Podcasts about Patent

Patent attorney David Pearce explains how he uncovered fraudulent patents filed by Craig Wright. $ BTC 87,911 Block Height 934,200 In this episode, David Pierce (aka @TuftyTheCat) discusses Craig Wright's claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto and his associated patent filings. In this episode, Daniel Prince speaks with David Pierce, also known as @TuftyTheCat, a patent attorney, about Craig Wright's claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto and the patent landscape surrounding Bitcoin. David shares his experiences following the court cases and his involvement in challenging some of Craig Wright's patents. Daniel stresses that the episode is not intended as a simple bashing of BSV, but rather as an educational tool for those invested in it to better understand the asset and the people behind it. Key Topics: Craig Wright and BSV Patent law and Bitcoin Open source vs. patenting Follow David here: NOSTR - npub1ur83hkgvem2j74uv9cystyase5tf0qp304p6c35j02ll94sa5p3qdc9ygx X - @tuftythecat Check out my book ‘Choose Life' - https://bitcoinbook.shop/search?q=prince Pleb Service Announcements: Join 19 thousand Bitcoiners on @cluborange https://signup.cluborange.org/co/princey Support the pod via @fountain_app -https://fountain.fm/show/2oJTnUm5VKs3xmSVdf5n CONFERENCES: BTC PRAGUE - 11th - 13th June 2026 http://btcprg.me/BITTEN - Use code BITTEN for - 10% Shills and Mench's: RELAI - STACK SATS - www.relai.me/Bitten Use Code BITTEN BITBOX - SELF CUSTODY YOUR BITCOIN - www.bitbox.swiss/bitten Use Code BITTEN PAY WITH FLASH. Accept Bitcoin on your website or platform with no-code and low-code integrations. https://paywithflash.com/ SWAN BITCOIN - www.swan.com/bitten GEYSER - fund bitcoin projects you love - https://geyser.fund/ PLEBEIAN MARKET - BUY AND SELL STUFF FOR SATS; https://plebeian.market/ @PlebeianMarket ZAPRITE - https://zaprite.com/bitten - Invoicing and accounting for Bitcoiners - Save $40 KONSENSUS NETWORK - Buy bitcoin books in different languages. Use code BITTEN for 10% discount - https://bitcoinbook.shop?ref=bitten SEEDOR STEEL PLATE BACK-UP - @seedor_io use the code BITTEN for a 5% discount. www.seedor.io/BITTEN SATSBACK - Shop online and earn back sats! https://satsback.com/register/5AxjyPRZV8PNJGlM HEATBIT - Home Bitcoin mining - https://www.heatbit.com/?ref=DANIELPRINCE - Use code BITTEN. CRYPTOTAG STEEL PLATE BACK-UP https://cryptotag.io - USE CODE BITTEN for 10% discount. ALL FURTHER LINKS HERE - FOR DISCOUNTS AND OFFERS - https://vida.page/princey - https://linktr.ee/princey21m

In the early 1950s, Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin were in a race to develop a vaccine against polio. While Salk's killed-virus vaccine was the first to be distributed, Sabin continued working to perfect his own approach. In the end, Sabin's oral polio vaccine—made from a weakened live virus—proved easier to administer and was ultimately distributed far more widely, though his name never achieved the same recognition. In this episode, Lindsay is joined by epidemiologist and oral historian Karen Torghele. Her book Albert Sabin: The Life of a Polio Vaccine Pioneer is due to be published by Yale University Press in June of 2026. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today's guest is Jacquelyn De Jesu, the founder, CEO, and inventor of Shhhowercap. Built 11 years ago, Shhhowercap turned the humble shower cap into a premium, reusable staple designed to protect blowouts and styled hair from water and humidity. Made with breathable, hydrophobic nanotech fabric that repels water, is antibacterial, machine washable, and backed by seven patents, the brand is a testament to thoughtful design and innovation in beauty. Jacquelyn shares how her background as a creative director led her into beauty, her advice for founders without a “traditional” industry path, and why protecting her invention through patents was non-negotiable while building the business. Plus, what happens when your patent is challenged and the outcome of Shhhowercap's 2023 jury trial. Watch our episodes!CALL or TEXT US: 424-341-0426Instagram: @glossangelspod, @kirbiejohnson, @saratanTwitter: @glossangelespod, @kirbiejohnson, @saratanEmail: glossangelespodcast@gmail.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Listen to a recap of the top stories of the day from 9to5Mac. 9to5Mac Daily is available on iTunes and Apple's Podcasts app, Stitcher, TuneIn, Google Play, or through our dedicated RSS feed for Overcast and other podcast players. Sponsored by Stuff: Stuff helps you get everything out of your head and into a simple, elegant system—closing open loops and reducing mental stress. Use code 9TO5 at checkout for 50% off your first year. New episodes of 9to5Mac Daily are recorded every weekday. Subscribe to our podcast in Apple Podcast or your favorite podcast player to guarantee new episodes are delivered as soon as they're available. Stories discussed in this episode: iPhone 18 Pro Dynamic Island confusion now appears resolved ITC opens patent investigation over Apple Watch fall detection AirTags are helping airlines dramatically cut down on lost luggage, here's how Listen & Subscribe: Apple Podcasts Overcast RSS Spotify TuneIn Google Podcasts Subscribe to support Chance directly with 9to5Mac Daily Plus and unlock: Ad-free versions of every episode Bonus content Catch up on 9to5Mac Daily episodes! Don't miss out on our other daily podcasts: Quick Charge 9to5Toys Daily Share your thoughts! Drop us a line at happyhour@9to5mac.com. You can also rate us in Apple Podcasts or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.

