltag (42:30): Musik und Freundschaft (47:57): Wissen und Bildung im Alltag

!!! LET THE GEBALLER ENTERTAIN YOU !!! @PIK-FEIN present... POD. No.# 299- ♤ - REVOLTA @ SONDERSPUR | POD. #299 - FRANKFURT -♠♤♠ ⎯⎯ ♠♤♠⎯⎯ ♠♤♠⎯⎯ ♠♤♠⎯⎯♠♤⎯⎯ ♠♤♠⎯- ARTIST - ...INFOs... - @ REVOLTA Techno Dj & Producer Industrial, Hard & Darktechno, Acid Founder of Sound Guerilla Collektive Labels: Marwin Smith Records Industrial Techno United Oxytech Records Global Music Records BIO... Der DJ Revolta, aus der Rhein-Neckar-Region (bei Mannheim) mit Hauptwohnsitz in Frankfurt am Main, ist der Gründer des Underground-Techno-Kollektivs „Sound Guerilla Events“. In den 90er-Jahren entdeckte er seine Leidenschaft für Techno, doch seine Karriere begann erst vor zweieinhalb Jahren, nachdem ihm Freunde mehrmals dazu geraten hatten. Seitdem arbeitet er neben dem Auflegen und der Förderung anderer Talente auch als Produzent. Er ist außerdem Resident-DJ bei „Nostra Events“ und „Industrial Complex“. Sein Stil steht für düsteren Industrial Techno mit leicht melancholischen Klängen, schnörkellos und mischt die Szene gerne mit seinen harten Sounds auf.   LINKs.... Linktr.ee/revolta.techno @john-revolta-325688960 www.instagram.com/revolta_techno/ www.facebook.com/michael.wolf.581525/ www.youtube.com/channel/UCFdDg9m5NL-Ryhl7S5oJIYQ PASST SITZT & QUIETSCHT genau das richtige auf der SONDERSPUR !!! LASST ES EUCH.... GUUT GEHE & VIEL SPASS BEIM GENIEßEN !!! ...LET THE GEBALLER ENTERTAIN YOUUUUUUU !!! present... www.PIK-FEIN.com ...all LINKs @ one page... linktr.ee/PIK_FEIN

Liebe Freunde, Tobias Born hat einen großen Traum: Deutschlands nächster Comedy Star werden! Diesem Traum kommt er gerade mit seiner ersten LIVE Tour einen riesen Schritt näher und das freut mich persönlich sehr! Denn ich durfte Comedian Tobias Born für GAY OVER Podcast zum Gespräch treffen. Es war ein wirklich offener und persönlicher Gedankenaustausch, der mich immer wieder tief berührt hat. Natürlich hat uns Tobias von seinem Coming-Out erzählt, aber natürlich auch davon, wie er überhaupt zur Comedy gekommen ist und wie er sich auf den Weg macht, erfolgreicher Comedy Star zu werden. Hier die Termine für seine "FREAKS – Neue Männer braucht das Land" LIVE TOUR 2026:05. März 2026 – Bonn –06. März 2026 – Saarbrücken 07. März 2026 – Mannheim 11. März 2026 – Berlin12. März 2026 – Leipzig26. März 2026 – Düsseldorf28. März 2026 – Duisburg 10. April 2026 – München 16. April 2026 – Wien30. Mai 2026 – Hamburg Jetzt aber viel Freude beim Lauschen & einen dicken Knutscher aus der Hauptstadt, Euer Grey◾ Diese Episode wird präsentiert von ANUUX: Spare mit dem Code "GayOver15" ganze 15% bei deiner Erstbestellung auf https://www.anuux.de◾ FOLLOW TOBIAS BORNhttps://www.instagram.com/tobias_born_comedy/https://www.tiktok.com/@tobias_born_comedyhttps://www.youtube.com/@tobiasborn1907◾ FOLLOW MEhttps://www.youtube.com/@GayOverhttps://www.instagram.com/gay.over.podcast/tiktok.com/@gayover_podcast◾ PAYPAL: Unterstütze meinen PODCAST mit einer Spende, wenn DU magst ♡: https://bit.ly/3HxpeAJ ◾ WEBSITE: https://www.gay-over.de

