Podcasts about member states

The European Space Agency's (ESA's) Member States commit €22.1 billion Euros in contributions at the annual ministerial meeting. Europe's Vega C rocket launched an advanced Korean Earth-observation satellite from French Guiana. A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket launched on November 28 from Vandenberg Space Force Base for the Transporter-15 mission, and more. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Be sure to follow T-Minus on LinkedIn and Instagram. T-Minus Guest Bailey Reichelt from Aegis Space Law and Matthew Linton from Linton Space Law bring us Space Law FAQs. Selected Reading ESA Member States commit to largest contributions at Ministerial Watch Europe's Vega C rocket launch an advanced Korean Earth-observation satellite to orbit today- Space South Korea's largest satellite launched on Nuri rocket in ambitious space mission SpaceX - Transporter-15 Mission Hatches Open, Station Crew Expands to 10 - NASA Russia accidentally destroys its only way of sending astronauts to space- The Independent CHAPEA Crew Begins Stay Inside NASA's Mars Habitat for Second Mission Share your feedback. What do you think about T-Minus Space Daily? Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us by completing our brief listener survey. Thank you for helping us continue to improve our show.  Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at space@n2k.com to request more info. Want to join us for an interview? Please send your pitch to space-editor@n2k.com and include your name, affiliation, and topic proposal. T-Minus is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

The fourth podcast in the 2025 F.E. podcast series was an interview with Thomas Byrne, Minister of State for European Affairs and Minister of State for Defence, by Barry Colfer, Director of Research at the IIEA in Dublin. The podcast is part of the Future-proofing Europe Project which is kindly funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The theme of the podcast was Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the EU in the second half of 2026. Minister Byrne commenced the interview by describing his long-standing experience and interest in European Affairs and explained the roles and responsibilities of the Presidency which include chairing a wide range of meetings at every level in Dublin, Brussels and Luxembourg and representing the EU and the Member States at various international summits during the term of the Presidency. At domestic level, several government departments are already working on the administrative arrangements and preparations needed to run an efficient and impactful Presidency and to find consensus on policies of major import. As to the public visibility of the Presidency, he said it would mainly be capture by the arrival of EU leaders for an informal European Council and for a meeting of the European Political Community, (EPC) in Ireland during its Presidency with leaders from up to 47 European countries. A further 22 informal Ministerial meetings, a quarter of which would be held outside Dublin, and 250 other working group meetings would be hosted around Ireland led by civil servants and Ministers. They would complement the work of the Committee of Ambassadors to the EU, (COREPER) in meetings in Brussels and Luxembourg. The Minister said that he had opened a consultation portal to elicit citizens' views on what Ireland's priorities should be, and to invite them to suggest a theme for Ireland's Presidency. He expressed a strong interest in engaging the public interest in the Presidency. In terms of Presidency priorities, he said that some are already part of the ongoing legislative agenda in the EU and will need to be advanced. Others will derive from the agreed Presidency trio programme which involves the Irish, Lithuanian and Greek Presidencies over an 18month period, the purpose of which is to maintain continuity and consistency across the three Presidencies. As to likely priorities, which will be formally announced in June 2026, the Minister mentioned values, such as democracy and rule of law, competitiveness, the Single Market and simplification agenda, security and defence, the MFF and Enlargement. As well as capturing the imagination of citizens the main objective then would be move forward as an honest broker representing the voices of all Member States and to see where Ireland can have an impact on shaping the agenda and achieve consensus on major portfolios, all of which would enhance the reputation of the country, both from an administrative and diplomatic point of view.

The European Court of Justice has ruled that all EU member states must recognise same-sex marriages lawfully concluded in any other member state, even if they don't allow such marriages at home. But what sparked this ruling and what are the reactions from countries where same sex marriages are illegal?Join us on our journey through the events that shape the European continent and the European Union.Production: By Europod, in co production with Sphera Network.Follow us on:LinkedInInstagram Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The 61st episode of Food for Europe looks back at the conference held on 17 October 2025 in Brussels that brought together all the players in the Farm Accountancy Data Network, FADN. It was an opportunity to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the network but also to look to the future with the evolution of the FADN into Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN). While the accounting database has played a key role in assessing the impact of agricultural policies and adjusting them, it has also provided farmers with a better understanding of the management of these policies. As for the academic world, there are countless research works made possible by this field data that is made available across all Member States. By integrating environmental and social data, the FSDN aims to reflect the impact of recent developments in the Common Agricultural Policy and shape its evolution in the future. Only farmers who volunteer will be involved. To fully understand the added value of FADN and FSDN, Food for Europe spoke on the fringes of the conference to Patrizia Engelhart-Getzinger, a young Austrian farmer who has been feeding the network with data for years. Katre Kirt, who heads the FADN/FSDN unit at the Estonian Centre for Rural Research and Knowledge, talks about the challenges faced by data collectors in her country. Alessandra Kirsch, an agricultural engineer with a PhD in agricultural economics and policy in France, explains how the FADN has fuelled her research, which is still useful to the European Commission today. Finally, Bence Tóth, deputy head of unit for analysis and outlook of the European Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, explains the timeline for the implementation of FSDN and expands on issues raised by the other podcast guests.

Liberties, a network of civil liberties organisations across the EU, has released its 2025 Gap Analysis, reviewing the Commission's Rule of Law cycle. The report examined over 500 recommendations issued to Member States since 2022, case studies on Italy and Slovakia, and a dedicated review of media freedom.The findings point to a system that is stalling. So, if this is the case how do we protect democracy in Europe now?Join us on our journey through the events that shape the European continent and the European Union.Production: By Europod, in co production with Sphera Network.Follow us on:LinkedInInstagram Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In his remarks, the Director General of the EU Military Staff (DG EUMS) will underline the need for a more strategic, coherent, and adequately resourced Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). He will stress that EU military missions and operations are effective only when guided by a shared political vision among all twenty-seven Member States and aligned with the priorities of Host Nations. He will highlight the importance of developing an Integrated Campaign Plan to ensure coherence across all EU instruments and closer coordination with international partners. Finally, he will emphasise that under-resourcing and limited participation undermine effectiveness, and that genuine political will must translate into collective responsibility and tangible contributions to safeguard the EU's credibility as a reliable security partner. Speaker bio: The Director General of the EU Military Staff (DG EUMS) is the European External Action Service's (EEAS) senior military adviser and the principal source of its military expertise. He directs the EU Military Staff (EUMS), providing military advice and expertise to EU institutions. In a dual-hatted capacity, he also serves as Director of the Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC). As DG EUMS, he oversees early warning, situation assessment, and strategic planning for EU military missions, ensuring the effective operational planning and conduct of non-executive missions through the MPCC. He further supports crisis management, capability development, and maintains close coordination with the European Defence Agency (EDA).