Have you ever dreamt up a product in your head? You can see it so clearly, but you have no clue what the first step would be to actually create it. In this episode, the inventor of Click & Carry, Kim Meckwood, shares how she turned a simple idea into a tangible product that's now expanding into 30,000 retail stores. You'll get a behind-the-scenes look at what the patent process is really like and learn where to find free resources that most people don't even know exist. Topics discussed: Introduction (00:00) The origin story of Click & Carry (01:42) Kim's experience on Shark Tank (05:10) Why networking has been the key to her success (07:37) Female inventors and patent ownership (11:03) Where to find free resources for inventors (13:15) Amazon, knockoffs, and product protection (17:19) Kim's accidental hire that fueled her growth (20:15) The rewards of being an entrepreneur (23:02) What brought you JOY today? (26:02) Resources: Sending your child to college will always be emotional but are you financially ready? Take the College Readiness Quiz for Parents: https://www.mitlinfinancial.com/college-readiness-quiz/ Doing your taxes might not be enJOYable but being more organized can make the process less painful. Get Your Gathering Your Tax Documents Checklist: https://www.mitlinfinancial.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Mitlin_ChecklistForGatheringYourTaxDocuments_Form_062424_v2.pdf Will you be able to enJOY the Retirement you envision? Take the Retirement Ready Quiz: https://www.mitlinfinancial.com/retirement-planning-quiz/ Connect with Larry Sprung: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawrencesprung/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/larry_sprung/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LawrenceDSprung/ X (Twitter): https://x.com/Lawrence_Sprung Connect with Kim Meckwood: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/p/Click-Carry-100063829561602/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clickandcarry/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@clickandcarry Website: https://clickandcarry.com About Our Guest: Kim Meckwood is the inventor and founder of Click & Carry, a smart, ergonomic handle that helps people carry multiple bags more comfortably and efficiently. The idea came after a breakup left her struggling to carry groceries alone through the obstacle course that was her Los Angeles condo complex. Realizing how common this struggle was, Kim set out to create a simple yet game-changing solution—not just for shoppers, but for seniors with dexterity challenges, travelers schlepping many bags, and athletes hauling gear. What began as a personal necessity has grown into a versatile product with nearly limitless applications. Before launching her own business, Kim built a successful career in medical device and pharmaceutical sales, working with companies like Medtronic and ACADIA Pharmaceuticals. But two breast cancer diagnoses—in 2012 and again in 2021—caused her to reevaluate everything. Those experiences gave her the courage to leave her corporate life behind and go all-in on her invention. Her perseverance paid off: Click & Carry has since landed deals with massive retailers like Albertsons, Lowe's, and Tractor Supply Company. Click & Carry has also been featured on

In the first episode of the year, Spencer and I ease back in by talking about holiday games, including Dragon Quest I & II HD-2D and revisiting classic Final Fantasy. From there, the conversation turns into a long discussion about AI tools in games, Sony's rumored AI player bot, and why accessibility options don't need to threaten how anyone else plays. It's a relaxed but thoughtful episode about time, burnout, and what players actually want from games in 2026.

Summary  In this episode of the Prosperity Podcast, dive into the world of patents and innovation with insights from thought leaders Peter Diamandis and Dan Sullivan. Discover how intellectual property, from trademarks to blockchain, is transforming opportunities for creativity and growth. Learn how family banking can fuel your inventive pursuits and ensure financial wisdom for generations. Whether you're curious about protecting ideas or understanding how to financially support your dreams, this episode offers valuable takeaways for thinkers and creators alike..   Episode Highlights 00:00:12 - Introduction to patents and innovation 00:02:27 - QR code and alpaca storyline 00:03:45 - The patent explosion statistic 00:05:57 - Encouragement for patenting processes 00:07:14 - Inventions as solutions to everyday issues 00:08:28 - Family innovation: Creating teachable moments 00:10:07 - Adapting environment to inspire creativity 00:11:50 - YouTuber Simon Squibb discusses dreams 00:12:32 - Leveraging family banks for innovation 00:13:29 - Importance of financial competency through family banking 00:14:23 - Intergenerational strength of family banks 00:15:23 - Impact of patents and royalties beyond death   Episode Resources For resources and additional information of this episode go to https://prosperitythinkers.com/podcasts/ http://prosperityparents.com/  https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/yBEuMuj6fSwGh7YB8K87/media/68e557c906b06d836d9effad.pdf  https://www.youtube.com/@KimDHButler   Keywords Prosperity Podcast   prosperity thinkers   patents   innovations   Peter Diamandis   Dan Sullivan   intellectual property   IP   trademarks   prosperity pathway   strategic coach   copyright protection   blockchain   alpacas   QR code   authenticity   patent growth   3D printers   inventions   hockey stick growth   US Patent Office   physical patents   technology   family banks   financial competency   whole life insurance   Family Bank   creativity   financial strategist   Hernando de Soto   property rights   US property system   royalties   long-term thinking  

Am 13.1.1931 wird der Lügendetektor patentiert. Heute ist er vor allem in den USA im Einsatz, noch immer nach dem ursprünglichen System - und genauso leicht manipulierbar. Von Simon Schomäcker.