Brian is: Managing Director, GlassRatner LinkedIn bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brianbuss I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 170 of our podcast IP Fridays! We also want to wish you a happy holiday season and a successful year 2026! Today's interview guest is Brian Buss. He is the managing director of GlassRatner and my co-host Ken Suzan talks with him about the valuation of intellectual property rights and damages in infringement cases. But before we jump into the interview, I have news for you! A US start-up called Operation Bluebird is trying to take over the “Twitter” trademark. It has asked the USPTO to cancel Twitter word marks, arguing that Elon Musk's company X no longer uses them after the rebrand. Led by a former Twitter trademark lawyer, Operation Bluebird also filed its own “Twitter” trademark application. Commentators note that X could face challenges defending the legacy marks if they are truly no longer in use. In parallel, the US debate on patent quality and review procedures is intensifying. The USPTO proposed controversial rule changes that would restrict Inter Partes Review (IPR). The proposal triggered substantial backlash, with more than 11,000 public comments submitted—over 4,000 of them via the civil liberties group EFF. In the EU, a major trademark reform will take effect on 1 January 2026. It aims to simplify procedures, recognize new types of marks (including hologram, multimedia, and motion marks), and make fees more SME-friendly (e.g., lower base fees for the first class and discounts for timely renewals). Opposition procedures will be further harmonized across the EU, including a mandatory “cooling-off” period, so mid-sized brand owners should adjust filing and monitoring strategies accordingly. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) continues to see strong uptake, especially in Germany. In the first 18 months since its launch on 1 June 2023, well over 900 cases were filed, with German local divisions (Munich, Düsseldorf, Mannheim, Hamburg) leading in patent actions. While many early cases were filed in German, English now dominates as the main language of proceedings. The court has largely met its timelines, with oral hearings typically held within 12 months of filing. China has reached a milestone in its patent system: for the first time, a country has surpassed 5 million active invention patents. CNIPA emphasizes a strategic shift from “quantity to quality,” citing growth in “high-value” patents and higher commercialization rates for university inventions. China has also led global PCT filings for six consecutive years—signals of rapid technological progress relevant to IP planning for German SMEs. On 4 December 2025, the USPTO issued new guidance on “Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations.” These declarations allow applicants to submit additional evidence to support patent eligibility for emerging technologies such as AI systems and medical diagnostics, aiming to reduce the risk that breakthrough inventions are excluded from protection under strict eligibility case law. In December, the European Patent Office (EPO) introduced new patent-quality measures. Third parties can now submit observations on published applications or granted patents via a simplified online form. These Third-Party Observations—supported by evidence and even filed anonymously—go directly to examination teams to flag potential obstacles early. The Interview with Brian Buss: Ken Suzan interviews Brian Buss, a valuation and damages expert who describes his work as “financial detective” work: identifying what intellectual property and other intangible assets are worth and how they translate into measurable economic benefits such as sales, profit, earnings, or cash flow. Buss emphasizes that “IP” should be understood broadly, not only as formal rights (patents, trademarks, copyrights), but also as brands, technology portfolios, internet and social media assets, know-how, and other business intangibles that help generate economic value. A central point is that IP is often a company's most valuable resource but is rarely measured well. Buss cites a “value gap” he observed in middle-market public companies: market capitalization often exceeds the asset values shown on balance sheets, and much of the gap is explained by intangible assets and IP. He argues that valuation helps companies understand ROI on IP spend (prosecution, protection, enforcement) and supports better strategic decision-making. He outlines common scenarios that trigger IP valuation: internal management needs (understanding performance drivers), disputes about resource allocation (e.g., technology vs. marketing), external events (M&A, licensing, partnerships, franchising, divestitures), and pricing strategy (how exclusivity supported by IP should affect product/service pricing). On “how” valuation is performed, Buss summarizes the three standard approaches—cost (replacement/replication cost), market (comparable transactions), and income (present value of future benefits). He adds that strong IP valuation requires integrating three dimensions of analysis: financial factors (performance data and projections), behavioral factors (customer demand drivers, perceptions, brand recall, feature importance), and legal factors (registration/enforcement history and competitive IP landscape). For practical readiness, he advises companies to improve data discipline: maintain solid books and records; develop credible budgets, forecasts, and business plans; document marketing activities; and actively collect/monitor website and social analytics (e.g., traffic sources, engagement). He stresses that these datasets inform valuation even for technology assets like patents, because they reveal whether protected features are actually marketed and valued by customers. A concrete example is domain names, which he frames as “virtual real estate.” In due diligence for a domain sale, he would focus on analytics showing whether the domain itself drives traffic (direct type-ins, branded search terms, bookmarks) versus traffic driven by other marketing efforts. The key question is whether the address is known and used as a pathway to the business. In closing, Buss argues that while gathering the necessary information requires effort, the investment typically pays off through greater awareness of the most valuable assets, better strategic decisions, and stronger support for growth opportunities. He presents IP valuation as a virtuous cycle of information, insight, and improved decision-making—summed up in his recurring theme: knowledge of IP value is “power” to increase business profitability and enterprise value. Here is the full transcript: Ken Suzan: Our guest today on the IP Fridays podcast is Brian Buss. Brian is a managing director with Glass-Rattner Advisory and Capital Group. Brian provides financial analysis, corporate finance, and expert testimony around the world. Ken Suzan: Mr. Buss provides strategic advice for owners of intellectual property portfolios, transactional services such as acquisition due diligence and purchase price allocation, and valuation services for trademarks, patents, copyrights, brand assets, trade secrets, technology assets, and intangibles. Ken Suzan: During his career, Mr. Buss has provided valuation opinions and financial analysis in business disputes and in transactions, and he has been retained as a testifying expert and consulting expert in federal court, state courts, and arbitration proceedings. Ken Suzan: As an expert, Mr. Buss has provided over 100 expert opinions, served as an expert witness at trial and deposition, and has been published in numerous journals and publications. He is also a participant in the International Task Force on Intellectual Property Reporting for Brands. Ken Suzan: Brian holds an MBA from San Diego State University and a bachelor's degree from Claremont McKenna College. Welcome, Brian, to the IP Fridays podcast. Brian Buss: Thank you, Ken, for having me. I appreciate the opportunity. Ken Suzan: Excellent, Brian. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about your professional background and what you do in the world of IP? Brian Buss: Sure. I'm a valuation professional and an economic damages expert. Most of my work involves valuing intellectual property and intangible assets and, in litigation contexts, assessing economic damages—often related to IP disputes. My role is frequently to translate legal or technical issues into financial outcomes. Ken Suzan: When people hear “IP,” they often think patents, trademarks, and copyrights. In your work, how broadly do you define intellectual property and intangible assets? Brian Buss: I define it very broadly. Of course, there are the formal rights—patents, trademarks, copyrights—but there are many other intangible assets that drive value: brand reputation, customer relationships, proprietary know-how, trade secrets, data, software, domain names, social media assets, and the systems and processes a business builds over time. All of those can create economic value, even if they're not always captured well on a balance sheet. Ken Suzan: Why is IP valuation important for companies—especially mid-sized businesses that may not have a large in-house legal or finance team? Brian Buss: Because IP and intangible assets can be a large portion—sometimes the largest portion—of what makes a business valuable, yet they're often not measured or managed with the same discipline as tangible assets. Valuation can help companies understand what is actually driving revenue, profit, and enterprise value. It can also help them justify investment in IP creation, protection, and enforcement, and it can support strategic decisions like licensing, partnerships, acquisitions, or pricing. Ken Suzan: You've talked elsewhere about a “value gap” between what's on the balance sheet and what the market thinks a company is worth. Can you explain that concept? Brian Buss: Sure. If you look at many companies—particularly in the middle market—you'll often see that market capitalization exceeds the asset values recorded on the balance sheet. A significant portion of that difference is attributable to intangible assets and IP that accounting rules don't fully recognize unless there's an acquisition. That “gap” is essentially the market saying, “There is value here beyond tangible assets,” and much of it comes from intangibles. Ken Suzan: What are the most common situations where a company needs an IP valuation? Brian Buss: There are a few big categories. One is transactions—M&A, due diligence, purchase price allocation, and financing. Another is licensing and partnerships—setting royalty rates, structuring deals, or evaluating whether a proposed license makes economic sense. A third is internal management: understanding ROI on R&D, marketing, or IP spend, or resolving internal debates about what is really driving business performance. And of course, litigation—damages, reasonable royalties, lost profits, and other economic remedies tied to IP. Ken Suzan: In practical terms, how do you value IP? What methods do you use? Brian Buss: The valuation profession generally relies on three approaches: the cost approach, the market approach, and the income approach. The cost approach looks at what it would cost to recreate or replace the asset. The market approach looks at comparable transactions—if you can find good comparables. The income approach is often the most relevant for IP: it looks at the present value of future economic benefits attributable to the IP, based on cash flows, risk, and time. Ken Suzan: In addition to the financial methods, what other factors matter? For example, legal strength or market perception? Brian Buss: Exactly. A strong valuation integrates financial, behavioral, and legal analysis. Financial is obvious—historic results, projections, margins, pricing. Behavioral is about demand drivers—what customers value, how they perceive the brand, how features influence purchasing decisions, and what drives loyalty or switching. Legal involves the nature of the IP rights, scope, enforceability, registration and maintenance history, and the competitive landscape. IP exists at the intersection of all three. Ken Suzan: What kind of information should a company have ready if they want to do an IP valuation? Brian Buss: Good books and records are essential—reliable financial statements, product-level revenue and cost data if possible, and credible budgets and forecasts. They should also document marketing activities, product positioning, and the role of IP in commercialization. For digital and brand assets, analytics matter—website traffic sources, conversion data, engagement metrics, and social media statistics. The more you can connect the IP or intangible asset to measurable economic outcomes, the stronger the valuation. Ken Suzan: That's interesting—people might not think that marketing analytics matter for patents. Can you explain how those link up? Brian Buss: Sure. A patent might cover a particular feature or technology, but the key economic question is: does that feature drive demand? If customers value it and it supports pricing power, adoption, or market share, that's important. Marketing materials, customer communications, sales training, and analytics can help show what the company emphasizes and what resonates with customers. It helps tie the legal right to real-world economic value. Ken Suzan: You mentioned domain names earlier. Many people underestimate them. How do you think about domain names as an asset? Brian Buss: I often describe domain names as virtual real estate. The question is whether the domain is a meaningful pathway to the business. In a valuation context, you'd look at the domain's role in generating traffic—direct navigation, branded search, bookmarks, and repeat visits. You'd also look at how much traffic is attributable to the domain itself versus paid marketing. If the domain is known and drives organic traffic and credibility, it can be quite valuable. Ken Suzan: So, if you're doing due diligence on a domain sale, what would you look for? Brian Buss: I'd look closely at analytics: traffic volume over time, sources of traffic, geographic distribution, conversion rates, and the relationship between marketing spend and traffic. If traffic is mostly paid and disappears when marketing stops, that's different than sustained direct navigation. I'd also look at brand alignment, risk factors, and whether there are disputes or competing rights. Ken Suzan: For a mid-sized company listening to this, what are the biggest “misses” you see—things companies do that reduce the value they can capture from IP? Brian Buss: A big one is not collecting and organizing information that demonstrates value. Another is not aligning IP strategy with business strategy—filing patents or trademarks without a clear plan for how they support products, markets, and revenue. Some companies also underinvest in documenting commercialization and customer impact, which becomes important in transactions and disputes. And sometimes they simply don't revisit their portfolios to understand what is still relevant and what is not. Ken Suzan: How should companies think about ROI on IP spend—both the costs of prosecution and the costs of enforcement? Brian Buss: They should start by identifying the economic role of the IP: is it supporting pricing power, is it protecting market share, is it enabling licensing revenue, is it reducing competitive entry? Then they can compare the costs—filing, maintenance, monitoring, enforcement—against the value it protects or creates. Valuation can provide a framework for that, and it can also help prioritize where to spend resources. Ken Suzan: When valuation is used in litigation, what are the typical types of damages analysis you're asked to perform? Brian Buss: Commonly, reasonable royalty analysis, lost profits, unjust enrichment, and sometimes disgorgement depending on the jurisdiction and the claims. The specifics depend on the legal framework, but the core is the same: quantify the economic harm and connect it causally to the alleged infringement or misappropriation, using financial data, market evidence, and assumptions that can be tested. Ken Suzan: Are there misconceptions about valuation that you'd like to correct for our audience? Brian Buss: One misconception is that valuation is purely subjective or that it's just an “opinion.” A good valuation is grounded in data, established methodologies, and transparent assumptions. Another is that intangibles can't be measured. They can be measured—often through the economic benefits they create and through evidence of customer behavior and market dynamics. It takes work, but it's doable. Ken Suzan: If a company wants to prepare for a future transaction—say a sale or a major partnership—what are some practical steps they can take now to make their IP story stronger? Brian Buss: Maintain clean records, develop credible forecasts, and document the link between IP and business results. Make sure registrations and maintenance are up to date. Track how IP supports products and competitive differentiation. Collect evidence of brand strength and customer loyalty. And if possible, structure internal reporting so you can see performance by product line or offering. That helps in due diligence and helps buyers or partners understand what they're paying for. Ken Suzan: Any final thoughts or advice for owners of intellectual property portfolios, transactional professionals, or executives listening to this? Brian Buss: I'd emphasize that the investment in gathering the information needed for evaluation typically pays off. It creates awareness of the most valuable assets, supports better strategic decisions, and makes it easier to pursue growth opportunities. IP valuation is a virtuous cycle of information gathering, analysis, deeper understanding, and then decision-making. Knowledge is power, and knowledge of the value of your IP is the power to increase the profitability and value of your business. IP valuation is a key element of the management toolkit. Ken Suzan: Brian, well said, and thank you so much for taking time today to be on the IP Fridays podcast. Brian Buss: Thank you, Ken. I really appreciate the opportunity.