After the International Maritime Organization (IMO) voted to postpone the adoption of its Net Zero Framework by 12 months, stakeholders fear that global shipping could enter another year without clear direction. For Europe's shipping and energy sectors to hit fast-forward, the months ahead will be pivotal in proving that clear policy direction and coordinated investment can deliver both climate ambition and industrial competitiveness.This pause on the global stage puts the spotlight on Europe. The EU is tasked with doubling its efforts to modernise and decarbonise the maritime sector by working to ensure that the transition to clean fuels is not only possible, but economically viable.Policymakers and industry are now faced with translating the IMO's global climate ambition into practical measures that safeguard Europe's competitiveness - by ensuring a sufficient and affordable supply of sustainable fuels, upgrading port infrastructure across Member States, and supporting shipowners in adopting new technologies. These steps will be key in keeping Europe at the forefront of maritime innovation and industrial leadership.Among alternative fuels, clean ammonia is gaining momentum as a zero-carbon energy carrier. Produced using renewable and low-carbon energy, ammonia emits no carbon when combusted, and benefits from an existing global production and trade network. Leveraging this infrastructure can help reduce costs and accelerate the transition to cleaner fuels – provided that production, safety, and environmental standards are robustly managed.Listen to this Euractiv Hybrid Conference to discuss how Europe can turn the IMO's delay into an opportunity for leadership, and to explore the role of ammonia in decarbonising the maritime sector - from global regulation to EU implementation.

NEWS: East Timor joins Asean as 11th member state after years of campaigning | Oct. 27, 2025Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein#TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Professor Ronan McNulty, University College Dublin's School of Physics, explains what opportunities could come from Ireland's membership of CERN.

Welcome to AI X Multilateralism, a new series of conversations on The Next Page. In this collection, we're joined by experts who help us unpack the many ideas and issues at the nexus of AI and international cooperation. Our first episode begins with the question: is it ethical to use AI in multilateral deliberations? We're joined by Eleonore Fournier-Tombs, Head of Anticipatory Action and Innovation at the UNU-CPR, the United Nations University Centre for Policy Research. As a data scientist she's worked in the private sector and across the UN system, and recently supported the work of the UN's Advisory Body on AI that undertook analysis and made advanced recommendations for the international governance of AI. In this episode, we explore: - the meaning of deliberations at the global level and why this is critical for multilateralism - how AI is being used today in multilateral deliberations and negotiations - the technical and ethical risks of using AI informally deliberations, including what this means for state sovereignty, authenticity and agency, and - solutions for turning the tide and harnessing AI ethically, fairly and sustainably by all who participate in multilateral fora through an ethics by design approach. Interested to find out more? - Read Eleonore's recommended open source pick, "An Ethical Grey Zone: AI Agents in Political Deliberations": https://carnegiecouncil.org/media/article/ethical-grey-zone-ai-agents-political-deliberation - Find out about the UN High-Level Advisory Body on AI: https://www.un.org/en/ai-advisory-body/about - Learn about the Global Digital Compact, adopted by Member States in 2024 at the Summit of the Future: https://www.un.org/digital-emerging-technologies/global-digital-compact - Read about the two mechanisms established by the UN General Assembly on 26 August 2025 to strengthen international cooperation on AI governance, the United Nations Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and the Global Dialogue on AI Governance: https://www.un.org/global-digital-compact/en/ai  Content    Guest: Eleonore Fournier-Tombs Host, production and editing: Natalie Alexander Julien  Recorded & produced at the Commons, United Nations Library & Archives Geneva  Podcast Music credits: Sequence: https://uppbeat.io/track/img/sequence Music from Uppbeat (free for Creators!): https://uppbeat.io/t/img/sequence License code: R8196BLUZNYOYWVB  #AI #Multilateralism #UN #Diplomacy

Hello, and welcome to episode 189 of the Financial Crime Weekly Podcast, I am Chris Kirkbride. In this episode, on sanctions, the US Treasury has sanctioned five individuals and one entity tied to a DPRK arms network, the UK's OFSI has expanded sanctions on 71 entities and persons under the Iran (Nuclear) Sanctions Regulations, and imposed a £152,750 penalty on Colorcon Limited for breaching Russia sanctions. On money laundering, the European Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against 11 Member States for delays in fully implementing the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive. In bribery and corruption, former MEP Nathan Gill pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery for accepting cash in exchange for making pro-Russian statements, while GRECO urged member states to strengthen access-to-information systems to improve transparency. On fraud, Charlie Javice has been sentenced, and a joint campaign has been launched in the UK by the National Crime Agency and The Law Society to combat payment diversion fraud in property sales. Finally, the cybercrime news highlights Interpol's "Operation Contender 3.0," which arrested 260 suspects across 14 African nations for romance scams and sextortion, and there has been a confirmed data breach at retailer Harrods affecting 430,000 customers.A transcript of this podcast, with links to the stories, will be available at www.crimes.financial.

Anita Anand, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada, addresses the General Debate of the 80th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations (New York, 23 - 29 September 2025). World leaders will gather to engage in the annual high-level General Debate under the theme, "Better together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights". The General Debate of the United Nations General Assembly is the opportunity for Heads of State and Government to come together at the UN Headquarters and discuss world issues. Heads of State and Government and ministers will explore solutions to intertwined global challenges to advance peace, security, and sustainable development. The UN General Assembly (UNGA) is the main policy-making organ of the Organization. Comprising all Member States, it provides a unique forum for multilateral discussion of the full spectrum of international issues covered by the Charter of the United Nations. Each of the 193 Member States of the United Nations has an equal vote. The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945. Currently made up of 193 Member States, the UN and its work are guided by the purposes and principles contained in its founding Charter. Briefing by Bintou Keita, Special Representative and Head of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO). The Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bintou Keita, said “peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is still mostly a promise,” and “will not last if the underlying drivers of conflict are not addressed.” Presenting the Secretary-General's latest report, Keita told the Security Council in New York that “there are discrepancies between the progress we see on paper and the reality we observe on the ground which continues to be marred with violence.” She stated that the key provisions of Security Council resolution 2773 “remain largely unimplemented,” and despite the Council's requests, the AFC/M23 armed group has “continued to pursue a logic of territorial expansion and consolidation.” This and other issues, Keita said, underscore “the persisting gap between the decisions of this Council and the realities on the ground.” She called upon the Council “to bring about a permanent ceasefire and a durable peace agreement that will establish stability in eastern DRC,” adding that “only then, will commitments be translated into meaningful progress for the people.” Keita stressed that “illegal mining, looting of natural resources and illicit financial flows continue to fuel violence,” and said, “these activities must be stopped.”Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/policy-and-rights--3339563/support.