Episode InfoAdam Masarek is a lawyer, epidemiologist (MPH), and the Legal Marketing Manager for Lex Machina®, the LexisNexis® Legal Analytics® platform. He is dedicated to empowering legal and insurance professionals with data-informed strategies to enhance business development, litigation outcomes, and the rule of law. Episode Overview: In this episode, we sit down with Adam Masarek, leader of content marketing and thought leadership at Lex Machina, to delve into the evolving landscape of litigation within the insurance industry. Masarek, whose background in epidemiology and extensive experience with legal data analysis provides a unique perspective, discusses how Lex Machina leverages data to understand litigation trends and inform decision-making. Lex Machina's Role in Litigation Analysis: Masarek explains his role at Lex Machina, emphasizing their unique approach of combining legal data with deep analysis of recent trends. This includes their popular litigation report series, which explores trends in areas like insurance coverage and sports litigation. Epidemiology and Legal Data: The conversation draws an intriguing parallel between epidemiology and legal data analysis. Masarek highlights how understanding patterns and trends in litigation is akin to understanding disease outbreaks, requiring a data-driven approach to identify causes and potential solutions. The Impact of Legal Data on Practice: The discussion explores how legal analytics are transforming legal practice. While predicting specific outcomes remains challenging due to variables like jury composition and human elements, data-driven insights allow for more precise and confident decision-making. This includes strategic choices about filing locations, potential case values, and overall legal strategy. "Social Inflation" and Its Drivers: A significant portion of the conversation focuses on "social inflation," the phenomenon of awards and settlements outpacing general economic inflation. Masarek and the interviewer discuss potential culprits, including increased attorney advertising, the rise of litigation funding, and a more adversarial stance by insurers leading to more trial-bound cases. Historical Context of Litigation Concerns: The episode touches upon the long-standing nature of concerns about a "lawsuit crisis," noting that such discussions have occurred for centuries. However, recent data from platforms like Lex Machina are providing empirical evidence for some of these trends, particularly concerning jury verdicts. Specific Litigation Trends: "Reptile Theory": The discussion touches on the "reptile theory," a plaintiff tactic emphasizing jurors as community protectors who should punish defendants. Practice Area Variations: It's noted that surges in litigation costs and complexity vary by practice area. Patent litigation and trade secret disputes have seen significant increases, while environmental claims and commercial contracts have not shown the same growth. Increased Filings: There's a noted increase in filings for tort claims, slip-and-falls, and automobile collisions in both federal and state courts. Insurance Coverage Lawsuits: A sharp rise in coverage disputes related to commercial liability policies is highlighted, with record numbers of lawsuits filed in recent years. This trend is also observed in homeowners' coverage cases, particularly those related to hurricanes. Workers' Compensation: The increasing representation in workers' compensation claims is discussed, with a significant portion of claims now coming in with an attorney already attached, making early, non-adversarial resolution more challenging. The Role of Attorney Advertising and Litigation Funding: The pervasive nature of attorney advertising across various platforms (billboards, social media) is examined, with the observation that it's a uniquely American phenomenon. Litigation funding is also identified as a growing factor influencing the legal landscape. The Future of Litigation: Masarek expresses that the current trajectory suggests that increased litigation filings are likely here to stay, indicating a "new normal." Factors like shifting labor markets, economic inflationary pressures, ubiquitous attorney advertising, and the continued growth of litigation funding contribute to this outlook. While acknowledging the potential for policy responses, the current data points towards a sustained trend. Lex Machina's Goal: The ultimate aim of Lex Machina is to empower lawyers, adjusters, and other legal professionals with data for informed decision-making, leveling the playing field for smaller entities against larger corporations. They aim to reduce the "waste of resources" often associated with trials by facilitating more efficient and data-informed negotiations. Emerging Challenges: New complexities, such as the use of artificial intelligence by insureds and cybersecurity risks, are presenting novel situations with limited precedent, potentially leading to increased litigation. This episode is brought to you by The Future of Insurance book series (future-of-insurance.com) from Bryan Falchuk. Follow the podcast at future-of-insurance.com/podcast for more details and other episodes. Music courtesy of Hyperbeat Music, available to stream or download on Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon Music and more.