In this episode, Dr. Christian Schmahl from Heidelberg University and Mannheim, Germany, answers a listener's question and talks about his experimental research assessing how seeing blood affects heart rate and arousal among both those who engage in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) and those who don't. He also shares insights into the role of self and blood in ritual and nonritual self-injury, including examples from different cultures about how they may interpret blood differently in the context of self-harm and even trance-like states.To learn more about Dr. Schmahl and his work, visit here. To stay up-to-date on next year's ISSS conference in Stockholm, Sweden (Wed-Fri June 24-26, 2026), visit https://www.itriples.org/conferences. Below are a few papers referenced in today's episode:Glenn, C. R., & Klonsky, E. D. (2010). The role of seeing blood in non-suicidal self-injury. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 66(4), 466-473.Naoum, J., Reitz, S., Krause-Utz, A., Kleindienst, N., Willis, F., Kuniss, S., Baumgartner, Ulf, Mancke, F., Treede, R.-D., & Schmahl, C. (2016). The role of seeing blood in non-suicidal self-injury in female patients with borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Research, 246, 676-682.Stacy, S. E., Pepper, C. M., Clapp, J. D., & Reyna, A. H. (2022). The effects of blood in self-injurious cutting: Positive and negative affect regulation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 78(5), 926-937.Hornbacher, A., Sax, W., Naoum, J., & Schmahl, C. (2023). The role of self and blood in ritual and nonritual self-injury. In E.E. Lloyd-Richardson, I. Baetens, & J. Whitlock (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of nonsuicidal self-injury (pp. 468-480). Oxford University Press.Follow Dr. Westers on Instagram and Twitter/X (@DocWesters). To join ISSS, visit itriples.org and follow ISSS on Facebook and Twitter/X (@ITripleS).The Psychology of Self-Injury podcast has been rated as one of the "10 Best Self Harm Podcasts" and "20 Best Clinical Psychology Podcasts" by Feedspot  and one of the Top 100 Psychology Podcasts by Goodpods. It has also been featured in Audible's "Best Mental Health Podcasts to Defy Stigma and Begin to Heal."

Zu Weihnachten schenken uns Leon und Bianca persönliche Insides: Wann verspüren sie Scham? Wie übernehmen sie Verantwortung und was hat Margot Friedländer damit zu tun? Das hören wir in der letzten Folge des Duos, die mit Margots Worten beendet wird: "Was war, können wir nicht mehr ändern, aber es darf nicht wieder geschehen." Alle Infos zum Podcast-Festival in Mannheim am 10.04.-12.04.2026 und die Tickets gibt es hier: https://www.swr.de/home/swr-podcastfestival-100.html Jetzt reinhören! Lass uns gerne eine Bewertung da! Feedback, Freundschaftsbriefe & liebe Grüße an: 1plus1@swr3.de. Eine neue Folge gibt es jeden Mittwoch auf SWR3.de, in der ARD Audiothek und überall, wo es Podcasts gibt. Mehr Infos zum Podcast gibt es auf SWR3.de. Hier geht's zu unserem Podcast-Tipp der Woche: (02:58): Weihnachten & Tradition (05:56): Vorsätze (09:08): Bedeutung von Ritualen (15:11): Scham und Körperlichkeit (39:02): Männlichkeit im Wandel (52:01): Verantwortung und persönliche Entwicklung (01:08:05): Freundschaft

Zum Jahresende sind die Rückblick-Formate unvermeidlich, weshalb auch die "MM"-Waldhof-Experten Rüdiger Ofenloch und Thorsten Hof da natürlich nicht zurückstehen wollen. Schließlich hatte das Fußball-Jahr von Abstiegskampf, zwei Trainerentlassungen und einer kleinen Wiederauferstehung für die SVW-Fans einiges zu bieten. Was war das Highlight, was der Flop des Jahres, gibt es ein Weihnachtswunder für den Rasen und wird der Waldhof-Wimpel am Christbaum ganz an die Spitze oder doch eher an die Zweige in der mittleren Ebene gehängt? Auf all diese Fragen gibt es Antworten im "Buwe Gebabbel" an Heiligabend.

Ref.: Michael Papenkordt, ICPE-Mission, Institut für Weltevangelisierung, Mannheim

In drei Podcastfolgen des True Crime-Podcasts „Verbrechen im Quadrat“ beleuchtet Gerichtsreporterin Agnes Polewka den Prozess um die Amokfahrt vom Rosenmontag in Mannheim. Teil 2 zum Prozess um die Amokfahrt ist den Opfern des Verbrechens gewidmet. Podcast-Host Polewka spricht mit den Anwälten der Nebenkläger und rekapituliert die Sachverständigengutachten, die das Sterben der Todesopfer dokumentieren. Auch spricht sie über die heldenhaften Versuche des Taxifahrers und anderer Menschen, den Amokfahrer zu stoppen.