Europe's landmark crypto law, the Markets in Crypto-Assets, promised a unified market across 27 member states. But less than a year into rollout, national regulators are already pushing back on its central feature: passporting.Is MiCA bringing the clarity Europe's crypto industry needs or adding a new layer of uncertainty? In this episode of Byte-Sized Insight, we hear from the head of compliance and European regulatory affairs at CoinShares and the executive director of the European Crypto Initiative about passporting, regulatory arbitrage and whether MiCA can truly keep Europe competitive on the global stage.(00:39) MiCA and the single-market promise(01:31) Member State pushback on passporting across the EU(02:51) Regulatory competition and arbitrage risks(04:32) The challenge of 27 having national authorities(07:17) Compliance pressure on smaller firms(10:23) Clarity and consistency as the real test for MiCA's success(14:27) MiCA implementation still in progress(15:40) Europe's leadership moment in crypto regulation(16:00) MiCA's global ripple effects and the GENIUS ActThis episode was hosted and produced by Savannah Fortis, @savannah_fortis.This episode is brought to you by Coinlocally — launching the Academy Learn-to-Earn platform, where crypto education turns into real ownership. Earn CLYC tokens as you learn and use them for governance, staking, or trading perks. Plus, trade Convert, Spot, Futures, Grid Bots, Copy Trading, and MT5 in one secure app with some of the lowest fees in the industry. Cointelegraph podcast listeners get early access to the Academy and a $50 trading bonus at coinlocally.com.Follow Cointelegraph on X @Cointelegraph.Check out Cointelegraph at cointelegraph.com.If you like what you heard, rate us and leave a review!The views, thoughts and opinions expressed in this podcast are its participants alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph. This podcast (and any related content) is for entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, nor should it be taken as such. Everyone must do their own research and make their own decisions. The podcast's participants may or may not own any of the assets mentioned.

Developing a Life Sciences Vision for Ireland: The EU Agenda examines how Ireland can position its national life sciences strategy in the context of the European Commission's 2025 Strategy for European Life Sciences and other new EU initiatives. Drawing on national and EU-level experience, panellists discuss key developments in EU life sciences policy and what Europe is doing to strengthen its competitiveness, research capacity, and innovation ecosystem. The event will also explore how Ireland can secure and strengthen its own role as a key player in Europe's life sciences landscape by aligning its policy ambitions with emerging European trends. This event is organised by the Institute of International and European Affairs in partnership with Johnson & Johnson. Panellists: Pilar Aguar Fernandez, Director at People: Health and Society at DG Research and Innovation, European Commission Anouk de Vroey, Head of Government Affairs & Policy at Johnson & Johnson EMEA Muiris O'Connor, Assistant Secretary at Department of Health, Head of Research & Development and Health Analytics Darrin Morrissey, CEO of NIBRT National Institute for Bioprocessing Research and Training Frances Fitzgerald, Former MEP and Tánaiste (Moderator) Ireland is home to a high-performing life sciences industry, offering major opportunities for both economic development and public health. Unlike other European countries, however, Ireland does not have a holistic vision for the future of the sector. This is set to change, as the Government has promised to develop a national life sciences strategy. Other European countries have already adopted ambitious strategies to secure the future of the industry and unleash its benefits, coordinating policy across a range of areas from enterprise and investment to research and healthcare. Across the European Union, Member States are aligning national policy with broader EU ambitions for health innovation, research, and industrial resilience. Under initiatives such as Horizon Europe, the European Health Union, and EU4Health, the EU is already providing an increasingly integrated vision. In addition to this, this summer, the EU Life Sciences Strategy has been adopted by the Commission, while a new Critical Medicines Act and Biotech Act are expected soon. What will these new policies mean for Europe? And how should they be reflected in Ireland's national strategy?

Daniel Sarmiento talks with András Jakab and Lando Kirchmair about their latest co-authored book, "Saving the EU from its Illiberal Member States", in which they analise the cultural roots and the possible ways forward in tackling the illiberal threat that current political trends pose for the EU.

The absence of a coherent international response to the crises in Gaza and Ukraine has raised questions about what used to be called the international rules-based order. Does it still exist at all, or has the reality of raw military and economic power trumped every other consideration?Against that backdrop, what role, if any, does the United Nations have to play? And what is Ireland's role within the UN?On today's podcast Niall McCann, who recently left the United Nations Development Programme after more than a decade working throughout the UN system in positions in Africa, Europe and the Middle East, talks to Hugh about what he found at the UN, why it isn't working and how he thinks it should be reformed.He also explains why Ireland's standing within the UN is lower than is sometimes suggested. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is urging member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to march toward modernization together by bringing out the best in one another, and working together for a shared future.

