Podcasts about Mitsubishi Electric

Ben Youngs and Dan Cole are joined by a victorious Henry Pollock, Fin Smith and George Furbank to review a PREM Final that saw Northampton Saints win their second title in three years after overcoming a gritty Exeter Chiefs side. The pair also react to the England XV loss to a France XV on Friday night, Leinster's second consecutive URC crown and the Hurricanes blow the Chiefs out of the water in Super Rugby. Plus, Ealing Trailfinders back row Sally Williams joins the pod to preview their PWR final against Saracens next week and how she juggles rugby with her job at Mitsubishi Electric. ✍️ Subscribe to Coley's newsletter: https://loveofrugby.substack.com/subscribe

Optical networking has spent years as a niche corner of the semiconductor industry. CSI makes the case that the moment for companies like Coherent may have finally arrived — and NVIDIA's two-billion-dollar equity investment in the company suggests the largest chipmaker in the world agrees.Coherent (COHR), is an integrated device manufacturer and base materials supplier specializing in indium phosphide and silicon carbide wafers. Under CEO Jim Anderson, who pulled off a similar business transformation at Lattice Semiconductor, Coherent has been shedding non-core assets and sharpening its focus on data center and communications, which now represents seventy-five percent of revenue and posted forty-one percent year-over-year growth in the most recent quarter. Pro forma revenue growth came in at twenty-seven percent, with gross margins approaching the forty percent threshold that marks a key milestone for IDM-class businesses.The divestitures tell the story of the transformation: a four-hundred-million-dollar sale of the aerospace and defense laser business to private equity, and a fifty-one-million-dollar exit from a materials processing tools segment that was diluting margins. What remains is a tighter, faster-growing business positioned at the intersection of AI data center infrastructure, optical connectivity, and advanced materials.The NVIDIA investment is the centerpiece of this episode. With free cash flow running deeply negative as Coherent scales manufacturing capacity for co-packaged optics and near-package optics expected in the second half of 2026, the company needed capital. NVIDIA needed the optical components. The result was a cash-for-equity arrangement that Nick describes as a more direct version of the warrant-based incentive deals seen at companies like AMD and STMicro, cheaper than diluting shareholders, and cheaper than going to a bank.The silicon carbide segment also draws attention, with five-hundred-million-dollar anchor investments from Denso and Mitsubishi Electric secured when silicon carbide was out of favor, now pointing toward three-hundred-millimeter wafer applications for AI data centers and power grid infrastructure.Q3 guidance calls for revenue between 1.9 and just over 2 billion, gross margin at roughly 41%, and continued negative free cash flow as manufacturing scale-up accelerates. CSI compares Coherent to peer Lumentum — framing COHR as the value play and Lumentum as the momentum play — and confirm they are happy holding both.For in-depth stock research and the Semiconductor Insider membership,visit chipstockinvestor.com. Use fiscal.ai/csi for 15% off any paid plan.

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Who will make the PWR semi finals… it could all be sewn up this weekend!! The girls discuss all the runners and riders of the final two rounds before the play offs.Our Mo gets emotional at Zoe Stratford, Tatyana Heard and Sarah Beckett, leaving Gloucester-Hartpury for Sale Sharks at the end of the season.We also get updates on Mo's BIG win at a Bingo Lingo - you won't believe what she won - Scaz's annual sunflower planting, Elma's new kitty-ket socks!The great 4.5 rugby ball debate rumbles on, too!And we'd already recorded when it was announced that Jo Yapp will be the first ever Women's Lions Head Coach - so the girls will be reflecting on that next week with their guest. For more information on Mitsubishi Electric's Parallell Potential programme: parallelpotential.com Saracens Semi Final Tickets: https://www.eticketing.co.uk/northamptonsaints/Events?preFilter=10&preFilterName=Home%20GamesGloucester Hartpury Semi Final Tickets: https://ealingtrailfinders.ticketco.shop/PWR Final Tickets: https://www.eticketing.co.uk/harlequins/EDP/Event/Index/2108Barbarians Tickets: https://www.eticketing.co.uk/rfu/EDP/Event/Index/3357 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Helping companies build resilience, unlock growth opportunities and navigate evolving regulations landscape across issues surrounding carbon, waste and energy – that’s what we’re going to talk about today. Founded in 2013, our guest Evercomm is a Singapore-based engineering and technology company that aims to assist enterprises in optimising resource efficiency, managing climate risk scenarios and meeting international compliance standards to ensure long-term operational and financial sustainability. This is done through the use of the firm’s advanced planning and simulation tools that provide precision-driven carbon, energy and waste reduction strategies that are customised for different company’s needs and operations. The company said its strategic partners include CTBC Bank, Mitsubishi Electric as well as Shell Energy. Its solutions are also used in projects involving the Punggol Digital District and the Jurong Port. But why are such asset performance management solutions provided by Evercomm Singapore critical to enterprises, particularly those in the energy intensive sector? What are the key opportunities for the firm particularly in Southeast Asia where emerging economies walk the tightrope between industrial growth and net-zero ambitions? On Under the Radar, finance presenter Chua Tian Tian posed these questions to Ted Chen, Co-founder, CEO and Chief Product Architect, Evercomm. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