In drei Podcastfolgen des True Crime-Podcasts „Verbrechen im Quadrat“ beleuchtet Gerichtsreporterin Agnes Polewka den Prozess um die Amokfahrt vom Rosenmontag in Mannheim. Teil 3 kreist um den Versuch dieser Redaktion, den Ausschluss der Öffentlichkeit für die Dauer des Psychiatrischen Gutachtens auszuschließen und um die Gründe für die nicht-öffentlichen Plädoyers. Natürlich beleuchtet Polewka in der finalen Episode auch die Urteilsbegründung des Gerichts.

In drei Podcastfolgen des True Crime-Podcasts „Verbrechen im Quadrat“ beleuchtet Gerichtsreporterin Agnes Polewka den Prozess um die Amokfahrt vom Rosenmontag in Mannheim. In Teil 1 rekonstruiert Agnes Polewka die Tat und die unmittelbare Zeit danach, sie beschäftigt sich mit dem Angeklagten, Recherchen über mögliche rechte Verstrickungen und den Zeugenberichten von Menschen aus dem näheren Umfeld des Mannes. Auch hat sie am Rande der Verhandlung mit dem Verteidiger des Angeklagten, Uwe Kosmala gesprochen.

Staats- und Regierungschefs der EU beraten weiter um russisches Vermögen, EU-Staaten ringen um Mercosur-Abkommen, Bundesinnenminister Dobrindt will Einreise von Afghanen aus Pakistan abschließen, Fünf Milliarden Euro für digitale Bildung an Schulen durch Einigung auf Digitalpakt 2.0, Einigung auf Sparpaket für Krankenkassen, Schufa-Speicherfristen laut Bundesgerichtshof grundsätzlich rechtens, Täter nach Amokfahrt in Mannheim zu lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe verurteilt, Eis- und Schneefestival in der Stadt Harbin in China, Das Wetter

Staats- und Regierungschefs der EU beraten weiter über russisches Vermögen, EU-Staaten ringen um Mercosur-Abkommen, Bundesinnenminister Dobrindt will Einreise von Afghanen aus Pakistan abschließen, Fünf Milliarden Euro für digitale Bildung an Schulen durch Einigung auf Digitalpakt 2.0, Einigung auf Sparpaket für Krankenkassen, Schufa-Speicherfristen laut Bundesgerichtshof grundsätzlich rechtens, Täter nach Amokfahrt in Mannheim zu lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe verurteilt, Eis- und Schneefestival in der Stadt Harbin in China, Das Wetter

Figaj, Patrick www.deutschlandfunk.de, Das war der Tag

Staats- und Regierungschefs der EU beraten weiter über russisches Vermögen, EU-Staaten ringen um Mercosur-Abkommen, Bundesinnenminister Dobrindt will Einreise von Afghanen aus Pakistan abschließen, Fünf Milliarden Euro für digitale Bildung an Schulen durch Einigung auf Digitalpakt 2.0, Einigung auf Sparpaket für Krankenkassen, Schufa-Speicherfristen laut Bundesgerichtshof grundsätzlich rechtens, Täter nach Amokfahrt in Mannheim zu lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe verurteilt, Eis- und Schneefestival in der Stadt Harbin in China, Das Wetter

Figaj, Patrick www.deutschlandfunk.de, Informationen am Abend

Ob "Nein"-Sagen für Bibi und Leon zur Kindererziehung gehört, welche (neuen) Diagnosen Bianca hat und wie der Weihnachtsbaum bei Familie Windscheid aussieht, das hören wir in der dritten Folge des Duos! Alle Infos zum Podcast-Festival in Mannheim am 10.04.-12.04.2026 und die Tickets gibt es hier: https://www.swr.de/home/swr-podcastfestival-100.html Jetzt reinhören! Lass uns gerne eine Bewertung da! Feedback, Freundschaftsbriefe & liebe Grüße an: 1plus1@swr3.de. Eine neue Folge gibt es jeden Mittwoch auf SWR3.de, in der ARD Audiothek und überall, wo es Podcasts gibt. Mehr Infos zum Podcast gibt es auf SWR3.de. Hier geht's zu unserem Podcast-Tipp der Woche: https://www.ardaudiothek.de/sendung/im-namen-der-hose-der-sexpodcast-von-puls/urn:ard:show:cd9e3c08f3a25efd/ (01:37): Weihnachtstraditionen (08:05) Erziehung ohne Grenzen (19:10): Beziehungen und Scheidung (30:39): ADHS und Diagnosen (43:27): Prävention und Aufklärung über mentale Gesundheit (56:35): Psychologischer Reichtum und Wachstum (01:01:06): Freiheit und Verantwortung im Leben

Das Jahr geht zu EndeDas Jahr geht zu Ende und 127 ist schon die vorletzte reguläre Episode in diesem Jahr. Wie es in den Weihnachtstagen weiter geht? Nun, da müsst Ihr Euch noch bis nächste Woche gedulden.Die U17 spielt noch bis Weihnachten durch. Daher gibt es auch am nächsten Wochenende U17-Hockey in der KA2. Dazu ein Spiel der Frauen 1b. Beide Teams waren auch die Einzigen, die am letzten Wochenende im Einsatz waren. Die U17 hält die gute Position mit zwei Siegen und die Frauen gehen mit dem untypischen Ergebnis von 0:0 ins Shootout und verlieren.Auch dieses „Wochenende“ bringt den Haien Punkte ein. Vier um genau zu sein. Dabei werden die Haie unter Jalonen und die 3-on-3 Overtime wohl keine Freunde mehr.Gegen die Adler kommen die Haie nach frühem Rückstand zurück und Austin rettet die Haie vor einer weiteren Overtime.Der Blick auf die Tabelle zeigt jetzt schon deutlicher einige Grüppchen. Die erste fünf setzen sich etwas ab, aber Berlin und Bremerhaven bleiben in Lauerstellung und kämpfen – aktuell – um den letzten Viertelfinalspot.Dahinter geht es um Platz 10 und ein Team wird am Ende das Nachsehen haben. Frankfurt und Iserlohn kommen nur in die Bredouille, wenn Dresden doch mal eine Serie startet, danach sieht es aber nicht aus.Denn Dresden verliert Spiele, die man nicht verlieren darf. Gerade im Duell gegen Iserlohn. Wir haben uns ein paar Spiele – inkl. des Kellerduells – genauer angeschaut.Dazu gibt es aktuelle Personalnews.Der ERC Ingolstadt scheitert als letztes deutsches Team im Viertelfinale der CHL. Mit drei schwedischen Teams und dem EV Zug geht es ins Halbfinale.Das ist aber für Haie-Fans interessant, denn Luleå ist im Halbfinale mit dabei und so gibt es die Möglichkeit den designierten neuen Haie-Trainer Berglund und sein Team mal einem „Eyetest“ zu unterziehen.Die Weihnachtsfeier der Haie mit den Fans im Henkelmännchen nach dem Sieg gegen Mannheim war kurz – im Vergleich zu früheren Ausgaben. Dennoch hatten wir gute Gespräche mit einigen Spielern und mit Euch. Wie immer ein großes Danke dafür!Wir schauen auf die kommenden zwei Spiele. Wolfsburg und Berlin stehen auf dem Programm. Wir gucken und die Gegner an und sehen zwei Teams die weit weg vom eigenen Anspruch sind. Natürlich aus völlig unterschiedlichen Gründen.Während die Haie dann aus Berlin direkt nach Frankfurt weiterfahren, gibt es von uns noch eine letzte Episode vor Weihnachten und dort findet dann die Besprechung des Frankfurt Spiels statt. In der nächsten Woche heißt es also schnell sein mit dem Sharkbite hören.Es wird eng in der Spitzengruppe. Die ersten neun Tipper haben die 290 Punkte Marke überschritten. Ihr vermisst Mathieu und Tube in der Aufzählung? Das beschreibt ihre letzten Tipps ganz gut.Wir cruisen weiterhin durch die Weihnachtszeit und ihr könnt gerne immer mit dabei sein.Wo könnt ihr uns überall folgen und liken? Wie erreicht Ihr uns? Wo findet Ihr uns?Folgt dem Sharkbite gerne auf Bluesky⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ kommt in den WhatsApp Kanal und abonniert die Podcastfeeds beim Anbieter Eurer Wahl.  00:00 Einleitung01:05 Junghaie02:20 Das vergangene Wochenende29:45 Das dreizehnte DEL-Wochenende41:20 CHL43:15 Haie-News47:55 Das kommende Wochenende65:50 Tippspiel66:25 Ausleitung