在上海合作组织峰会欢迎宴会上的祝酒辞 （2025年8月31日，天津） 中华人民共和国主席 习近平 Toast by H.E. Xi JinpingPresident of the People's Republic of ChinaAt the Welcoming Banquet of the SCO Summit (Tianjin, August 31, 2025)尊敬的各位同事、各位来宾，Dear Colleagues,Distinguished Guests,女士们，先生们，朋友们：Ladies and Gentlemen,Friends,大家晚上好！灯火海河畔，津门纳百川。我谨代表中国政府和中国人民，欢迎各位嘉宾来到天津做客。Good evening. Tonight, we are gathered here by the glittering banks of the Haihe River in Tianjin, a city defined by its embrace of waters from all corners. On behalf of the Chinese government and people, I welcome all our distinguished guests to Tianjin.今天是上海合作组织成员国领导人同各位新老朋友欢聚一堂的日子，也是吉尔吉斯斯坦独立日和马来西亚国庆日。借此机会，谨向扎帕罗夫总统、安瓦尔总理，向友好的吉尔吉斯斯坦人民、马来西亚人民，表示诚挚的祝贺！Today is a joyful day for leaders of SCO member states to have this happy gathering with old and new friends. It is also the Independence Day of Kyrgyzstan and the National Day of Malaysia. I wish to take this opportunity to offer our heartfelt congratulations to President Sadyr Japarov, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and the friendly peoples of Kyrgyzstan and Malaysia.天津是一座开放包容的城市，自古为京畿要地，是中国改革开放先行区。这些年来，在京津冀协同发展战略引领下，中国式现代化天津篇章不断展现新气象。中方相信，在天津举办这次峰会，一定能给上海合作组织可持续发展注入新的活力。Tianjin is an open and inclusive metropolis. It has served as a strategic guardian city for our nation's capital throughout history, and pioneered China's reform and opening-up as a pilot zone. In recent years, Tianjin has implemented the national strategy of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei coordinated development, and written its new and dynamic chapter in advancing Chinese modernization. We believe that as the host of this Summit, Tianjin will give fresh impetus to the sustainable development of our Organization.上海合作组织自成立以来，始终秉持“上海精神”，巩固团结互信，深化务实合作，参与国际和地区事务，成为推动构建新型国际关系和人类命运共同体的重要力量。Since its founding, the SCO has stayed committed to the Shanghai Spirit, strengthening solidarity and mutual trust, deepening practical cooperation, and taking an active part in international and regional affairs. The SCO has grown into a significant force in promoting a new type of international relations and building a community with a shared future for humanity.当前，世界百年变局加速演进，不稳定、不确定、难预料因素明显增多，上海合作组织维护地区和平稳定、促进各国发展繁荣的责任更加重大。At present, the century-defining transformation is accelerating across the world, with a marked increase in factors of instability, uncertainty, and unpredictability. The SCO thus bears an even greater responsibility for maintaining regional peace and stability and promoting development and prosperity of all countries.这次峰会肩负着凝聚各方共识、激发合作动能、擘画发展蓝图的重要使命。明天，我将同成员国各位同事举行元首理事会会议，同更多友好国家和国际组织举行“上海合作组织+”会议，共商合作发展大计，推动完善全球治理。At this Summit, we are tasked with an important mission: to build consensus among all parties, ignite momentum for cooperation, and draw up a blueprint for development. Tomorrow, I will join our colleagues at the Meeting of the Council of Heads of Member States. We will also convene the "SCO Plus" Meeting with leaders of non-SCO members and international organizations. We will focus on how to strengthen cooperation, promote development, and improve global governance.我相信，在各方共同努力下，这次峰会一定能够圆满成功，上海合作组织必将展现更大作为、实现更大发展，为促进成员国团结协作、汇聚全球南方力量、助力人类文明进步事业作出更大贡献。I am confident that with the collective efforts of all parties, this Summit will be a complete success and the SCO will play an even greater role, achieve greater development, and make greater contribution to strengthening solidarity and cooperation among the member states, pooling the strength of the Global South, and promoting the cause of human advancement.百舸争流，奋楫者先。让我们在“上海精神”指引下，从天津再出发，向着更加美好的未来，开启充满希望的新航程！As a Chinese saying goes, "In a race of a hundred boats, those who row the hardest will lead." Let us uphold the Shanghai Spirit and set out from Tianjin on a new voyage filled with hope toward an even brighter future.现在，我提议，大家共同举杯，Now, please join me in a toast:为天津峰会取得丰硕成果，To a productive and fruitful Summit;为上海合作组织实现宗旨目标，To the advancement of the SCO's goals and tasks;为各国发展繁荣、人民幸福美满，To the development and prosperity of all countries and the well-being of our people; and为各位来宾和家人的健康，To the health of all distinguished guests and your families.干杯！Cheers! 来源：新华社

In The Seventh Member State: Algeria, France, and the European Community (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Megan Brown details the surprising story of how Algeria joined and then left the postwar European Economic Community and what its past inclusion means for extracontinental membership in today's European Union. On their face, the mid-1950s negotiations over European integration were aimed at securing unity in order to prevent violent conflict and boost economies emerging from the disaster of World War II. But French diplomats had other motives, too. From Africa to Southeast Asia, France's empire was unraveling. France insisted that Algeria—the crown jewel of the empire and home to a nationalist movement then pleading its case to the United Nations—be included in the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community. The French hoped that Algeria's involvement in the EEC would quell colonial unrest and confirm international agreement that Algeria was indeed French. French authorities harnessed Algeria's legal status as an official département within the empire to claim that European trade regulations and labor rights should traverse the Mediterranean. Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany conceded in order to move forward with the treaty, and Algeria entered a rights regime that allowed free movement of labor and guaranteed security for the families of migrant workers. Even after independence in 1962, Algeria remained part of the community, although its ongoing inclusion was a matter of debate. Still, Algeria's membership continued until 1976, when a formal treaty removed it from the European community. In this book, Dr. Brown combats understandings of Europe's “natural” borders by emphasizing the extracontinental contours of the early union. The unification vision was never spatially limited, suggesting that contemporary arguments for geographic boundaries excluding Turkey and areas of Eastern Europe from the European Union must be seen as ahistorical. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In The Seventh Member State: Algeria, France, and the European Community (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Megan Brown details the surprising story of how Algeria joined and then left the postwar European Economic Community and what its past inclusion means for extracontinental membership in today's European Union. On their face, the mid-1950s negotiations over European integration were aimed at securing unity in order to prevent violent conflict and boost economies emerging from the disaster of World War II. But French diplomats had other motives, too. From Africa to Southeast Asia, France's empire was unraveling. France insisted that Algeria—the crown jewel of the empire and home to a nationalist movement then pleading its case to the United Nations—be included in the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community. The French hoped that Algeria's involvement in the EEC would quell colonial unrest and confirm international agreement that Algeria was indeed French. French authorities harnessed Algeria's legal status as an official département within the empire to claim that European trade regulations and labor rights should traverse the Mediterranean. Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany conceded in order to move forward with the treaty, and Algeria entered a rights regime that allowed free movement of labor and guaranteed security for the families of migrant workers. Even after independence in 1962, Algeria remained part of the community, although its ongoing inclusion was a matter of debate. Still, Algeria's membership continued until 1976, when a formal treaty removed it from the European community. In this book, Dr. Brown combats understandings of Europe's “natural” borders by emphasizing the extracontinental contours of the early union. The unification vision was never spatially limited, suggesting that contemporary arguments for geographic boundaries excluding Turkey and areas of Eastern Europe from the European Union must be seen as ahistorical. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-studies