World Rugby's controversial decision to trial smaller rugby balls in the women's game is up for debate as Ruby Tui and Shaunagh Brown chime in on one of rugby's biggest talking points. Plus, Ruby finally reveals the answer to the question fans have been asking — where will Ruby Tui play next? The pair also break down the biggest moments from the penultimate round of the Guinness Women's Six Nations, including the standout battles and players making headlines ahead of Super Sunday. And with the championship on the line in Bordeaux, what do the Red Roses need to change in their game if they want to beat France and win another Women's Six Nations title? Ruby and Shaunagh discuss what could decide the trophy. Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V. has announced two new UK partnerships in women's rugby, driven by a shared belief that investing in the women's game creates impact well beyond the pitch. Through a formal partnership with the Rugby Players Association's Thrive programme and Mitsubishi Electric's Parallel Potential platform, the combined goal is to provide athletes with meaningful career support during, and beyond their playing careers. In addition, Mitsubishi Electric has become an official partner of Premiership Women's Rugby (PWR), strengthening its commitment to the domestic league and the continued growth of the women's game. To find out more go to: www.parallelpotential.com

Paul Bojko, with A-Guy Heating & Air, joined HouseSmarts Radio with Lou Manfredini to discuss why so many homeowners trust their local veteran and family-owned company, which specializes in Mitsubishi Electric mini-split systems, the world's leading mini-split brand. For more information, call or text (708) 480-2921 or visit a-guy.com.

Anthony Belokas, Regional Sales Manager for Mitsubishi Electric Trane HVAC, joined HouseSmarts Radio with Lou Manfredini to showcase the latest innovations in home comfort—designed to be smarter, quieter, and more seamless than ever. Enjoy your backyard without the disruption of a loud, clunky AC unit. For more information, visit getacomfyhome.com.

The Mitsubishi Electric Classic is two weeks away and with it comes the modified Stableford scoring system, which was spearheaded by Atlanta's own Stewart Cink, the ambassador to this premiere PGA Tour Champions event. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Wat een toffe innovaties op de VSK+E! Eerst langs Enrad, een industriele water-water warmtepomp met R290, behoorlijk uniek. Daarna snel door naar BlueHeart: een innovatieve en nieuwe manier van het verwarmen van je woning. Vanaf dezelfde stand kwamen we Eplucon tegen, met zóveel mooie diensten en producten… We highlighten hun V2G laadpaal en de warmtepompopossingen (aquathermie!).En ook de split unit van Mitsubishi Electric met R290 koudemiddel is een unicum in de markt. Met Rudy bespraken we deze nieuwste technologie.We bezochten op Interduct die remanufactured ventilatiematerialen inzet om zo een gigantische afvalberg te besparen. En ook bij Rensa Refurbished zijn we langsgegaan. Want hoe zonde is het om nieuwe materialen aan te schaffen als je bestaande en betere componenten een tweede leven kunt geven?Tot slot nog een fan én inpisrerende bezoeker van de VSK, tof om alle verhalen te horen én te kunnen delen.Hoofdstukken00:00 De VSK+E, we zijn er weer!00:39 Enrad: Modulaire Propaan warmtepompen voor industrie04:32 Rensa Refurbished: oude onderdelen als nieuw07:59 Interduct: Remanufacturing & VSK Awards14:41 BlueHeart Energy: het nieuwe hart van de warmtepomp (thermo-akoestiek)18:43 Eplucon: Vehicle-to-Grid & Aquathermie22:20 Mitsubishi Electric: innovatieve split propaan warmtepomp (R290)30:19 Afsluiting & oproep

Trinta e sete anos de empresa. Quase quatro décadas acumulando muita experiência e aprendizado. Tempo suficiente para tornar-se uma referência, uma fonte de conhecimento e inspiração. Esse é o caso do nosso convidado do MEBCast de hoje, o vice-presidente da Mitsubishi Electric no Brasil, Max Matsumura. Conheça agora essa história que começou do outro lado do mundo e segue inspirando em terras brasileiras.  

In today's Tech3 from Moneycontrol, Accenture beats Street estimates as AI demand lifts revenue, but signals a shift by stopping standalone AI disclosures. We track the funding rush into instant home services as Pronto and Snabbit challenge Urban Company. We also look at fresh dry powder from Speciale Invest and Kae Capital, Mitsubishi Electric's early talks on chip packaging in India, and Coursera's $2.5 billion all-stock acquisition of Udemy.

Jamie Hamilton, CEO of Special Needs Schools of Gwinnett, joins us for a conversation about the school's inspiring journey, the partnerships that have fueled its growth, and the future vision driving its mission forward. Jamie reflects on the origins of SNS, the impact of its relationship with Mitsubishi Electric and the Mitsubishi Electric Classic presented […]

Dans le parc tertiaire, 6 % des bâtiments ont des outils de gestion de consommation énergétique connectés. C'est l'un des résultats du baromètre de la gestion énergétique des bâtiments tertiaires de Mitsubishi Electric. Il reste une partie importante du secteur qui peut être rendue intelligente pour minimiser les déperditions d'énergies. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SMART IMPACT - Le magazine de l'économie durable et responsable SMART IMPACT, votre émission dédiée à la RSE et à la transition écologique des entreprises. Découvrez des actions inspirantes, des solutions innovantes et rencontrez les leaders du changement.