Was für eine irre Serie! Die Adler Mannheim gewannen vier Spiele in Folge zu null, ihre Torhüter Maximilian Franzreb und Johan Mattsson blieben fast 270 Minuten ohne Gegentor! Die MM-Sportredakteure Christian Rotter und Philipp Koehl analysieren in der neuen Folge des Adler-Checks, dem Eishockey-Podcast des Mannheimer Morgen, warum die Siegesserie der Adler am Sonntag beim 4:5 in Köln zu Ende ging. Sie blicken auch auf das anstehende Marathon-Programm mit Spielen fast jeden zweiten Tag. Klar ist dabei auch: Die erste Bewährungschance des neuen Stürmers Brendan O'Donnell dürfte da nicht lange auf sich warten lassen.

Die Pressekonferenz mit Dallas Eakins und Kari Jalonen, sowie das Interview mit Ryan MacInnisZu finden in unserem ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spielbericht auf der Homepage

Tschüss! Zumindest von der großen Bühne des Theaters her. Denn heute gibt es den Abgesang von HP und das verfluchte Dreckskind. Ein bisschen lustig war es ja schon, muss man ja zugeben. Majo und Mostrich, eure beiden Masseure aus Mannheim, ranten ein letztes Mal über diese Geschichte. Doch natürlich kommt das finale Furioso des Stücks nicht zu kurz, und so wird auch noch einmal leidenschaftlich darüber diskutiert, wie wichtig es ist, im Licht zu stehen! Aber hört selbst. Viel Spaß!Werbung: koro.com Code: HÜTTE für 5% Rabatt

Wie viele Werke er und seine Frau besitzen, kann Manfred Fuchs gar nicht sagen. Schon als Schüler kaufte er von seinem ersten Taschengeld erste Drucke und saß stundenlang in der Kunsthalle Mannheim, um berühmte Werke zu kopieren. Doch nach dem frühen Tod des Vaters musste sich Manfred Fuchs vor allem um das Familienunternehmen kümmern. Die Leidenschaft für die Kunst ist aber immer geblieben. Heute, im Ruhestand, genießt er seine beeindruckende Kunstsammlung und verbringt viel Zeit in seinem Atelier beim Malen.

Krise, Desaster, Misere – so viele schlechte Nachrichten aus Mannheim in den vergangenen Monaten. Doch damit ist jetzt Schluss! In der neuen Folge sind ausschließlich gute Nachrichten erlaubt. Eben die ultimative Lobhudelei auf Mannheim. Und Florian Karlein und Timo Schmidhuber nehmen das ernst. Wer etwas Negatives sagt, muss Strafe zahlen – das gilt auch für Pfarrer Friedel Goetz, der zu Gast ist.

SALIERI: La Cifra (selec.) (Aria de Lisotta “E voi da buon marito…. Aria de Eurilla “Alfin son sola… Sola e mesta) (12.08). C. Bartoli (sop.), Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment. Dir.: A. Fischer. Falstaff, ossia le tre burle (selec.) (Principio del Acto II) (19.12). J. Gregor (baj.), M. Zempleni (sop.), D. Gulyas (ten.), I. Gatti (bar.), E. Panczel (mez.), T. Csurja (bar.), E. Vamossy (sop.), Coro de Cámra y Orq. de Cámara Salieri. Dir.: T. Pal. Die Hussiten von Naumburg (selec.) (15.48). Orq. Mozart de Mannheim. Dir.: T. Fey.Escuchar audio

In dieser Ausgabe diskutieren die Analysten Ernst Wieninger und Thomas Brandl über den Lauf der Red Bulls München.Was macht die Red Bulls so gefährlich?Mannheim wieder an der Spitze - Powerplay als Trumpf?Straubing, Augsburg und Frankfurt in der Krise -  was sind die Gründe dafür?DEL 2:Krefeld grüßt von der Spitze - aber Vorsicht vor den Verfolgern aus Kassel, Rosenheim und Landshut ist geboten.Weißwasser, Crimmitschau und Regensburg - was sind die Rezepte für ihre Erfolge in der Liga?Bietigheim endgültig in der DEL 2 angekommen - führt der Weg in die Pre Play Offs?Natürlich darf auch die Rubrik "eiskalt erwischt" nicht fehlen!Kann Thomas Ernst ein Bein stellen?Viel Spaß beim HörenStay SafePS: Mit unserem neuen Partner THE LOCKERROOM erhält jeder Kunde, der einen Artikel aus den Ligen NHL, NFL, MLB und NBA erwirbt, einen Rabatt von 10% mit dem Code "THA"!www.thelockerroom.store

Wieso Leon wegen ChatGPT nächtelang nicht schlafen konnte und wie alt Bianca werden möchte und was sie dafür tut, erfahren wir in der zweiten Folge des 1 plus 1-Dezember-Duos. Jetzt reinhören! Alle Infos zum Podcast-Festival in Mannheim am 10.04.-12.04.2026 und die Tickets gibt es hier: https://www.swr.de/home/swr-podcastfestival-100.html Lass uns gerne eine Bewertung da! Feedback, Freundschaftsbriefe & liebe Grüße an: 1plus1@swr3.de. Eine neue Folge gibt es jeden Mittwoch auf SWR3.de, in der ARD Audiothek und überall, wo es Podcasts gibt. Mehr Infos zum Podcast gibt es auf SWR3.de. Hier geht's zu unserem Podcast-Tipp der Woche: https://1.ard.de/neapolitanische_saga?cp=1plus1_freundschaftaufzeit (02:54): Freundschaft (08:54): Einsamkeit und ihre Auswirkungen (18:07): Freundschaft und Gemeinschaft (21:13): Technologie und zwischenmenschliche Beziehungen (25:23): Gesundheit und Alter (36:06): Ernährung und Bewusstsein (50:33): innerer Antrieb und Druck (56:44): Zufriedenheit im Alltag

SALIERI. A calamita de’cori (Sinfonia a due orchestre, Acto III) (8.38). Orq. Mozart de Mannheim. Dir.: T. Fey. Les Danaides (selec.) (Acto 1) (17.59). J. van Wanroij (sop.), P. Talbot (ten.), T. Christoyannis (bar.), K. Velletaz (sop.), T. Dolié (bar.), Les Chantres du Centre de Musique Baroque de Versailles, Les Talens Lyriques. Dir.: C. Rousset. Cassazione en Do Mayor (15.57). Ensemble Italiano di Fiati.Escuchar audio

Der SV Waldhof surft auf einer kleinen Erfolgswelle: Drei Siege unter dem neuen Trainer Luc Holtz gab es noch nie und das jüngste 2:1 gegen Saarbrücken war zudem ein Sieg für die Seele. Nach fünf vergeblichen Anläufen gab es mal wieder einen Erfolg im prestigeträchtigen Südwest-Vergleich. Darf nun also von mehr geträumt werden, nachdem es nur noch drei Punkte bis zum Relegationsplatz Richtung 2. Liga sind? Die "MM"-Waldhof Experten Rüdiger Ofenloch und Thorsten Hof gehen dieser Frage in der neuen Folge ausführlich nach, lassen die besten Momente gegen Saarbrücken Revue passieren und regen sogar eine Fan-Freundschaft der nicht gerade in Sympathie verbundenen Lager an. Das hat ebenso seine Gründe wie der optimistische Ausblick auf die nächste Aufgabe der Waldhof-Profis in Regensburg.