In The Seventh Member State: Algeria, France, and the European Community (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Megan Brown details the surprising story of how Algeria joined and then left the postwar European Economic Community and what its past inclusion means for extracontinental membership in today's European Union. On their face, the mid-1950s negotiations over European integration were aimed at securing unity in order to prevent violent conflict and boost economies emerging from the disaster of World War II. But French diplomats had other motives, too. From Africa to Southeast Asia, France's empire was unraveling. France insisted that Algeria—the crown jewel of the empire and home to a nationalist movement then pleading its case to the United Nations—be included in the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community. The French hoped that Algeria's involvement in the EEC would quell colonial unrest and confirm international agreement that Algeria was indeed French. French authorities harnessed Algeria's legal status as an official département within the empire to claim that European trade regulations and labor rights should traverse the Mediterranean. Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany conceded in order to move forward with the treaty, and Algeria entered a rights regime that allowed free movement of labor and guaranteed security for the families of migrant workers. Even after independence in 1962, Algeria remained part of the community, although its ongoing inclusion was a matter of debate. Still, Algeria's membership continued until 1976, when a formal treaty removed it from the European community. In this book, Dr. Brown combats understandings of Europe's “natural” borders by emphasizing the extracontinental contours of the early union. The unification vision was never spatially limited, suggesting that contemporary arguments for geographic boundaries excluding Turkey and areas of Eastern Europe from the European Union must be seen as ahistorical. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

In The Seventh Member State: Algeria, France, and the European Community (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Megan Brown details the surprising story of how Algeria joined and then left the postwar European Economic Community and what its past inclusion means for extracontinental membership in today's European Union. On their face, the mid-1950s negotiations over European integration were aimed at securing unity in order to prevent violent conflict and boost economies emerging from the disaster of World War II. But French diplomats had other motives, too. From Africa to Southeast Asia, France's empire was unraveling. France insisted that Algeria—the crown jewel of the empire and home to a nationalist movement then pleading its case to the United Nations—be included in the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community. The French hoped that Algeria's involvement in the EEC would quell colonial unrest and confirm international agreement that Algeria was indeed French. French authorities harnessed Algeria's legal status as an official département within the empire to claim that European trade regulations and labor rights should traverse the Mediterranean. Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany conceded in order to move forward with the treaty, and Algeria entered a rights regime that allowed free movement of labor and guaranteed security for the families of migrant workers. Even after independence in 1962, Algeria remained part of the community, although its ongoing inclusion was a matter of debate. Still, Algeria's membership continued until 1976, when a formal treaty removed it from the European community. In this book, Dr. Brown combats understandings of Europe's “natural” borders by emphasizing the extracontinental contours of the early union. The unification vision was never spatially limited, suggesting that contemporary arguments for geographic boundaries excluding Turkey and areas of Eastern Europe from the European Union must be seen as ahistorical. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/french-studies

In The Seventh Member State: Algeria, France, and the European Community (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Megan Brown details the surprising story of how Algeria joined and then left the postwar European Economic Community and what its past inclusion means for extracontinental membership in today's European Union. On their face, the mid-1950s negotiations over European integration were aimed at securing unity in order to prevent violent conflict and boost economies emerging from the disaster of World War II. But French diplomats had other motives, too. From Africa to Southeast Asia, France's empire was unraveling. France insisted that Algeria—the crown jewel of the empire and home to a nationalist movement then pleading its case to the United Nations—be included in the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community. The French hoped that Algeria's involvement in the EEC would quell colonial unrest and confirm international agreement that Algeria was indeed French. French authorities harnessed Algeria's legal status as an official département within the empire to claim that European trade regulations and labor rights should traverse the Mediterranean. Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany conceded in order to move forward with the treaty, and Algeria entered a rights regime that allowed free movement of labor and guaranteed security for the families of migrant workers. Even after independence in 1962, Algeria remained part of the community, although its ongoing inclusion was a matter of debate. Still, Algeria's membership continued until 1976, when a formal treaty removed it from the European community. In this book, Dr. Brown combats understandings of Europe's “natural” borders by emphasizing the extracontinental contours of the early union. The unification vision was never spatially limited, suggesting that contemporary arguments for geographic boundaries excluding Turkey and areas of Eastern Europe from the European Union must be seen as ahistorical. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Seventh Member State: Algeria, France, and the European Community (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Megan Brown details the surprising story of how Algeria joined and then left the postwar European Economic Community and what its past inclusion means for extracontinental membership in today's European Union. On their face, the mid-1950s negotiations over European integration were aimed at securing unity in order to prevent violent conflict and boost economies emerging from the disaster of World War II. But French diplomats had other motives, too. From Africa to Southeast Asia, France's empire was unraveling. France insisted that Algeria—the crown jewel of the empire and home to a nationalist movement then pleading its case to the United Nations—be included in the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community. The French hoped that Algeria's involvement in the EEC would quell colonial unrest and confirm international agreement that Algeria was indeed French. French authorities harnessed Algeria's legal status as an official département within the empire to claim that European trade regulations and labor rights should traverse the Mediterranean. Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany conceded in order to move forward with the treaty, and Algeria entered a rights regime that allowed free movement of labor and guaranteed security for the families of migrant workers. Even after independence in 1962, Algeria remained part of the community, although its ongoing inclusion was a matter of debate. Still, Algeria's membership continued until 1976, when a formal treaty removed it from the European community. In this book, Dr. Brown combats understandings of Europe's “natural” borders by emphasizing the extracontinental contours of the early union. The unification vision was never spatially limited, suggesting that contemporary arguments for geographic boundaries excluding Turkey and areas of Eastern Europe from the European Union must be seen as ahistorical. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Seventh Member State: Algeria, France, and the European Community (Harvard University Press, 2022), Dr. Megan Brown details the surprising story of how Algeria joined and then left the postwar European Economic Community and what its past inclusion means for extracontinental membership in today's European Union. On their face, the mid-1950s negotiations over European integration were aimed at securing unity in order to prevent violent conflict and boost economies emerging from the disaster of World War II. But French diplomats had other motives, too. From Africa to Southeast Asia, France's empire was unraveling. France insisted that Algeria—the crown jewel of the empire and home to a nationalist movement then pleading its case to the United Nations—be included in the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community. The French hoped that Algeria's involvement in the EEC would quell colonial unrest and confirm international agreement that Algeria was indeed French. French authorities harnessed Algeria's legal status as an official département within the empire to claim that European trade regulations and labor rights should traverse the Mediterranean. Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany conceded in order to move forward with the treaty, and Algeria entered a rights regime that allowed free movement of labor and guaranteed security for the families of migrant workers. Even after independence in 1962, Algeria remained part of the community, although its ongoing inclusion was a matter of debate. Still, Algeria's membership continued until 1976, when a formal treaty removed it from the European community. In this book, Dr. Brown combats understandings of Europe's “natural” borders by emphasizing the extracontinental contours of the early union. The unification vision was never spatially limited, suggesting that contemporary arguments for geographic boundaries excluding Turkey and areas of Eastern Europe from the European Union must be seen as ahistorical. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Regulations to govern the exploration and extraction of rare earth minerals on the seabed of international waters are being hammered out by the UN's International Seabed Authority (ISA) despite the reported decision by the US government to go “alone”.The demand for rare earth minerals, which are needed to make batteries and other technology, is on the increase globally. Jamaica-based ISA is a specialised agency mandated to regulate the deep seabed of international waters, which makes up over 50 per cent of the world's underwater surface area.Its 170 Member States are developing a code of conduct to mine for minerals in a sustainable and equitable way which benefits all nations, not just technologically advanced ones. Eileen Travers spoke to the organization's Secretary-General, Leticia Carvalho, and began by asking her about the status of the code.Read our explainer on ISA and why it matters now here.