Het stroomnet zit bommetje vol. En dan moeten we ook nog massaal aan de warmtepomp. Dat kan nooit goed gaan. Toch? Of zouden warmtepompen ook een deel van de oplossing kunnen zijn? In deze aflevering bespreken we:1️⃣ De verschillende manieren hoe je je warmtepomp slim kunt maken2️⃣ Per fabrikant welke mogelijkheden ze bieden voor slim verwarmen3️⃣ Hoe kunnen warmtepompen netcongestie verminderen?Te gast in deze aflevering: Martijn van Leerdam van Mitsubishi Electric. Deze podcast klinkt ander dan je gewend bent. De aflevering is live opgenomen op de Klimaattop Go van Duurzaam Gebouwd. Tips uit deze aflevering1️⃣ Bij de meeste warmtepompen kun je timers instellen. Kijk in je handleiding hoe je dat voor jouw warmtepomp doet2️⃣ Bij sommige warmtepompen kun je ook je legionellarun plannen. Die gebruikt relatief veel stroom en is dus ook slim om aan te passen3️⃣ Veel warmtepompen hebben een ecomodus. Dan knalt hij minder snel in vermogen omhoog en omlaag en dat bespaart stroom. Kijk in je handleiding of jouw warmtepomp die ondersteunt.Hoofdstukken00:00 Welkom01:25 De problemen op het stroomnet04:54 De impact van de warmtepomp op netcongestie06:53 Je warmtepomp slim aansturen: zo werkt het10:42 Slim aansturen met een timer15:16 Slim aansturen met een zonnemodus18:38 Overzicht van slimme warmtepompen22:22 Smart-grid ready warmtepompen aansturen met smart home27:35 Pilot warmtepompen aansturen vanuit netcongestie31:42 Verplicht of vergoeding?ShownotesWebsite Alklima Mitsubishi Electric Je warmtepomp als thuisbatterij Stappenplan timers instellen voor je Mitsubishi Electric warmtepomp Het overzicht van slimme warmtepompenWhitepaper warmtepomp & netcongestie Salderen gaat stoppenOnze aflevering met de oprichter van Home Assistant De app tegen netcongestieNetbewust Laden Het FLEX project waarin warmtepompen gaan bijdragen aan netcongestie

Hoe krijgen we de massa aan het verduurzamen? Een flinke klus en vaak voer voor discussie op verjaardagen en bij de koffiemachine op het werk. Maar gelukkig hebben we deze aflevering twee speciale gasten: Rudy Grevers van Mitsubishi Electric en voormalig boegbeeld van de PVDA en allesweter op energiegebied:

Neste episódio do MEBCast, falamos sobre como a Inteligência Artificial está revolucionando a automação industrial e moldando o futuro da tecnologia. Nosso convidado é Caio Dalessi, gerente de TI da Mitsubishi Electric, que compartilha sua visão sobre o impacto e as oportunidades dessa transformação.

Mitsubishi Electric Corp. on Wednesday held a ceremony marking the completion of a new facility for producing power semiconductors at a plant in the city of Kikuchi, Kumamoto Prefecture, southwestern Japan.

The Red Roses have won The 2025 Rugby World Cup and it is time for another party. Dan Cole, Squidge Rugby, Shaunagh brown and Ruby Tui debrief on the final and break down how England managed to outclass Canada to win their 3rd Rugby World Cup.  For many women in rugby, a second career isn't a choice. it's a necessity so they can keep playing the game they love. Mitsubishi Electric are helping women in rugby unleash their Parallel Potential. Learn more about their amazing stories at: www.parallelpotential.com ​ #ParallelPotential #RWC2025

The Rugby World Cup final is finally here. The England Red Roses will face Canada at a sold-out Allianz Stadium on Saturday and Ben Youngs, Ruby Tui, Shaunagh Brown and Celia Quansah are here to preview it all.  The team break down what England must do to get the better of Canada and Ben gives the girls goose bumps with his galvanising advice to the Red Roses. Our three Rugby World Cup finalists in the room share what life looks in camp in the week before the big game, plus… flashing sticks and final FITS. For many women in rugby, a second career isn't a choice. it's a necessity so they can keep playing the game they love. Mitsubishi Electric are helping women in rugby unleash their Parallel Potential. Learn more about their amazing stories at: www.parallelpotential.com ​ #ParallelPotential #RWC2025

Ben Youngs, Ruby Tui and Shaunagh Brown are in the studio together to break down all the Rugby World Cup quarter-final action. South Africa shock with a 15 woman lineout, do the Red Roses play their best rugby in the rain? And… for the love of Sophie De Goede's mighty boot. Plus a look ahead to the Semi finals. …which France team will show up this weekend against the Red Roses? And who does Ben think will win that semi final clash between New Zealand and Canada under Friday night lights. Spoiler: it's not the same as Ruby. For many women in rugby, a second career isn't a choice. it's a necessity so they can keep playing the game they love. Mitsubishi Electric are helping women in rugby unleash their Parallel Potential. Learn more about their amazing stories at: www.parallelpotential.com ​ #ParallelPotential #RWC2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mitsubishi Electric Corp. said Tuesday that it will acquire U.S. security firm Nozomi Networks Inc. for about 130 billion yen, making it the biggest deal by the Japanese company.