Seed costs remain one of the largest line items on a farm's balance sheet—but what if there was another way to think about genetics, pricing, and value?In this episode of the Farm4Profit Podcast, we sit down with Nate Belcher, a crop consultant, regenerative ag specialist, and longtime advocate for alternative ag business models. Nate shares his perspective on off-patent corn genetics, non-GMO seed options, and why more farmers are questioning the traditional seed system.We discuss:Nate's background as a crop consultant and regenerative ag specialistWhy off-patent genetics are gaining traction with cost-conscious farmersHow non-GMO corn fits into modern cropping systemsThe economics behind seed pricing once royalties and licensing fees are removedWhy many smaller seed companies are moving toward proven, off-patent traitsAdvantages for farmers: lower costs, reduced financial risk, faster access to geneticsTrade-offs farmers should understand, including fewer trials and older geneticsHow direct-to-farm distribution works without dealers or regional repsWhether this model represents a niche option—or a broader shift in the seed industryThis conversation isn't about selling seed—it's about understanding the economics, the risks, and the opportunities farmers face as the seed industry continues to evolve.https://hybrid85.com/about-us  Want Farm4Profit Merch? Custom order your favorite items today!https://farmfocused.com/farm-4profit/ Don't forget to like the podcast on all platforms and leave a review where ever you listen! Website: www.Farm4Profit.comShareable episode link: https://intro-to-farm4profit.simplecast.comEmail address: Farm4profitllc@gmail.comCall/Text: 515.207.9640Subscribe to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSR8c1BrCjNDDI_Acku5XqwFollow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farm4profitllc Connect with us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Farm4ProfitLLC/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Each year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants hundreds of thousands of patents to people who embody what we sometimes refer to as “American ingenuity”. These are folks who are creative problem-solvers, capable of out-of-the box thinking that leads to innovation. From Thomas Edison to Steve Jobs, American ingenuity has resulted in a host of innovations and inventions that most of us now take for granted. I’m thinking of course of modern electricity and personal computers but also smartphones and, let’s face it, Artificial Intelligence. Our healthcare system has benefitted from American ingenuity too. In the last 50 years, medical advances in diagnostics and imaging, and biotechnology and genetics, have revolutionized healthcare, leading to improved treatments, enhanced patient experience, better public health, and greater efficiency and cost savings. Perhaps the most obvious benefit of American ingenuity in healthcare is that Americans — and people living around the globe — are just living longer, healthier lives. Amy's lunch guests, Dr. Blake Williamson and Dr. Lawrence Salone, are both contributing to this universal progress with their individual insight and innovation. Dr. Blake Williamson is the President and Managing Partner of Williamson Eye Center, a vertically integrated ophthalmology practice, combining optometry and ophthalmology to provide comprehensive eye care—from pediatrics to retirement age. Founded more than 80 years ago by Blake’s grandfather, Williamson Eye Center has grown significantly over the past decade, operating one of the highest-volume eye surgery centers in Louisiana. The center is often among the first practices in the world to access new eye-care technologies. For instance, Dr. Williamson was the first surgeon in the world to implant the Odyssey lens, a breakthrough cataract implant. After serving in the military, including a deployment in Iraq, Dr. Lawrence Salone returned to Baton Rouge where he became acutely aware of the lack of accessible mental health services and the high rates of suicide among service members. In 2012, Dr. Salone launched Post Trauma Institute, a Louisiana-based mental health organization offering integrated psychiatric services under one umbrella, including medication management, psychological testing, therapy, and substance abuse treatment. An early adopter of virtual mental health care, PTI has been offering telehealth services since 2014, well before telehealth became mainstream. Today, PTI employs five prescribers and seven therapists, offering services to veterans, National Guard members, and reservists, as well as a growing roster of employers concerned about absenteeism, burnout, and productivity. the U.S. healthcare system is rapidly changing, driven by escalating costs, technological integration, and evolving policies affecting insurance. Despite these challenges, your approach to innovation will ensure your respective practices continue to provide affordable and accessible healthcare to our Baton Rouge community. For a mid size city in the south, the presence of PTI and the Williamson Eye Center are two of the reasons we're punching way above our weight in healthcare here in Baton Rouge. Out to Lunch is recorded live over lunch at Mansurs on the Boulevard. You can find photos from this show by Ian Ledo and Miranda Albarez at itsbatonrouge.com.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Schenck v. United StatesOn January 9, 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in Schenck v. United States, a foundational case in American free speech law. Charles Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party, had been convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing leaflets urging resistance to the military draft during World War I. The case raised critical constitutional questions about the boundaries of the First Amendment in times of national crisis. Schenck's defense argued that his actions were protected political speech. However, the government maintained that his words posed a threat to wartime recruitment and national security.The Court would go on to unanimously uphold Schenck's conviction in a decision authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Although the ruling came in March 1919, the arguments heard on January 9 and 10 set the stage for what became a pivotal moment in legal history. In his opinion, Holmes introduced the “clear and present danger” test, writing that the First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger of causing substantive evils Congress has a right to prevent. He famously noted that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.This standard marked the beginning of a more nuanced approach to free speech jurisprudence, where context and consequences mattered. It reflected the tensions between civil liberties and national security during wartime. Although later cases would refine or move away from the “clear and present danger” test, Schenck remains a foundational precedent in American constitutional law. The case also marked the rise of Holmes as a central figure in shaping First Amendment doctrine.The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue at least one opinion this Friday, potentially including a highly anticipated decision on the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The case represents a