This podcast is part of the IIEA's Future-Proofing Europe Project which is kindly supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Michael McGrath, as Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection, launched the Commission's Rule of Law Report 2025. The European Commission Rule of Law Reports first began in 2020, as the EU experienced a period of increasing decline in the rule of law. The Report was envisaged as an additional, preventative tool within the Commission's Rule of Law Toolbox which could assess early warning signs of backsliding on the rule of law. Kersty McCourt argued that while the Commission's Rule of Law Report is a useful resource, the challenge now facing the Commission is to link its assessments and recommendations with actions that are implemented quickly and robustly enough to steer Member States back towards greater respect for the Rule of Law. In the conversation, Kersty McCourt highlighted the particularly vulnerable position in which civil society across Europe now finds itself, where some governments, and even members of the European Parliament seek to discredit the work done by CSOs in support democracy, human rights and the rule of law. She warned that if these issues are not addressed, the EU will face a very dangerous trajectory over the next five years.

"July 19 is the last day that Member States of the World Health Organisation can withdraw from the IHR amendments (without entering a multi-year withdrawal process). By failing to withdraw, they will be committing their taxpayers to fund the key surveillance aspects of a rapidly expanding industry that is the pandemic industrial complex. The hapless inhabitants of WHO Member States seem to have no real leaders anymore.” This quote by David Bell, former medical officer and scientist at the WHO, relates to the situation in New Zealand. David is also a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. And we check in to The Mailroom with Mrs Producer. File your comments and complaints at Leighton@newstalkzb.co.nz Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide. Listen here on iHeartRadio Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:To subscribe via iTunes click here See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In today's conversation, we take a deep dive into creative rights governance across the African continent. Our guest, Maureen Fondo, Head of copyright and related rights at the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), highlights how the surge in creative output—especially among young people—has underscored the urgent need for formal systems to recognize, protect, and help monetize their work. She has over 16 years of professional experience in legal and copyright matters. Having contributed to the adoption of the Kampala Protocol on Voluntary Registration of Copyright and Related Rights, the ARIPO Model Law on Copyrightand Related Rights and policy documents at ARIPO that were adopted by the Member States and various copyright publications. Ms. Fondo is a DPhil candidate in Intellectual Property at Africa University, Zimbabwe, and a lecturer for the Master's program in Intellectual Property at Africa University. Ms. Fondo is a holder of a Master's degree in Intellectual Property (MIP) from Africa University, a Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from the Law School of Tanzania, an Advocate of the High Court of Tanzania and Courts Subordinate thereto, and a Bachelor of Laws Degree (LLB) from Tumaini University, Tanzania (now known as Iringa University). She previously served as a Senior Legal Officer, heading the Legal Service Unit at the Copyright Society of Tanzania (COSOTA), where she handled copyright cases, presided over dispute resolutions and negotiations among parties, drafted contracts, oversaw licensing of copyright and related rights to users, and raised awareness about copyright and related rights. Ms. Fondo volunteered as a Legal Officer at the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) Arusha Legal Aid Clinic. She worked as a part-time lecturer in Business Law at the Institute of Accountancy in Arusha, Tanzania. She is an artist and composer with at least thirteen titles, the author of a movie script titled “Dream is Alive – Ndoto Hai” and a children's story script titled “Creativity Lives”. Ms. Fondo has received leadership accolades.  

In this new episode of Euphoria Arianna and Federico discuss what it takes to collect 1.2 million signatures to protect abortion rights in the European Union.Veronika Povz from My Voice My Choice helps us understand how access to safe abortions is still a privilege in the EU reserved to a select few Member States and how citizens living in different countries still do not have the same rights to decide what decisions to take regarding their own bodies.