A cyberattack disrupts Bridgestone's manufacturing operations. CISA warns of critical vulnerabilities in products used across multiple sectors. Additional cybersecurity firms confirm data exposure in the recent Salesforce–Salesloft Drift attack. A configuration vulnerability in Sitecore products leads to remote code execution. HHS promises stricter enforcement of healthcare information access rules. Texas sues an education software provider over a December 2024 data breach. A federal jury orders Google to pay $425 million over improperly collected user data. Nations unite for global guidance on SBOMs. On our Industry Voices segment, we are joined by Aron Anderson, Enterprise Security Manager of Adobe, on embracing the journey to zero trust. Chess.com gets caught in a tricky gambit. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. Industry Voices On our Industry Voices segment we are joined by  Aron Anderson, Enterprise Security Manager of Adobe, as he is talking about embracing the journey to zero trust. If you want to hear the full conversation from Aron, you can check it out here. Selected Reading Tire giant Bridgestone confirms cyberattack impacts manufacturing (Bleeping Computer) CISA issues ICS advisories on hardware flaws in Honeywell, Mitsubishi Electric, Delta Electronics, rail communication protocols (Industrial Cyber) More Cybersecurity Firms Hit by Salesforce-Salesloft Drift Breach (SecurityWeek) Unknown miscreants snooping around Sitecore via sample keys (The Register) HHS Says It's 'Cracking Down' on Health Information Blocking (BankInfo Security) Texas sues PowerSchool over breach exposing 62M students, 880k Texans (Bleeping Computer) Google hit with $425 million verdict in privacy class action suit (The Record) US and 14 Allies Release Joint Guidance on Software Bill of Materials (Infosecurity Magazine) Chess.com says 4,500 people had data stolen during June breach  (The Record) Share your feedback. What do you think about CyberWire 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 cyberwire@n2k.com to request more info. The CyberWire 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

Neste episódio, conhecemos o programa de estágio da Mitsubishi Electric pelas palavras de dois ex-estagiários recém-efetivados, junto da visão de um especialista de RH. Eles compartilham suas experiências e mostram como o Career & Life Design impulsiona o desenvolvimento de talentos dentro da empresa e na vida pessoal.

Seeing Machines Ltd (AIM:SEE, OTC:SEEMF) CEO Paul McGlone and CFO Martin Ive talked with Proactive's Stephen Gunnion about the company's full-year 2025 trading update and expectations heading into FY26. The company reported a rebound in automotive royalties, underpinned by stronger performance from its Guardian Gen3 product and growing momentum ahead of Europe's General Safety Regulation (GSR) deadline in July 2026. McGlone said, “We are highly confident of an increasing growth rate in automotive royalties.” The company also highlighted solid progress toward cash flow breakeven, supported by top-line growth, productivity gains, and sustained cost control. McGlone noted that the company manufactured 2,500 Guardian Gen3 units at the end of the last quarter, with expectations to scale quarterly output to between 6,000 and 6,500 units by year-end. He also pointed to new opportunities with Mitsubishi Electric, saying the partnership could unlock growth in adjacent markets beyond the company's traditional segments. Ive elaborated on the recognition of US$10.2 million in guaranteed royalty revenue in FY25, tied to a production program that commenced in June. He further outlined expectations of an additional $43 million in guaranteed minimum revenues in FY26, with $800,000 and $5.3 million recognised in the first and second halves, respectively. For more interviews and market updates, visit Proactive's YouTube channel. Don't forget to like this video, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated. #SeeingMachines #ASXStocks #AutomotiveTechnology #PaulMcGlone #MartinIve #GuardianGen3 #DriverMonitoring #InvestingNews #TechStocks #ProactiveInvestors #EuroNCAP #GSR2026 #RoyaltiesGrowth #AIinAutomotive #MitsubishiElectric #MarketUpdate

The Trump Administration seeks to cut air quality and ocean monitoring instruments from the Geostationary Extended Observations (GeoXO) satellite constellation and reduce the number of satellites. NASA has released a Request for Information (RFI) to look for alternatives to the Sustainable Land Imaging (SLI) mission. Japan's Space Agency (JAXA) has selected Mitsubishi Electric to develop solar technology for satellites, 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 Our guest today is Dr. Emma Louden, President of Slooh. You can connect with Emma on LinkedIn, and find out more about Slooh on their website. Selected Reading Trump admin strips ocean and air pollution monitoring from next-gen weather satellites- CNN Sustainable Land Imaging (SLI) Mission Alternatives Assessment Team (MAAT): Request for Information (RFI) Mitsubishi Electric Selected as Representative Organization for JAXA's Space Strategy Fund to Develop Solar Cells and Related Components for Satellites Solar System Internet Successfully Conducted Pioneering Delay Tolerant Network Edge Processing Test on Lonestar Data Holding's February Lunar Test Flight LunaGrid-Lite Completes Critical Design Review, Flight Model Underway Meet Wukong, the AI Chatbot China Has Installed on Its Space Station | WIRED ALL.SPACE and Telesat Government Solutions begin terminal collaboration for Telesat Lightspeed US Space Force scheduled to launch eighth X-37B mission Opinion- Nuclear-powered rockets will win the new space race SpaceX's Expensive Starship Explosions Are Starting to Add Up TOMEX+ Launch Update – Aug. 20 - NASA This Chappell Roan song boosted interest in a Canadian dark sky preserve by 1,800%- Space T-Minus Crew Survey Complete our annual audience survey before August 31. 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