significant test of presidential authority, especially in the context of Trump's use of emergency powers under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump imposed these tariffs after returning to office in 2025, targeting nearly all U.S. trading partners and citing national emergencies such as trade deficits and drug trafficking, including fentanyl, as justification.During oral arguments in November, justices from both ideological sides expressed skepticism about the legal basis for the tariffs. Lower courts previously ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority, prompting his administration to appeal. Trump has defended the tariffs as strengthening the U.S. economy and warned that a ruling against them would severely harm the country.The case was brought by affected businesses and a coalition of 12 states—mostly led by Democrats—arguing that the tariffs were unlawfully broad. The outcome could have major implications for global trade and executive power. The Supreme Court, which currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority, is also considering other significant cases, including a challenge to part of the Voting Rights Act and a First Amendment dispute over a Colorado ban on “conversion therapy” for LGBT minors.Supreme Court set to issue rulings as Trump awaits fate of tariffs | ReutersA federal appeals court has ruled in favor of New York Yankees star Aaron Judge and the Major League Baseball Players Association, rejecting a Long Island man's attempt to trademark the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes The Judge.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's decision that Michael Chisena's filings infringed on Judge's common law trademark rights.Chisena filed for the trademarks in 2017 during Judge's breakout rookie season, claiming he planned to use them on clothing. He denied any connection to professional sports and insisted he had never seen Judge play. However, the USPTO's appeals board cast doubt on his good faith, noting the suspicious timing of the filings and their close link to Judge's rising fame.Judge and the MLBPA opposed the applications in 2018, arguing they would likely confuse consumers by associating the phrases with Judge's well-known public persona. They emphasized that the baseball star's last name, with its clear legal overtones, naturally lent itself to those phrases, which had become synonymous with him early in his career.The appeals court affirmed that Judge had built strong common law trademark rights through commercial use, and that Chisena's applications lacked merit. Chisena, who represented himself in court, also lost a related claim involving an image of a gavel and scales over a baseball diamond.Yankees' Judge clinches win in ‘All Rise,' ‘Here Comes The Judge' trademark case | ReutersLuigi Mangione, accused of killing UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson in a high-profile Manhattan shooting in December 2024, is set to appear in federal court Friday to challenge the possibility of facing the death penalty. Mangione, 27, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges including murder, stalking, and firearms offenses, and remains in custody while awaiting trial.His attorneys will argue before U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett that prosecutors failed to meet legal standards for the firearm-related murder charge—the only count that could result in a death sentence. They are also seeking to dismiss the entire indictment, claiming Mangione's constitutional rights were violated, which they argue should disqualify the government from pursuing capital punishment.While New York outlawed the death penalty in 2004, the ban applies only to state prosecutions. Because Mangione is being tried in federal court, the death penalty remains a legal possibility. He also faces separate charges at the state level, where a conviction could carry a life sentence.Judge Garnett has yet to decide on either the motion to dismiss the death-eligible charge or the broader request to throw out the indictment. No trial date has been set for the federal or state proceedings.Mangione, suspect in health insurance CEO murder, fights death penalty charge in court | ReutersVice President JD Vance announced the creation of a new assistant attorney general role focused on fighting fraud involving taxpayer money. The position will have nationwide jurisdiction and is intended to strengthen federal oversight and enforcement against misuse of public funds. Vance stated that a nominee for the role will be named in the coming days, signaling the administration's commitment to addressing financial misconduct within programs funded by taxpayers. The announcement was made during a White House press briefing, reflecting a broader effort to enhance government accountability—at least, ostensibly.Vance announces new assistant attorney general role to combat taxpayer fraud | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.This week's closing theme features one of the most charming and instantly recognizable pieces in the classical repertoire: the first movement of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – “Andante grazioso.” Composed around 1783, likely in Vienna or Salzburg, this sonata showcases Mozart's extraordinary ability to blend elegance, wit, and emotional nuance with apparent ease. The opening movement is not a fast-paced sonata-allegro form, as one might expect, but rather a gentle theme and variations, a structure that allows Mozart to explore the same musical idea through shifting textures, moods, and embellishments.“Andante grazioso” lives up to its title—graceful and moderately paced, it opens with a lilting, almost courtly theme that feels both poised and playful. As the variations unfold, Mozart's genius becomes more apparent: he adds rhythmic complexity, dynamic contrasts, and increasingly virtuosic flourishes, while always keeping the original melody in sight. The movement is accessible but never simplistic, classical in form yet deeply expressive.K. 331 is the same sonata that ends with the famous “Rondo alla Turca,” but it is in this opening Andante that we see Mozart at his most refined and imaginative. He draws the listener in not through drama, but through balance, warmth, and an almost conversational intimacy between performer and listener. This piece has been beloved for centuries, not only by pianists but also by those new to classical music.As we close the week, the delicate ornamentation and unhurried beauty of “Andante grazioso” offers a kind of musical exhale—a moment of elegance and clarity in contrast to the noise of modern life. It's a quiet reminder of why Mozart remains one of the most enduring voices in Western music.Without further ado, Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – “Andante grazioso” – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Alan provides a new Thursday Thought episode. In today's Thursday Thought, Alan addresses a misunderstanding some inventors have - a PPA is not a patent.  Alan briefly describes what a PPA - or Provisional Patent Application - provides you as an inventor, and what it does not provide. A PPA can be valuable - if used appropriately. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts, so you won't miss a single episode. Website: www.alanbeckley.com