This week, Bertie Harrison-Broninski speaks with Professor Annette Kehnel, Chair of Medieval History at the University of Mannheim. Kehnel gives us a potted history of sustainability and argues that sustainable practices have existed throughout history, yet our modern collective memory is influenced by ideas of resource exploitation introduced in the 18th and 19th centuries.  Annette Kehnel is currently a visiting fellow at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland. She is the author of The Green Ages: Sustainable Practices, winner of the 2021 NDR Book Prize. Its English translation by Geshe Ipsen has been shortlisted for the 2025 Schlegel-Tieck Prize. Further reading:  The Green Ages: Medieval Innovations in Sustainability, Annette Kehnel, Profile Books Die sieben Todsünden: Menschheitswissen für das Zeitalter der Krise (The Seven Deadly Sins: Human Knowledge for the Age of Crisis), Annette Kehnel, Rowohlt Governing the commons : the evolution of institutions for collective action, Elinor Ostrom, Cambridge University Press Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, Naomi Oreskes, Bloomsbury Managing the Lake Constance Fisheries, ca. 1350-1800, Michael Zeheter, Berghahn Send us a textClick here for our website to read all our most recent Land and Climate Review features and pieces.

Die Adventszeit verbringen dieses Jahr Leon Windscheid und Bianca Heinicke zusammen bei 1 plus 1. Es wird sich kennengelernt, über Bibis Instagram-Pause und Schönheitsideale gesprochen. Wie beeinflusst die beiden davon sind? Jetzt reinhören! Alle Infos zum Podcast-Festival in Mannheim am 10.04.-12.04.2026 und die Tickets gibt es hier: https://www.swr.de/home/swr-podcastfestival-100.html Jetzt reinhören! Lass uns gerne eine Bewertung da! Feedback, Freundschaftsbriefe & liebe Grüße an: 1plus1@swr3.de. Eine neue Folge gibt es jeden Mittwoch auf SWR3.de, in der ARD Audiothek und überall, wo es Podcasts gibt. Mehr Infos zum Podcast gibt es auf SWR3.de. Hier geht's zu unserem Podcast-Tipp der Woche: https://1.ard.de/keinkinderwunschstaffel2 (08:27): Einfluss von Geld und Sicherheit (10:09): Bibis Rückzug aus der Öffentlichkeit (17:45): Sehnsucht nach der analogen Zeit (22:55): Druck der sozialen Medien (30:46): Gesundheit und das System der Gesellschaft (37:48): Ausmistens, Konsum und innere Leere (46:16): Breathwork und Körperbewusstsein (51:05): Schönheitsideale und Selbstakzeptanz