Mitsubishi Electric has partnered with Irish tech company EVHACS to launch a new product for the residential and commercial market: the world's first integrated heat pump and electric vehicle (EV) charger. This groundbreaking collaboration merges Mitsubishi Electric's cutting-edge heat pump and air conditioning systems with EVHACS' patented EV charging technology, creating a single, compact unit capable of both heating and cooling spaces and charging electric vehicles. One installation. One power connection. Two solutions. The integrated system will allow homeowners, property developers, and commercial operators to simplify their infrastructure by combining two vital energy technologies in one. This results in reduced installation complexity, faster deployment, lower total system costs, and minimal impact on building aesthetics. "This partnership marks a major leap forward in sustainable building technology," said Ciaran Moody, President Mitsubishi Electric Ireland. "We are proud that our Irish team is at the forefront of this innovation, pioneering the future of smart, connected homes and businesses by combining two critical technologies into one intelligent system. This solution reflects Mitsubishi Electric's commitment to driving the energy transition through practical, scalable innovation." The integrated system enables maximum energy efficiency, offering a powerful, future-proof solution for the decarbonised buildings of tomorrow. By intelligently sharing available electrical capacity between heating, cooling and EV charging functions, the system helps prevent overload, avoids costly grid upgrades, and ensures optimal performance even during peak demand. "Customers are looking for smarter, simpler ways to adopt low-carbon technologies," continued Ciaran. "By partnering with EVHACS, we're creating a solution that delivers on both convenience and sustainability. It's a major leap forward in how we think about the connected home and workplace." Key benefits of the integrated Mitsubishi Electric + EVHACS system: Simplified Installation: By combining renewable heating, cooling and smart EV charging in a single unit, only one electrical connection is required - saving time, space, and materials. Lower Cost of Ownership: By eliminating the need for separate EV chargers and additional cabling or civil works, the combined solution reduces both upfront installation and long-term maintenance costs. End users benefit from a lower total system cost, while also gaining two essential energy systems in one. Space Efficiency: The all-in-one format is especially valuable in urban, suburban, or commercial environments where space is limited. This makes the integrated system ideal for retrofits, apartments, townhouses, and commercial buildings where external wall space or electrical capacity might otherwise limit the ability to install multiple systems. Smart Energy Use: The system includes intelligent controls that allow users to manage both their heating, cooling and EV charging from a single interface. Smart scheduling and connectivity features help optimise energy consumption based on tariffs, occupancy, or energy demand, maximising comfort and convenience while reducing energy waste. Dynamic Load Balancing: One of the most significant advantages of this integrated solution is its ability to dynamically balance electrical loads between the heat pump and the EV charger. This ensures the system never draws more power than the available supply can handle, helping to prevent overloads or the need for costly electrical panel or grid upgrades. It also supports participation in demand-side management and future smart grid applications. EVHACS' proprietary technology transforms Mitsubishi Electric's award-winning heat pumps and air conditioning units into dual-purpose systems without compromising on performance or efficiency. The integration supports AC charging and is designed to work seamlessly within home energy management systems. "This i...

In this episode of the podcast, we welcome back Louise Jones, the Chief Community Officer at ThingLink. We discuss her journey in education technology, the significance of multi-modal learning, and the shift from measuring attendance to engagement in educational settings. Louise talks passionately about the importance of accessibility and compassion in communication, sharing a case study of Mitsubishi Electric's innovative training solutions that utilises immersive experiences to train future engineers. We also cover the role of technology in enhancing learning experiences, and the need for scenario-based and failure-based learning approaches, and how these methods can inspire the next generation of learners and prepare them for the workforce and beyond through creating engaging and supportive learning environments.Chapters00:00 Introductions01:59 Louise's Journey and Current Role06:13 The Importance of Multi-Modal Learning11:56 Engagement Over Attendance in Education18:00 Accessibility and Compassion in Communication21:50 Case Study: Mitsubishi Electric's Innovative Training Solutions24:21 Inspiring the Next Generation of Engineers25:38 The Role of Technology in Education27:49 Accessibility and Inclusivity in Engineering28:32 Digital Learning and Employability32:03 Scenario-Based Learning in Barista Training41:59 Embracing Failure-Based LearningCheck out more resources that Louise has shared: Multi-modal Learning: https://www.thinglink.com/blog/multi-modal-learning-in-action/The Mitsubishi Electric UK Webinar: https://www.thinglink.com/blog/new-webinar-engineering-the-future/Interactive Barista Course Overview: https://www.thinglink.com/scene/1981396205845877604Podcast from Notebook LM with Subtitles: https://www.thinglink.com/scene/1982055975649018533Thanks so much for joining us again for another episode - we appreciate you.Ben & Steve xChampioning those who are making the future of education a reality.Follow us on X: https://www.twitter.com/edufuturistsFollow us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/edufuturists/Check out all about Edufuturists at https://www.edufuturists.comWant to sponsor future episodes or get involved with the Edufuturists work?Get in touch: info@edufuturists.com

Balancing AI and Humanity in CX with Frederic Durand, CEO of Diabolocom In today's episode, we're thrilled to welcome Frederic Durand, Founder and CEO of Diabolocom, a global leader in customer experience solutions powered by proprietary AI. With over two decades of experience transforming customer service for brands like Mitsubishi Electric, Nikon, and Brinks, Frederic brings a practical, global perspective to the evolving world of CX. What we cover in this episode: Why great customer experiences are effortless by design How AI can automate repetitive tasks, freeing your team for high-value conversations The critical need to balance AI automation with authentic human connection Why AI integration leads to more WOW moments and stronger customer loyalty How Ignoring AI today is like ignoring computers in the 1980s How AI enables 24/7 service without burnout Why solving problems quickly and easily is the foundation of trust and advocacy Subscribe, review, and share this episode to help more leaders bring passion and purpose to their organizations.   Links & Resources:

In this episode, we sit down with Mike Corbo to discuss Mitsubishi Electric's long-standing partnership with the Mitsubishi Electric Classic presented by Vensure and their recent five-year extension. Mike shares insights on the company's commitment to golf, community impact, and sustainability, as well as what fans can expect in the coming years. We also dive […]

It’s Lou’s Home & Garden Show, and he is with Anthony Belokas, Regional Sales Manager for Mitsubishi Electric Trane HVAC, to talk about how their products are transforming how people heat and cool their homes, and how they may qualify you for a federal tax credit. For more information, visit getacomfyhome.com.