DJ & PK talked about the Athletics getting a denial from the U.S. Patent & Trademark office for their hopes to keep their nickname when they move to Las Vegas.

Nurse inventors, this one's for you.

Welcome to the first Disney Dish of the new year, where Jim Hill and Len Testa kick things off with news, listener questions, and a deep dive into Disney history and tech. This week, a newly published Disney patent sparks speculation about how the upcoming Encanto attraction may work, while Jim launches into a fascinating (and surprisingly hands-on) story about how Disney maintains, repairs, and periodically reinvents its iconic theme park castles. Along the way, there are transportation woes, glittering greenhouses, and more than a few once-in-a-lifetime Disney moments. NEWS • Disney reveals Buddy, a new helper character coming to Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin when it reopens in 2026 • A newly filed Disney patent hints at holographic characters, with strong evidence pointing toward use in the upcoming Encanto ride • Imagineering files a new construction permit for the Haunted Mansion, likely focused on interior work • Updates on Glittering Greenhouses at EPCOT and extended holiday decorations at Disneyland • Changes to Disneyland perks, including the end of Early Entry and the rollout of a new California resident ticket deal FEATURE • Why Disney castles require constant repainting, roof repairs, and drainage fixes • The overlooked engineering challenges of maintaining structures built for 1950s deadlines, not 21st-century weather • How Imagineer Kim Irvine spent decades refining Sleeping Beauty Castle's look, color palette, and functionality • The surprising amount of artistry that goes into making castle “bricks” look authentically imperfect For this episode's full show notes, click here. HOSTS • Jim Hill - IG: @JimHillMedia | X: @JimHillMedia | Website: JimHillMedia.com • Len Testa - IG: @len.testa FOLLOW • Facebook: JimHillMediaNews • Instagram: JimHillMedia • TikTok: JimHillMedia SUPPORT Support the show and access bonus episodes and additional content at Patreon.com/JimHillMedia. PRODUCTION CREDITS Edited by Dave Grey Produced by Eric Hersey - Strong Minded Agency SPONSOR This episode is sponsored by UnlockedMagic.com. Planning a Walt Disney World getaway? Our friends at Unlocked Magic offer discounted theme park tickets, including savings of $50 or more per person on four-day tickets. Learn more at UnlockedMagic.com. If you would like to sponsor a show on the Jim Hill Media Podcast Network, reach out today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the first Disney Dish of the new year, where Jim Hill and Len Testa kick things off with news, listener questions, and a deep dive into Disney history and tech. This week, a newly published Disney patent sparks speculation about how the upcoming Encanto attraction may work, while Jim launches into a fascinating (and surprisingly hands-on) story about how Disney maintains, repairs, and periodically reinvents its iconic theme park castles. Along the way, there are transportation woes, glittering greenhouses, and more than a few once-in-a-lifetime Disney moments. NEWS • Disney reveals Buddy, a new helper character coming to Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin when it reopens in 2026 • A newly filed Disney patent hints at holographic characters, with strong evidence pointing toward use in the upcoming Encanto ride • Imagineering files a new construction permit for the Haunted Mansion, likely focused on interior work • Updates on Glittering Greenhouses at EPCOT and extended holiday decorations at Disneyland • Changes to Disneyland perks, including the end of Early Entry and the rollout of a new California resident ticket deal FEATURE • Why Disney castles require constant repainting, roof repairs, and drainage fixes • The overlooked engineering challenges of maintaining structures built for 1950s deadlines, not 21st-century weather • How Imagineer Kim Irvine spent decades refining Sleeping Beauty Castle's look, color palette, and functionality • The surprising amount of artistry that goes into making castle “bricks” look authentically imperfect For this episode's full show notes, click here. HOSTS • Jim Hill - IG: @JimHillMedia | X: @JimHillMedia | Website: JimHillMedia.com • Len Testa - IG: @len.testa FOLLOW • Facebook: JimHillMediaNews • Instagram: JimHillMedia • TikTok: JimHillMedia SUPPORT Support the show and access bonus episodes and additional content at Patreon.com/JimHillMedia. PRODUCTION CREDITS Edited by Dave Grey Produced by Eric Hersey - Strong Minded Agency SPONSOR This episode is sponsored by UnlockedMagic.com. Planning a Walt Disney World getaway? Our friends at Unlocked Magic offer discounted theme park tickets, including savings of $50 or more per person on four-day tickets. Learn more at UnlockedMagic.com. If you would like to sponsor a show on the Jim Hill Media Podcast Network, reach out today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Franklin Cover-Up, a case involving Political Corruption, Media Silence, and Allegations of Child Sex Trafficking involving Politicians. Also, we discuss Apple's 2023 Brain Control Patent, a real U.S. patent describing AirPods capable of identifying brain states like focus, stress, fatigue, and receptiveness. Join us on this Theories Thursday Episode. To watch the podcast on YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/TheoriesOfTheThirdKindYT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - Get instant access to 200+ bonus Audio episodes - Sign up here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://theoriesofthethirdkind.supercast.com To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A new Tesla patent aims to tackle the issue of sun glare affecting FSD at low light angles by giving the system, in my words, sunglasses. Plus: Tesla boosts battery production efforts at Giga Berlin, a deeper look at tire manufacturer's warranties and how they might be able to benefit EV drivers, and more! If you enjoy the podcast and would like to support my efforts, please check out my Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/teslapodcast and consider a monthly or (10% discounted!) annual pledge. Every little bit helps, and you can support for just $5 per month. And there are stacking bonuses in it for you at each pledge level, like early access to each episode at the $5 tier and the weekly Lightning Round bonus mini-episode (AND the early access!) at the $10 tier! And NO ADS at every Patreon tier! Also, don't forget to leave a message on the Ride the Lightning hotline anytime with a question, comment, or discussion topic for next week's show! The toll-free number to call is 1-888-989-8752. INTERESTED IN A FLEXIBLE EXTENDED WARRANTY FOR YOUR TESLA? Be a part of the future of transportation with XCare, the first extended warranty designed & built exclusively for EV owners, by EV owners. Use the code Lightning to get $100 off their "One-time Payment" option! Go to www.xcelerateauto.com/xcare to find the extended warranty policy that's right for you and your Tesla. P.S. Get 15% off your first order of awesome aftermarket Tesla accessories at AbstractOcean.com by using the code RTLpodcast at checkout. Grab the SnapPlate front license plate bracket for any Tesla at https://everyamp.com/RTL/ (don't forget the coupon code RTL too!). 