“Sevilla is a moment in time. It is really the beginning, not the end of the process,” says one of the senior UN officials helping Member States navigate high-stakes negotiations ahead of a landmark conference on sustainable development in Spain later this month.Shari Spiegel is Director of Financing for Sustainable Development at the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).She told UN News's Matt Wells that the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development aims to address a staggering $4 trillion gap in global financing. Countries reached agreement this week on an outcome document that sets out critical reforms. Click here for UN News' Special Coverage of FFD4 Conference

In this episode of the FSR Policy Briefcase (Season 2, Episode 5), hosts Leonardo Meeus and James Kneebone sit down with the Director of the FSR Transport area, Juan Montero. The group explore how and why contracts for railway services are tendered in the EU, which parts of the network are profitable, which require subsidies, and how various Member States approach these contracts differently. Drawing from Juan's recent Policy Brief, the discussion addresses the policy implications of why the EU is encouraging more tendering, issues conducting tenders, and how they can be resolved. Recorded in April 2025. https://cadmus.eui.eu/entities/publication/e7adec46-9f7c-5f68-851f-906ee8994ec9

In recent years, development efforts have been set back by long-standing obstacles made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing conflicts, climate change, rising debt, lack of digital access and growing inequalities.Dima Al-Khatib, Director of the UN Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC) says there's an urgent need to accelerate progress towards the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals – only 17 per cent of which are on track.In pursuit of that, more than 120 Member States gathered this week at UN headquarters in New York to discuss how South-South and triangular partnerships can boost future sustainable development for all.UN News's Emma Trager-Lewis sat down with Ms. Al-Khatib and began by asking her to explain what South-South collaboration means in practice. 

In this episode of Money Tales, our guest is Sophie Bertin. You know that feeling when everything looks good on paper, a great job, supportive colleagues, a solid paycheck, but something inside keeps whispering, this isn't it! That was Sophie. She had a comfortable life, but comfort wasn't enough. It took a spark - an unexpected stat about entrepreneurs from a business school dean when Sophie was at a less-than-satisfying moment in her career - for her to realize: “Why am I in the 50% who haven't taken the leap?” That catalyzed her turning point. Sophie Bertin has a varied career path, from strategic consultancy, to banking operations, to the European Commission and now turned entrepreneur. She recently founded Serapy with the aim of improving corporate compliance training through the combination of simulations, gamification, role play and online tools. Serapy uses the latest educational theories to provide trainings with increased retention rate, and combines that with AI tools to enhance the learning process. Serapy is currently present in Switzerland, Bulgaria, Portugal, France and the UAE. Serapy has been accepted in the incubation program of the Unicorn Factory Lisbon and of Station F in Paris. In addition to Serapy, Sophie has her own consultancy (Parnima Consulting) since 2016, where she works with top legal and regulatory firms, consultancy firms and financial clients on EU Regulations in the area of Financial Services, Foreign Subsidies and State Aid. She also serves as independent board member of Eastnets, a leading provider of AML, SWIFT and payments solutions. She sits on the Remuneration, Nomination and Governance Committee. Before becoming entrepreneur, Sophie was Group Head of Corporate Development and Managing Director of SIX Group (in Switzerland), in charge of strategy development, innovation and regulatory affairs. During the Financial Crisis, she served as Head of Unit at the Directorate General for Competition within the European Commission. There, she was responsible for the review and approval of the State aid provided by Member States to the financial services (mostly banks) during the financial crisis of 2008-2014. Prior to her role with the European Commission, Sophie held senior positions within SWIFT, where she was globally in charge of Asset Servicing; with The Bank of New York Mellon; and worked with the top consultancies McKinsey and later Bain &Co. She started her career path as IT and database programmer, which is very helpful now with the latest AI tools she uses in her start-up. She started her studies in Vienna, graduated from the Ecole Supérieure de Commerce de Paris, holds an MBA from INSEAD and a post-graduate diploma in EU Competition Law from King's College. She holds also a diploma from the Swiss Board Institute. She is member of the Executive Committee of the INSEAD Alumni organization, and she is also the founder and president of the global INSEAD Women in Business Club. Recently, she finished an advanced AI Mastery class and won the award for the best AI Application Builder. She is promoting and advocating for AI literacy among women and through the INSEAD Women in Business Club organizes events for Women in AI.

In this episode, Policy Fellows James Abrahams and Sophie Seitler discuss all things NATO. They look at internal and external challenges faced by member states, like whether nations are positioned to adequately increase their defence spending, and how they can adapt to the Trump Administration's changing vision for America's role on the world's stage. 

Radhika Das, IFN Journalist, interviews Hassan Zago Idris, Director (Acting), Legal Affairs Department, The Islamic Corporation for the Insurance of Investment and Export Credit, on addressing global trade risks and supporting infrastructure development across OIC member states

Radhika Das, IFN Journalist, interviews Dr Khalid Khalafalla, CEO, The Islamic Corporation for the Insurance of Investment and Export Credit, on advancing green finance and enhancing private sector partnerships for economic development in member states, including Algeria

In a historic milestone for global public health, Member States of the World Health Organization on Tuesday adopted the Pandemic Agreement – an accord aimed at preventing future devastating outbreaks.Negotiations began in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, and after just three and a half years – a relatively short timeline for crafting complex international treaties – the world today is more prepared than it was before the coronavirus struck.At the heart of the process is Precious Matsoso, co-chair of the intergovernmental negotiating body that steered the talks to the finish line.She told UN News' Vibhu Mishra shortly after the agreement was adopted that it was a ground-breaking moment in public health. Related story: Nations adopt historic pledge to guard against future pandemics

In today's MadTech Daily, we cover LinkedIn's launch of new video ad options, a US bill challenging Apple's app store dominance, and the EU's legal action against member states over failure to comply with the Digital Services Act.

In this episode, I speak with Louis McLatchie-Miller about critical political and societal issues affecting children's rights. We analyze the recent UK by-elections, reflecting on public discontent with traditional parties, and discuss transgender rights and treatments for minors, highlighting potential risks and the need for clarity around biological definitions of sex.   Lois McLatchie serves as a senior legal communications officer for ADF UK . She works with journalists and press representatives to advocate for fundamental freedoms in the “court of public opinion”, both in written pieces and through public speaking. Before beginning her current role, Lois was a legal analyst on ADF International's UN Advocacy Team at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. There, she provided Member State representatives with key legal resources and amendatory language which promotes the inherent value of every person. She is an alumnus of ADF International's Veritas Scholarship, under which she she completed training on on international law, communications and argumentation. Lois also holds an LLM Human Rights Law with distinction from the University of Kent, and an MA (Hons) International Relations from the University of St Andrews. During her studies, she participated in Areté Academy and Blackstone Legal Fellowship, where she completed extensive research on bioethical issues, including surrogacy. Connect with Lois and ADF UK...