Send us a textIn this episode of the METUS Tech Show, we kick off 2025 with the first part of our A2L equipment series. The guys discuss, what's new with Mitsubishi Electric 454b systems such as new exiting products, improvements as well as best practices. Check out our youtube channel called the METUS Training Network.Thanks for listening! Please visit www.mitsubishicomfort.comContact us at metustechshow@hvac.mea.com

Lou Manfredini is joined by Anthony Belokas, Regional Manager for Mitsubishi Electric Trane HVAC, to talk about why replacing your current HVAC system with a Mitsubishi electric system is a good decision this Fall. Learn more at www.getacomfyhome.com.

Maybe virtual reality isn't as appetizing as the tech companies want it to be  Meta has decided to call it quits on making a high-end mixed reality headset to compete with the Apple Vision Pro. They started working on it back in November, but reportedly told staff this week to stop. The goal was to keep the price under $1000 which is getting harder and harder with the price of the micro-OLED displays needed.  Apple's Vision Pro has struggled to get interest from consumers and developers. Estimates suggest Apple won't sell more than 500,000 of them. Analysts think they're too expensive and consumers might need a cheaper model.  There are some surprising winners in the AI race  Mitsubishi Electric, known to many for heat pumps and air conditioning, are also makers of optical components used in data centers and with the rise of AI they're in mega demand. They're about to ramp production capacity to 50% more than last year, which they still don't think will be enough. They think they'll need to get to double that new production capacity.    LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In der heutigen Folge von „Alles auf Aktien“ sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Anja Ettel und Holger Zschäpitz über Hoffnung bei Bayer, Disneys Blockbuster-Boom und was diese Woche sonst noch wichtig wird. Außerdem geht es um Daikin, Gree Electric Appliances, Mitsubishi Electric, LG Electronics, De Longhi, Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron Technology und Daxplus Seasonal Strategy Zertifikat (WKN: HV1DB6). Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Ab sofort gibt es noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts und AAA-Newsletter. Hier bei WELT: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html. Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. Außerdem bei WELT: Im werktäglichen Podcast „Das bringt der Tag“ geben wir Ihnen im Gespräch mit WELT-Experten die wichtigsten Hintergrundinformationen zu einem politischen Top-Thema des Tages. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte! https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

In this episode, Nobuo Asahi and Dr. Shoji Tanaka of Mitsubishi Electric discuss their journey to drive digital transformation across the 100-year-old manufacturing conglomerate. They share how they have leveraged the Working Backwards methodology from Amazon to better understand customer needs and develop innovative new solutions, as well as the cultural challenges of shifting from a siloed, rule-driven organization to one that is more agile and data-driven. The conversation highlights the importance of patience, embracing new technologies, and fostering a mindset of experimentation to successfully lead large-scale organizational change.

Welcome to The Sustainability Podcast! In this episode, we explore the latest breakthroughs and strategic partnerships driving sustainable solutions across various industries. Dive into our in-depth coverage of SkyGrid and NASA's collaboration on autonomous aviation systems and Lummus Technology's efforts with Ferroman to deliver decarbonization solutions for industrial processes.We also highlight Gathr Data's partnership with Pinecone to revolutionize generative AI, and SAP's expansive AI collaborations with tech giants like Google Cloud and Microsoft. Discover how Entergy and NextEra Energy Resources are accelerating the development of solar and energy storage projects, and learn about Yokogawa's acquisition of BaxEnergy to enhance renewable energy management.We cover the innovative AI-powered landfill diversion facility by RDS in Virginia, and Nota AI's strategic agreement with Advantech for edge AI solutions. Our segment on industrial technology features Flex's acquisition of FreeFlow to boost circular economy services, and Valens Semiconductor's expansion into the machine vision market with Acroname.Mitsubishi Electric's investment in Pente Networks promises to democratize private 5G networks, while AVEVA's strategic collaboration with AWS aims to drive sustainable industrial transformation through cloud-based solutions. Join us as we delve into these compelling stories and more, showcasing the transformative power of innovation and collaboration in sustainability.Tune in to stay updated on the latest trends and developments shaping a sustainable future. For more detailed information, visit arcweb.com.--------------------------------------------------------------------------Would you like to be a guest on our growing podcast? If you have an intriguing, thought provoking topic you'd like to discuss on our podcast, please contact our host Jim Frazer View all the episodes here: https://thesustainabilitypodcast.buzzsprout.com