In this episode, Kathy sits down with Christine Hollis, the Chief Talent and Diversity Officer at Marshall Gerstein & Borun — one of the top intellectual property law firms in the U.S. Christine brings a fresh, energetic perspective to the often-misunderstood world of patent law and STEM-driven legal careers.Together, they explore what intellectual property (IP) law really is, how STEM professionals are critical to patent work, and why careers like technical specialist, patent agent, and IP attorney can be incredibly dynamic, creative, and rewarding. Christine also opens up about her winding path from aspiring physician to industrial/organizational psychologist to talent leader in IP law.This conversation is uplifting, surprising, and packed with insights on innovation, communication skills, resilience, and the future of STEM in law.Topics We CoverWhat intellectual property (IP) law actually is — and what it isn'tHow scientists, engineers, and STEM grads power patent workThe differences between technical specialists, patent agents, and patent attorneysHow patent agents can take the patent bar without a law degreeWhat prosecution means in the patent worldHow to know when to contact a patent attorney about an ideaWhy communication skills matter as much as technical skillsDiversity in IP law and building a more inclusive STEM-to-law pipelineHow remote work has shifted resilience, social skills, and workplace cultureChristine's path from psychology to legal talent leadershipWhy patent law is “like Disneyland” for people who love innovationKey MessagesSTEM backgrounds are incredibly versatile. Engineers and scientists aren't limited to labs — they can build long, impactful careers in patent law and innovation strategy.You don't need a JD to work in patent law. Patent agents can draft and prosecute patents with only the patent bar + STEM expertise.Communication is a superpower. The ability to translate complex science into everyday language is essential everywhere — especially in IP.Career paths can be nonlinear and still land exactly where you belong. Christine's story is a great example.Humans need connection. Christine's insights on resilience, mental health, and post-pandemic social shifts apply far beyond law.About Our GuestChristine Hollis is the Chief Talent & Diversity Officer at Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP in Chicago. She leads recruiting, professional development, DEI strategy, and organizational culture for a firm filled with engineers, scientists, and attorneys working at the forefront of innovation. Christine has a master's degree in Industrial/Organizational Psychology and has built a career helping technical professionals thrive in people-first workplaces.Links & ResourcesMarshall Gerstein & Borun LLP: https://www.marshallip.comPatent Pending Speakeasy in NYC:  https://www.patentpendingnyc.com/Connect With UsPodcast Website: https://www.ordinarily-extraordinary.comEmail: ordinarilyextraordinarypod@gmail.comVoicemail: Leave a message directly on our website!Follow & Review: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast platformYour ratings and shares help amplify women's voices in STEM. Thank you for listening and supporting our mission!Music by Kay PaulusSupport the show

Send us a textBring your doubts before God, that He will increase your faith.Mark 9:24: Immediately the father of the boy [possessed by a demon] cried out, “I do believe; help my unbelief!”Support the show

We're still in Greece (Santorini) and this episode left me genuinely concerned about Meredith Marks. In Real Housewives of Salt Lake City Season 6, Episode 14 “My Big Fat Greek Mother's Day,” the women split into groups, but Meredith's energy is off. Between the TikTok trigger, the Mother's Day phone call with Brooks, Lisa Barlow riding hard for her, and Meredith basically clocking out mid-excursion, something isn't right in the water.Let me know in the comments: Is Meredith going through something serious, or am I seeing it differently?Shop my Merch Store:georgiotakounakis.com/shopTimestamps:00:00:00 - Episode Intro00:27:10 - Podcast Intro00:49:05 – RHOSLC S6E14 Recap Begins (Greece/Santorini + my Meredith concern)01:33:34 – Santorini + the group split (why this pairing is strategic)03:05:14 – Meredith's energy feels “off” (TikTok trigger + what it might really be)06:05:04 – Mother's Day call with Brooks (why Heather's reaction annoyed me)08:10:29 – Meredith walks off in Santorini + returns for the cooking experience10:54:54 – Giovanni checks on Meredith (the “I'm very sad” moment)13:05:34 – Donkey ride group talks Meredith (Lisa's loyalty + why it feels deeper)15:10:19 – Whitney's apology + why it felt strategic (moving the season along)17:05:44 – Sprinter ride + “nap” moment (and the jaw/behavior that stood out)19:40:09 – Meredith “reboots” back at the villa (party story + shift in vibe)21:20:04 – Night out without Mary22:05:29 – “High Body Count Hair” trademark fight (Angie vs Britney)24:19:59 – Red pill context + why the phrase is controversial27:05:14 – Patent vs trademark explained (and why Britney was smart)30:20:34 – Final thoughts: does Meredith need a pause?32:15:24 – Reminders + wrap-up33:28:24 – Segment Ends33:47:16 - Podcast Outro Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Recent changes at USPTO are increasingly shaping the context in which Congress considers potential patent legislation.In the latest episode of Clause 8, the focus turns to how the USPTO's evolving approach to post-grant proceedings at the PTAB is shaping the broader patent policy debate—and influencing what Congress may (or may not) do next.The episode features David Jones, Executive Director of the High Tech Inventors Alliance (HTIA) and a longtime Clause 8 favorite, alongside Jeffrey Hantson, a former patent litigator and senior Senate Judiciary Committee staffer who most recently served as Deputy General Counsel to Sen. Dick Durbin after advising Sen. Mazie Hirono on IP issues. Dave and Jeff first crossed paths during the pre-pandemic Section 101 roundtables, and the episode captures their fun, wonky back-and-forth dynamic.A central theme is whether the USPTO's recent moves on IPR institution—including its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)—create an opening for Congress to strike a bargain, or instead make legislative compromise harder. Dave and Jeff explore how the introduction of settled expectations, Director John Squires reclaiming institution authority, and broader institution trends are reshaping the conversation around proposals such as the PREVAIL Act.Jeff frames the core tension in familiar terms for staffers and stakeholders: at some point, should the USPTO be done reassessing a patent's validity? Dave, for his part, is skeptical that legislation is the answer when the agency is (in his view) drifting from what was envisioned when Congress created the PTAB under the America Invents Act (AIA).The conversation also explores why PREVAIL advanced further than PERA in the last Congress, why PTAB reform is often easier to grasp on Capitol Hill than Section 101 eligibility, and why Sen. Thom Tillis' likability—and impending retirement—may matter more than most people realize.Set against a backdrop of shifting IP leadership on Capitol Hill and mixed administrative signals on patents, the episode offers a candid look at where patent policy may be headed—and what it would take to change course.