So it was a real pleasure to invite CEIP's Stewart Patrick back into the Virtual Studio to talk about the shape and influence of the BRICS, or BRICS+, as it is often referred to these days. Stewart Patrick is senior fellow and director of the Global Order and Institutions Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP). His primary areas of research focus are the shifting foundations of world order, the future of American internationalism, and the requirements for effective multilateral cooperation on transnational challenges. Stewart is an expert in the history and practice of multilateralism. He is the author of a number of volumes and most recently he has led the research at CEIP for the volume: “BRICS Expansion and the Future of World Order: Perspectives from Member States, Partners, and Aspirants”. Stewart has authored many articles, essays, chapters, and reports on problems of world order, U.S. global engagement, the United Nations and other international organizations, and the management of global issues.

Global outcry at ICJ as Israel faces accusations of starving Palestinians At the International Court of Justice, South Africa accused Israel of using starvation as a weapon in Gaza, calling it a breach of international law. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, Colombia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, and Spain echoed concerns, citing Israel's disregard for humanitarian obligations and UN rulings. Representatives warned of a collapsing aid system and worsening famine, urging global action and reaffirming support for Palestinian self-determination amid what was described as an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe. Israel, in its genocidal war, has killed more than fifty-two thousand three hundred Palestinians since October 2023 and wounded hundreds of thousands of others. UN chief urges two-state solution in Israeli war on Palestine United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has pushed countries to "take irreversible action towards implementing a two-state solution" between Israel and the Palestinians ahead of an international conference in June. "I encourage Member States to go beyond affirmations, and to think creatively about the concrete steps they will take to support a viable two-state solution before it is too late," Guterres told a Security Council meeting on Tuesday. France and Saudi Arabia will co-host the conference at the United Nations in June. Daesh-linked militants attack mourners in Nigerian village, killing 15 A wave of terror engulfed Kwaple village in Nigeria's Borno State when Daesh-linked militants stormed in on motorcycles, unleashing a hail of bullets on mourners and killing at least 15 people. "The ISWAP militants opened fire on the mourners and pursued them on motorcycles into the bush as they tried to flee," Ayuba Alamson, a community leader in Chibok, said. Local leaders are gripped with dread, warning that the true death toll may be far higher, with scores still missing in the chaos. Trump marks 100 days, promises defence investments US President Donald Trump kicked off a pair of events in Michigan, celebrating his first 100 days in office. Speaking to a packed rally in Macomb, Trump touted the country's economic growth, declaring, "Companies are coming back to Michigan." Highlighting a $1 trillion defence investment, he praised Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer for securing the Selfridge Air National Guard Base. While his approval rating dropped to 42 percent, according to a Reuters-Ipsos poll, Trump continues to promote his administration's successes, claiming the best start in US presidential history. BRICS unites in opposition to Trump's tariff policy BRICS foreign ministers, including those from China and Russia, criticised the growing "trade protectionism" during talks in Rio de Janeiro, a direct response to US President Dondald Trump's tariffs. Brazil's foreign minister, Mauro Vieira, emphasised the group's ""strong rejection"" of such policies, without naming Trump. Amid escalating tariffs, China has imposed 125 percent duties on US goods, while the US has slapped 10 percent tariffs on numerous countries. The ministers agreed on a unified stance against trade conflicts just ahead of the leaders' summit in three months.

Haiti is facing a ‘point of no return', says the UN's special envoy to the country, María Isabel Salvador. She also said that Member States must increase support to Haiti's security forces, particularly the Multinational Security Support Mission, "not as a matter of choice but of necessity”. What does this mean for Kenyan officers on the ground? Also, Amnesty International says Ethiopia's so-called “corridor development” project is sparking fear and uncertainity amongst residents And what are Ponzi schemes and why do so many people fall victim to it? Presenter: Charles Gitonga Technical Producer: Philip Bull Producers: Richard Kagoe in Nairobi. Tom Kavanagh and Yvette Twagiramariya in London and Blessing Aderogba in Lagos. Senior Journalist: Karnie Sharp Editors: Andre Lombard and Alice Muthengi

Since the seminal 2018 Portuguese Judges case, it has been established that violations of values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) can be litigated before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Currently, proceedings are ongoing in the European Commission's infringement action against Hungary, the argument being that its anti-LGBTQI+ laws breach provisions of the internal market, several Charter rights, and, importantly, the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. The case, known as Valeurs de l'Union, has been hailed as the “largest human rights battle in EU history.”In this RevDem Rule of Law podcast episode, our co-managing editor, Dr. Oliver Garner, discusses the enforcement of the Union's values at the Member State level as well as at the Union's institutional level with Dr. Luke Dimitrios Spieker.Dr. Spieker is Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and Postdoctoral Researcher at Humboldt University in Berlin. In his monograph, EU Values before the Court of Justice, published by Oxford University Press, he analyzes the foundations, potential, and risks of the mobilization of Article 2 TEU.

As Canada strengthens ties with Europe’s defence industry, Monocle’s Toronto correspondent, Tomos Lewis, joins Chris Cermak to discuss rumours that Canadians now want to officially join the bloc. Plus: the death toll mounts in Gaza as ceasefire negotiations continue, the future of Radio Free Europe, Indian film ‘Santosh’ and Fernando Augusto Pacheco’s ‘The Global Countdown’. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the last decade the Court of Justice of the EU has rapidly developed its case-law on the enforcement of EU values. Following multiple cases in which the Court enforced provisions that instrumentalize the Rule of Law in actions involving the 'backsliding' Member States of Poland and Hungary, the question now arises as to whether EU action may be justified to protect the co-foundational value of democracy during national elections in the EU's Member States. The upcoming elections in the Federal Republic of Germany in February will bring these issues into sharp relief. In the latest RevDem Rule of Law podcast, Oliver Garner discusses these themes with Miriam Schuler (King's College London), whose PhD research analyzes the protection of values within the European Union.

PREVIEW: OCEANIA: AUSTRALIA: USA: Conversation with colleague Cleo Paskal of FDD re an unguarded exchange between PM Albanese of Australia and Deputy StateSec Kurt Campbell re the member states of the Pacific Island Forum. More later. 1944 Saipan

PREVIEW: #EU: #VOTE: #UKRAINE: Conversation with colleague Judy Dempsey of Carnegie in Berlin re the rising EU far-right parties in member states andBrussels support for Ukraine war-fighting and rebuilding.  More detail tonight. undated Brussels