In this week's episode, join us as we explore recent significant advancements in technology and sustainability. Discussions encompass the fortified cybersecurity partnership between Nozomi Networks and Yokogawa, and the substantial investment by the U.S. government in semiconductor production with TSMC. We also delve into the latest industrial efficiency technologies from L&T Technology Services and the introduction of ARM's Ethos-U85 neural processing unit, poised to elevate IoT applications.Furthermore, the episode talks about Mitsubishi Electric'sstrategic move to transfer its transformer division to Hitachi, focusing onenergy-efficient solutions, and Siemens' introduction of the SINEC SecurityGuard software, enhancing cybersecurity in industrial settings. Insights areprovided on GlobalLogic's new AI Platform-of-Platforms and the collaborationbetween Schneider Electric and IPConfigure to bolster security in urbanbuildings.Additionally, we discuss the green hydrogen initiative byVerdagy and Doral, along with Schneider Electric and Digital Realty's endeavorsto foster a circular economy in their Paris data center.Join us as we navigate through these developments, providinginformed perspectives on their implications for business operations andenvironmental sustainability. This episode offers a comprehensive examinationof cutting-edge innovations across various sectors, driving resilience andsustainability in today's corporate landscape.Tune in for a discerning exploration of this week's pivotalupdates in technology and sustainability.--------------------------------------------------------------------------Would you like to be a guest on our growing podcast? If you have an intriguing, thought provoking topic you'd like to discuss on our podcast, please contact our host Jim Frazer View all the episodes here: https://thesustainabilitypodcast.buzzsprout.com

The Business of Sports Minute is presented by Southern Company Ashley Hamilton, Senior Tournament Director of Mitsubishi Electric Classic presented by Vensure, joined Nick Cellini and Chris Dimino to talk about the upcoming PGA Tour Champions event coming to TPC Sugarloaf April 22nd - 28th. Get your tickets and more info here Mitsubishi Electric ClassicSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Business of Sports Minute is presented by Southern Company Ashley Hamilton, Senior Tournament Director of Mitsubishi Electric Classic presented by Vensure, joined Nick Cellini and Chris Dimino to talk about the upcoming PGA Tour Champions event coming to TPC Sugarloaf April 22nd - 28th. Get your tickets and more info here Mitsubishi Electric ClassicSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Intentionality. We hear this word all of the time. But what does that word mean to you? Today's guest John Gallagher talks about how he was intentional with his children. Not only are they still active in his life, but they genuinely *enjoy* spending time with him. It can be hard to find the balance between parent, mentor, spiritual leader, and friend. I know I had some great takeaways after our conversation, and I know you will too.    In this episode, you'll discover…  What is the key trait to winning at work and at home? (1:28) Showing intentionality with his kids. (2:49) Leaving his job to be bold and take a chance. (8:15) “I need help.” (18:57)   John's Bio:  Meet John Gallagher, an accomplished executive coach, performance consultant, and trusted advisor to some of the world's most prestigious organizations. As the founder and CEO of Growing Champions Coaching & Consulting, John has worked with renowned global entities, including IBM, Mitsubishi Electric, Eaton Corporation, Harvard University, and billion-dollar healthcare systems, to help their top leaders and teams achieve exceptional results. John specializes in driving success in the areas of people development, productivity improvement, profitability, and growth. With a proven track record of delivering tangible results for his clients, John has become a sought-after expert in his field, known for his innovative approach and unwavering commitment to helping organizations reach their full potential. Learn more at www.coachjohngallagher.com/   What's Next?  Are you struggling to win at both home and work? Maybe you're crushing it at work, but home life is tough. Or maybe home life is great, but work is challenging.  I want to give you 10 tips that I share with clients. Go to my website at www.corymcarlson.com/subscribe and download your free copy of “10 Ways To Win At Home and at Work.” Have you read ‘Rise and Go'? All leaders get knocked down from time to time, so this is a resource to help you get back up quicker.  Check it out on Amazon. Also, if you have not checked out my first book, please do! It is called Win At Home First and you can purchase it on Amazon Here. Forbes Magazine rated it one of 7 books everyone on your team should read.

Explore Mitsubishi Electric's century-long history and its recent shift from a product-oriented to a customer-centric approach through digital transformation.

John Gallagher is the founder and CEO of Growing Champions Coaching & Consulting Company.  John has consulted and coached dozens of renowned companies and their leaders across the globe including IBM, Mitsubishi Electric, Eaton Corporation, and Harvard University as well as other small companies alike to achieve exceptional results around People development, productivity improvement, profitability, and growth.  With over 25+ years' experience on Leadership and Lean, John is widely regarded by CEO's and senior executives.  John's insights have been published in books, articles, and interviews and his own personal transformation journey to health was documented at MensHealth.com.  As a coach and consultant to leaders and organizations, John's intentional and equanimous approach can help the c-suite and senior executive team suffering from mediocrity and underperformance to experience Uncommon Impact through utilizing his powerful, 7 Step methodology.As a coach, consultant, podcaster and author, John's diverse background gives him a broad range of perspectives on leadership.  John is the host of the Uncommon Leader podcast - a podcast designed for individuals who are ready to engage their heart, mind and soul in growing themselves and others to lead in an Uncommon way.  Through his work on the Uncommon Leader Podcast, John has worked with CEO's, Pastors, Coaches, authors, and up and coming uncommon leaders, including people like Jeff Henderson and Jeremy Scott. John's blog, the Champions Brew, is a weekly assembly of material he is reading, listening to, watching, or thinking about that is designed to equip and call you to uncommon leadership which epitomizes his passion for helping leaders to grow themselves and grow others to BE the powerful influence that God created them to be.                                                              John received his Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from West Virginia University.  John has been married to his wife, Chris, for nearly 30 years and has two grown sons Brendan and Joseph.  In his personal time, John likes to read, Traeger, watch sports and put carts back in the corral that people leave in the parking lot!  John resides in Myrtle Beach, SC. MEMORABLE MOMENTS “One of the things that I would absolutely live by is that purposeful reflection results in purposeful action.” “People will change when the pain of remaining the same is greater than the pain of actually staying in the same place.”“I encourage folks to really sit down and say, you know, what's, what's going well, and what isn't going well, before we start to talk about the things you need to do to go forward.”“You can do anything you want. You just can't do everything you want. And that's, that's really important because early on in the journey, we're prioritizing what's most important to them that they want to change.”“Confidence is the belief that you have in your own abilities, and the courage to act on that belief.” Connect with John:⭐John's podcast, newsletter and website: https://linktr.ee/coachjohngallagher?utm_source=linktree_admin_share⭐Connect on Instagram: @coachjohngallagher⭐Connect on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/coachjohngallagher/ Thank you to our sponsors!⭐ The Art of The Big Talk Connect with AllisonInterested in working together? Fill out this form.www.instagram.com/allisonwalshwww.shebelievedbook.comwww.allisonwalshconsulting.comhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/shebelievedshecouldcommunity20 ways to make money being YOU!: https://www.allisonwalshconsulting.com/monetizeyourbrand