Wir befinden uns in Sakkara, Ägypten, 2630 v. Chr. Ein Mann steht auf der Spitze eines Bauwerks in schwindelerregender Höhe, während der letzte Stein an seinen Platz geschliffen wird. Für Imhotep ist es die Krönung seines Lebenswerkes: ein von Menschenhand geschaffener Berg. Er prüft die Fuge, während seine Arbeiter schweigend warten. Er nickt kurz. Es ist fertig. Imhotep's Pyramide ist die erste, aber es werden noch weitere folgen. Größere Pyramiden, schönere Pyramiden, Gräber voller Schätze, Kammern mit komplexen, heiligen Inschriften. Doch was trieb diese Menschen an, jahrzehntelang an ihren gewaltigen Monumenten zu arbeiten? Welchem Zweck dienten sie? Und welche Geheimnisse verbergen sie vielleicht noch? Das ist eine kurze Geschichte über… die Pyramiden.Mit Dank an Dr. Gabriele Pieke, renommierte Expertin auf dem Gebiet der altägyptischen Kunstgeschichte und Leiterin der Abteilungen Antikensammlung und Neue Medien an den Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen in Mannheim.Die Folge direkt weiter hören auf Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3fSHO7X1siqysZhPBzpAxCDie Folge direkt weiter hören auf Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/die-pyramiden/id1758917860?i=1000695559106Den Podcast "Eine kurze Geschichte über..." findet ihr auf allen gängigen Podcast-Plattformen, etwa Spotify (Link) und Apple Podcast (Link)_______________________Unterstützt Epochentrotter via Steady oder Paypal!Epochentrotter Steady: https://steady.page/de/epochentrotter/aboutEpochentrotter Paypal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Epochentrotter Webseite⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Epochentrotter Discord⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Epochentrotter Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Epochentrotter Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Epochentrotter Twitch⁠Bild: Noiser Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Im Juli und August völlig überfüllt. Im Winter tot. Geht diese Schlagzeile in Sachen Tourismus auf Usedom? Sicher nicht. Das Reiseradio wirft gerne den zweiten Blick und spricht mit Menschen, die das wissen.   Heringsdorf im Sommer – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Ausgangslage Schlagzeilen sind gerne etwas „knallig“. Deshalb erreichen sie auch das, was sich ihr Erfinder dabei gedacht hat. Des Öfteren steckt zwar ein Quäntchen Wahrheit drin, die ganz große „Wahrheit“ liefern sie jedoch nicht. Grund genug nachzufragen, wenn Touristiker von Belebung der Nebensaison und von Besucherlenkung reden. Michael Steuer, Geschäftsführer der Usedom Tourismus GmbH – Foto: Usedom Tourismus GmbH Nachgefragt habe ich bei Usedom-Tourismus, als ich von Belebung der Insel in besucherschwachen Zeiten hörte. Die ersten Antworten habe ich von Michael Steuer bekommen. Er ist Geschäftsführer der Usedom Tourismus GmbH. Ja, aber… Wie fast immer, ist an der Sache was dran, aber selbstredend ist es nicht die komplette Darstellung eines Problems und der angestrebten Lösungen. In diesem Podcast reden wir über Ankunfts- und Abreisestaus. Das ist ein Problem aufgrund der schwierigen Verkehrssituation, wenn „Alle“ nach Usedom wollen. Sie konzentriert sich auf die Hauptsaison und natürlich auf Feiertage wie Ostern, Pfingsten und die berühmten Brückentage. Auto Südliche Inselzufahrt: Brücke Zecherin – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Usedom ist eine Insel und hatte bisher nur zwei Zufahrten fürs Auto. Das sind die Brücken in Wolgast und Zechlin. Ein Nadelöhr, das sich im Anschluss auf den schmalen Bundestraßen (B 110 und B 111) eher noch verstärkt. Das mag Urlauber abschrecken. Meist ist es jedoch so, dass sich die Menschen, wie bei anderen Zielen, schlechtgelaunt durch den Stau durcharbeiten. Abhilfe schaffen, benötigt nicht nur Ideen, sondern kostet auch Zeit. Michael Steuer berichtet von den teils geplanten, teils im Bau befindlichen und gerade fertiggestellten Alternativen. Günstig Laden vor der Insel : Station in Anklam – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Zusätzlich ist Usedom bisher noch nicht im Elektrozeitalter angekommen. Lediglich Zwei Schnell-Ladestationen mit je 2 Säulen habe ich ausmachen können (Koserow, Kaufhaus Stolz & Vattenfall, Heringsdorf). Viele Hotels besitzen inzwischen Wechselstrom-Ladesäulen mit 11 bzw. 22 KW Ladefähigkeit. Das dauert dann gerne mal 6 Stunden bis der Akku wieder voll ist. Hier gibt es also noch Nachholbedarf. Bahn Usedomer Bäderbahn in Wolgast – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Früher, ja früher (lang ist's her) gab es mal eine direkte Bahnstrecke von Berlin aus. Die Überreste der Bahnstrecke kann man heute noch am Hafen in Karnin sehen. Es ist der Mittelteil der Bahnbrücke, die Ende April 1945 unnötigerweise von der Deutschen Wehrmacht gesprengt worden war. Bis dahin gelangte man auf direktem Weg in zweieinhalb Stunden nach Berlin. Rest der Karniner Hubbrücke: Gesprengt 1945 – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Wie es mit einer schnelleren Bahnverbindung nach Usedom aussieht, steht derzeit in den Sternen. Die Touristiker haben Ideen, erzählt Michael Steuer „off the records“, aber das müsse ja noch nichts heißen. Flugzeug Ferienflug-Winterschlaf: Flughafen Heringsdorf – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Ich gebe es nicht gerne zu, aber wer in Süddeutschland lebt, hat bis nach Usedom per Auto um die 1.000 Kilometer und damit gerne mal 10-12 Stunden Fahrzeit vor sich. Da ist es sicher nicht verkehrt, dass es inzwischen einmal pro Woche (immer samstags) von Mai bis Oktober Flugverbindungen zum „Airport Heringsdorf” gibt (Friedrichshafen – Heringsdorf z.B. 90 Minuten). Ich wollte wissen, was da ging, was künftig geht und ob sich das denn lohnt. In der letzten Saison gab es Verbindungen aus Kassel, Mannheim, Friedrichshafen, Luxemburg, Frankfurt und Zürich. Derzeit ist Winterschlaf in HDF, bis die Saison wieder beginnt. Nebensaison beleben Hauptargument für Usedom, so Michael Steuer, sei die Natur und die sei immer da. An den Strand (wenn auch ohne Baden) könne man auch im November (stimmt und ausprobiert). Das Achterland böte viele Wanderwege und es gäbe auch eine große Zahl von Museen, die geöffnet sind. (stimmt auch und getestet im Historisch-Technischen Museum Peenemünde und im DDR Museum in Dargen). Ja, wetterbedingt gibt es einige Angebote (Beispiel Schiffchen fahren) im Winter nicht. Das historische Kraftwerk Peenemünde – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Usedom habe die höchste Dichte an Wellnessangeboten in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Kulturelle Angebote von Musik über Theater bis zu Ausstellungen gäbe es ebenfalls reichlich. Ferienwohnungen würden immer mehr mit der eigenen Sauna oder einem Kamin ausgestattet. Gastronomische Angebote gäbe es auch überall. Gerade Hotels seien da gute Anlaufpunkte. In den größeren Orten, wie den Kaiserbädern (Ahlbeck, Heringsdorf, Bansin) oder Zinnowitz warte ein vielfältiges Angebot. Preisbewusste Angebote Ein wichtiges Argument für die Nebensaison seien auch die Preise für Hotels und Ferienwohnungen. Welche Abschläge kalkuliert werden können, habe ich mir im Podcast erzählen lassen. So viel nur: Das lohnt sich, auch für Familien oder Großeltern mit Enkeln. Wer schon immer mal davon träumte in einem 5-Sterne Hotel abzusteigen, wird eventuell von den Preisen überrascht sein. Travel in Style: 5-Sterne Hotel Ahlbecker Hof – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Die Hauptsaison mitten in der Nebensaison Wie an vielen Orten, kommt rund um Weihnachten wieder Leben auf. Wer spontan noch eine Unterkunft suche, könne Weihnachten 25 sogar noch Glück haben. Wer allerdings den Jahreswechsel auf Usedom verbringen möchte, dürfte es schwer haben. Bis Januar: Inselglitzern, hier am Kölpinsee – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Der Test folgt Besuchenswert: Die neue Seebrücke in Koserow – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Natürlich war ich nicht auf der Insel, um nur ein einziges Gespräch zu führen. Wenn Nebensaison, dann gleich eine knappe Woche im November. Die Details folgen hier in einem Folge-Podcast noch vor Weihnachten. Seid gespannt. Neben vielen besuchten Angeboten, wird es auch einige Übernachtungstipps (Überraschungen inklusive) geben. Vorweg schon mal: Ich habe weniger erwartet und mehr bekommen. Information Usedom – Tourismus Usedomer Novemberimpressionen alle Fotos aufgenommen zwischen dem 11. und 15. November 2025 Morgenkaffee: Am Balmer See – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Auch im November Sonnenschein: Wasserschloss Mellenthin – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Mittags am Meer: Strandweg in Zinnowitz – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Kurz vor Dämmerung: Golfhotel Balmer See – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Letzte Einfahrt: Peenemünde – Yachthafen – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Romantik am Abend: Strandhotel Seerose – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Regennacht: Promenade in Ahlbeck – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILD Ahlbeck: Seebrücke am Morgen – Foto: Rüdiger Edelmann / ttb-media TON-TEXT-BILDThe post D-RR301 TALK: Usedom – Die Insel und die Nebensaison first appeared on Deutsches Reiseradio (German Travelradio).

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

Heute sprechen die Babos nur ganz kurz über die Märkte: Letzte Woche schlecht, diese Woche wieder gut – denn heute geht es eigentlich um ein cooles Thema, nämlich das Investmentbabo-Finale. Ja, ihr habt richtig gehört: Michael und Endrit sind mal wieder auf der Suche nach den fittesten Beraterinnen und Beratern Deutschlands, um dann gegen Ende Februar den Investmentbabo oder – zum allerersten Mal – die Investmentbabina in einer besonderen Location mit cooler Atmosphäre auszuzeichnen. Aber zuerst müssen die Babos – ähnlich wie bei der Weltmeisterschaft – überhaupt erst zwei Qualifikationsrunden für das Finale durchführen. Da die letzten Jahre ausgefallen sind, wollen Michael und Endrit das Finale auf 25 Teilnehmende statt nur 10 vergrößern. In der heutigen Folge werden sogar zwei Plätze verlost – an diejenigen, die 5 Fragen richtig beantworten. Diese Fragen werden im Laufe des Podcasts gestellt, also müsst ihr ganz genau aufpassen! Zwischendurch reden Michael und Endrit nämlich auch über Gott und die Welt – und die Geschichte des Podcasts, der mittlerweile im sechsten Jahr ist.