Lou Manfredini is joined by Anthony Belokas, Regional Sales Manager for Mitsubishi Electric Trane HVAC, to talk about a product that can keep warm and cool depending on the season. He shares the new hybrid HVAC technology intelli-HEAT Dual Fuel System that can be put on any gas-fired furnace. Learn more at www.getacomfyhome.com.

In this episode of the METUS Tech Show, Dwain Barcklay returns as we discuss the differences between the Y Series Heat Pump and the R-2 Heat Recovery VRF systems offered by Mitsubishi Electric. Dwain is back by popular demand and has a great way of explaining and simplifying HVAC technology and operation.Thanks for listening! Please visit www.mitsubishicomfort.comContact us at metustechshow@hvac.mea.com

Lou Manfredini, A.K.A. Mr. Fix It, is with Anthony Belokas, Regional Sales Manager for Mitsubishi Electric Trane HVAC, to talk about why a mini split system is your next choice for heating and cooling your home. For more information, visit getacomfyhome.com.

Brian chats with three-time tech founder and CEO Neha Sampat. Her latest venture, Contentstack, is a category-leading Composable Digital Experience Platform used by Mitsubishi Electric, Burberry, Icelandair, Leesa, and more. Neha has raised $169 million in capital for Contentstack over the past three years, including a recent $80 million Series C round. On the episode, Neha provides a wealth of strategies and tactics for building multiple successful businesses, including the importance of aligning a mission with company values. She also shares why she is a relentless advocate for achieving equity in the workforce and how getting comfortable with rejection helped her to become one of the top women in tech for fundraising dollars. Photos Credit: Courtesy of Austin Woman Magazine. Shot by Rudy Arocha. Episode Highlights Mission-driven businesses align with their values. Neha describes a mission-driven business as one whose mission aligns with its values. Ideally, the business's mission is to change lives, create impact, and do something meaningful. The company's values then inform how the business achieves its mission. “It all boils down to what the company's values are,” she said. “Values that are shared and understood and revisited often so that they're not just something on a board somewhere but something we're actually living on a regular basis and rewarding people to live by.” Get comfortable with rejection. Raising millions of dollars takes a lot of rejection. When Neha was figuring out how to raise capital for her startups, she was routinely told no. To get to a yes, she learned to be resilient, ask for feedback, make changes, and try again. “You do that 100 times before you get to the point where someone wants to write you a term sheet,” she said. Find your champion. Neha's breakthrough came when she found her champion and, later, her first investor. By following her champion's playbook, she reached an inflection point where her work started to come together. Now, Neha is one of the top women in tech for fundraising dollars -- a fact that makes her smile. “There's always somebody that becomes a champion for you, and when that happens, it's so magical,” she says. “There aren't a lot of female CEOs, and almost none in enterprise SAAS, that have raised this much capital. I want people to know that and see that it is possible if you stay on that course, build resilience, believe in yourself, and find champions.” Everybody has a superpower. As a woman of color tech founder without an engineering background, Neha didn't have someone successful to look up to when she was a new tech entrepreneur. Her experience made her incredibly passionate about providing access and opportunities to more people in the tech industry.  For instance, when she created Contentstack, Neha partnered with community colleges to bring students into the organization. Now, some of those students have been with Contentstack for more than 15 years. “Everybody has their own superpower, and sometimes the right access, opportunities, or education lets you unlock it,” she said. “I go out of my way to look for those opportunities.” Resources + Links Contentstack: Website, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, GitHub Neha's Social Media: Website, LinkedIn Brian's Social Media: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook About Brian and the Mission Driven Business Podcast Brian Thompson, JD/CFP, is a tax attorney and certified financial planner who specializes in providing comprehensive financial planning to LGBTQ+ entrepreneurs who run mission-driven businesses. The Mission Driven Business podcast was born out of his passion for helping social entrepreneurs create businesses with purpose and profit. On the podcast, Brian talks with diverse entrepreneurs and the people who support them. Listeners hear stories of experiences, strength, and hope and get practical advice to help them build businesses that might just change the world, too.

We welcome Sean Gallagher from Mitsubishi Electric back to Torrice Tech Talk to answer listener questions on advanced settings for the PAA coil.

We welcome Sean Gallagher from Mitsubishi Electric to Torrice Tech Talk to discuss why adding surge suppression to each job will benefit your company.