In ihrer letzten Folge sprechen Jasna und Steffi darüber, wie wichtig es ihnen ist, ihre demokratischen Pflichten wahrzunehmen, wer ihre größten Kritikerinnen sind und was für sie Freundschaft bedeutet. Ob sie Freundinnen geworden sind? Jetzt anhören! Alle Infos zum Podcast-Festival in Mannheim am 10.04.-12.04.2026 und die Tickets gibt es hier: https://www.swrticketservice.de/veranstaltungen/detail/1-plus-1?layout%5Bdyn%5D=1&cHash=7752b098a3a8f18d99e823330daaeac5 Lass uns gerne eine Bewertung da! Feedback, Freundschaftsbriefe & liebe Grüße an: 1plus1@swr3.de. Eine neue Folge gibt es jeden Mittwoch auf SWR3.de, in der ARD Audiothek und überall, wo es Podcasts gibt. Mehr Infos zum Podcast gibt es auf SWR3.de. Hier geht's zu unserem Podcast-Tipp der Woche: https://www.ardaudiothek.de/sendung/0630-der-news-podcast/urn:ard:show:6ee1f347f4e3de26/ (03:02): Politik und Verantwortung (12:13): Erfahrungen auf der Bühne (17:56): Kritik von Freunden und Familie (20:35): Interviews (24:02): Ordnung und Chaos im Alltag (27:02): Reisen (39:01): Freundschaft

Live from Time Warp in Mannheim, Germany

SALIERI: Pafio e Mirra ossia I Prigionieri di Cipro (Música de ballet basada en la ópera L’Europa Riconosciuta) (23.56). Orq. Mozart de Mannheim. Dir.: T. Fey. Variaciones sobre “La Follia di Spagna” (20.56). Orq. Sinf- de Londres. Dir.: Z. Peiko.Escuchar audio

Ihr habt Lust, das Lachlabor mal live und vor Ort zu erleben? Dann los! Am 12. April 2026 könnt ihr Tina und Mischa in Mannheim treffen: Um 15.30 Uhr treten sie beim Podcast-Festival vom Südwestrundfunk auf. Tickets für die Show im Capitol in Mannheim findet ihr auf www.podcastfestival.de

In dieser Woche fragen sich Steffi und Jasna, wieso es der Mensch an die Spitze der Evolution geschafft hat, sie sprechen übers Älterwerden und ein mögliches Leben nach dem Tod. Ob sie daran glauben? Jetzt reinhören! Alle Infos zum Podcast-Festival in Mannheim am 10.04.-12.04.2026 und die Tickets gibt es hier: https://www.swrticketservice.de/veranstaltungen/detail/1-plus-1?layout%5Bdyn%5D=1&cHash=7752b098a3a8f18d99e823330daaeac5 Lass uns gerne eine Bewertung da! Feedback, Freundschaftsbriefe & liebe Grüße an: 1plus1@swr3.de. Eine neue Folge gibt es jeden Mittwoch auf SWR3.de, in der ARD Audiothek und überall, wo es Podcasts gibt. Mehr Infos zum Podcast gibt es auf SWR3.de. Hier geht's zu unserem Podcast-Tipp der Woche: https://1.ard.de/philosophisches-radio (05:52): Düfte und Erinnerungen (09:01): Glauben an Zeichen und Aberglauben (14:56): Tattoos (33:54): Gesellschaftliche Erwartungen und der Druck auf Frauen (36:24): Älter werden (44:01): Die Dummheit der Menschheit und ihre Konsequenzen (48:01): Wünsche und Träume für die Zukunft (53:39): Lieblingsbücher und Podcasts (56:52): Körperbild und Selbstwahrnehmung (01:00:16): Gartenarbeit und Pflanzenpflege

SALIERI: Concierto para violín, oboe, violoncello y orquesta en Re Mayor “Triple concierto” (25.27). T. Fueri (vl.), H. Holliger (ob.), T. Demenga (vc.), Camerata Bern. Dir.: T. Fueri. Il mondo alla rovescia (Obertura) (5.03). Orq. Mozart de Mannheim. Dir.: T. Fey. Il genio degli stati: Soneto (2.56). Deh, si piacevole. Ode (5.56). I, Eerens (sop.), U. Eisenlohr (p.).Escuchar audio

"Im Prinzip Familie“ von Daniel Abma hat den Deutschen Dokumentarfilmpreis 2025 gewonnen.Er wurde erstmals auf Filmfestival Mannheim Heidelberg verliehen.

Jedes Jahr im Herbst wird ein Roman ausgewählt, mit dem sich möglichst viele Menschen in Mannheim mehrere Wochen lang auf vielfältige Weise beschäftigen können. Angeboten werden Lesekreise, Diskussionen, Uni-Seminare und Schreibwerkstätten und Vieles mehr. Ausgesucht wird das jeweilige Buch von einer Jury aus Vertretern verschiedener kultureller Einrichtungen, Schulen, Bibliotheken und der Universität Mannheim. In diesem Jahr hat man sich auf den Roman „Alles immer wegen damals“ von Paula Irmschler geeinigt.

Hallo! Hier ist eine neue Folge von deinem Lieblings Hagrids-Hütten-Podcast. Manu und Michel, die beiden Mediziner aus Mannheim, besprechen offen und fröhlich das Thema Krankheiten in Hogwarts und der Zaubererwelt. Passend zur aktuellen Erkältungssaison wird über magische Mittelchen, das Krankenhaus und vieles mehr geschwätzt. Es kann eventuell auch zu Abschweifern kommen und gekichert wird auch gelegentlich.Viel Spaß!Werbung: www.koro.com HÜTTE für 5% Rabatt!

Brückner, Florian www.deutschlandfunk.de, Das war der Tag

Britischer Prinz Andrew verliert royale Titel, Prozessbeginn nach Todesfahrt von Mannheim, Rentner können auf deutliches Plus hoffen, APEC-Gipfel in Südkorea, Linksliberale D66 gewinnen Niederlande-Wahl, Weniger Rodungen im Regenwald, Aufräumarbeiten nach Hurrikan "Melissa", Stiftung Warentest warnt vor Produkten von Online-Plattformen Shein oder Temu, Reformationstag und Halloween: Glaube begegnet Grusel, Das Wetter

Britischer Prinz Andrew verliert royale Titel, Prozessbeginn nach Todesfahrt von Mannheim, Rentner können auf deutliches Plus hoffen, APEC-Gipfel in Südkorea, Linksliberale D66 gewinnen Niederlande-Wahl, Weniger Rodungen im Regenwald, Aufräumarbeiten nach Hurrikan "Melissa", Stiftung Warentest warnt vor Produkten von Online-Plattformen Shein oder Temu, Reformationstag und Halloween: Glaube begegnet Grusel, Das Wetter

Prinz Andrew in Großbritannien: Absturz eines Prinzen, Prozessbeginn um Amokfahrt mit zwei Toten an Rosenmontag in Mannheim, Ein Jahr erleichterter Geschlechtseintrag, Abschiebung nach Afghanistan trotz bekannter Menschenrechtsverletzungen vor Ort, Wero: Europas Paypal Alternative, Weitere Meldungen im Überblick, Mittendrin aus Schmölln: Sorge vor Schwimmbadschließungen, Kirchenasyl in Rom: Der Naumburger Cranach-Altar, Die Wetteraussichten

Prinz Andrew in Großbritannien: Absturz eines Prinzen, Prozessbeginn um Amokfahrt mit zwei Toten an Rosenmontag in Mannheim, Ein Jahr erleichterter Geschlechtseintrag, Abschiebung nach Afghanistan trotz bekannter Menschenrechtsverletzungen vor Ort, Wero: Europas Paypal Alternative, Weitere Meldungen im Überblick, Mittendrin aus Schmölln: Sorge vor Schwimmbadschließungen, Kirchenasyl in Rom: Der Naumburger Cranach-Altar, Die Wetteraussichten

Figaj, Patrick www.deutschlandfunk.de, Das war der Tag

Lololololol und lel miteinander! Es geben sich heute Mühe für Sie: Marlboro und Maverick – Ihre beiden Multitalente aus Mannheim.In dieser hervorragenden Folge geht es wieder um das verfluchte Dreckskind – aber in lustig!Ein Podcast-Erzeugnis der obersten Güteklasse, gespickt mit lustigen Anekdoten, Fehlinterpretationen und brandaktuellen politischen Statements.Viel Spaß, ihr Würste!Werbung: koro.com Code: HÜTTE für 5% Rabatt