Eric, Dave and Marty breakdown the latest VisionOS beta and some really intriguing patents showing directions Apple could go. Dave never had a hamster or a guinea pig. visionOS 26.3 Beta Release Notes https://developer.apple.com/documentation/visionos-release-notes/visionos-26_3-release-notes Apple Releases First watchOS 26.3, tvoS 26.3 and visionOS 26.3 Betashttps://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-releases-first-watchos-26-3-tvos-26-3-and-visionos-26-3-betas.2474753/visionOS 26.2 Now Available for Apple Vision Pro Usershttps://www.macobserver.com/news/visionos-26-2-now-available-for-apple-vision-pro-users/ Minor bug fix update for Apple Vision Pro arrives with visionOS 26.2https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/12/12/minor-bug-fix-update-for-apple-vision-pro-arrives-with-visionos-262Is Red Bull's "Immersive" Apple Vision Pro Ski Movie The Future of Action Sports?https://www.powder.com/news/world-of-red-bull-apple-vision-pro-ski-movie Apple Eyes Room-Aware Audio With New Patent Filinghttps://x.com/PatentlyApple/status/2000265846925697290Patent: Next-Gen Apple HMD Design Targets Comfort and Customizationhttps://x.com/PatentlyApple/status/1999503955785572486 Apple Introduces Next-Gen Gaze Tracking for Future Vision Pro and Smartglasseshttps://x.com/PatentlyApple/status/1999932661108801855 Apple Patent Expands Breath Tracking into AR/VR Interfaceshttps://x.com/PatentlyApple/status/1999865437509595198 Reinforced Fit: Apple's reveals Modular, Multi-Axis Band Architecture for next-gen Vision Prohttps://x.com/PatentlyApple/status/1999476174280376735 High-End Hybrid Sensor Approach could Redefine Apple'svGaming Input Strategyhttps://x.com/PatentlyApple/status/1999140661744779334 Grip Aware Pose: Apple's Patent uses Hand Skeletons to Track Hidden Controllershttps://x.com/PatentlyApple/status/1999163040906748278 The AR Glasses Race: Meta Ray-Ban at $299 vs Apple Vision Pro at $3,499 — Who Wins the Next Computing Platform?https://fourweekmba.com/the-ar-glasses-race-meta-ray-ban-at-299-vs-apple-vision-pro-at-3499-who-wins-the-next-computing-platform Vision Pro M5 vs. Meta Quest 3S: Two Very Different Takes on Mixed Realityhttps://www.macobserver.com/tips/round-ups/vision-pro-m5-vs-meta-quest-3s/Vision Pro 2 rumors: is the future of Apple's visionOS tech actually smart glasses?https://www.stuff.tv/features/apple-vision-pro-2/ Review: Samsung Galaxy XRhttps://www.wired.com/review/samsung-galaxy-xr/Samsung Galaxy XR is getting 3 massive upgrades — Apple Vision Pro should be sweatinghttps://www.tomsguide.com/computing/vr-ar/3-new-upgrades-are-coming-to-samsung-galaxy-xr-including-one-of-the-vision-pros-best-featuresCan Apple's Vision Pro Turn the Office Into a Metaverse? - A New Reality for Productivity and Presencehttps://www.prnewsblog.com/tech/24709/can-apples-vision-pro-turn-the-office-into-a-metaverse-a-new-reality-for-productivity-and-presence/ Galaxy XR version of personashttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/qW-HaCNuCzAGravitas Threads: Exploring Reddit as a spatial museum in XR (Vision Pro app) Al + Physics Recommendation Enginehttps://www.reddit.com/r/AR_MR_XR/comments/1pn2f72/gravitas_threads_exploring_reddit_as_a_spatial/ APPS Sunglasses - Night Modehttps://apps.apple.com/us/app/sunglasses-night-mode/id6756418533 Glassbreakers - good use of control options using different fingers or positionshttps://apps.apple.com/us/app/glassbreakers/id6596780523ReminderFollow the live stream at YouTube.com/@VisionProfiles on Monday nights at 9 PM EST or catch the video later on Youtube or audio on any pod catcher serviceWebsite: ThePodTalk.NetEmail: ThePodTalkNetwork@gmail.com 

Question: Can any further submission of prior art by the same real party in interest be considered after the filing of the protest? Answer: After the filing of the protest, no further submission of prior art by the same real party in interest will be considered, except for new, non-cumulative prior art submitted requires that a […] The post MPEP Q & A 343: Can prior art submissions occur after the filing of the patent? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

✅ Detox Chlorella: Hier klicken (Gutschein: Youtube) ✅ Detox Supplements: Hier klicken (10 % Rabatt: TAN34909) ✅ Komplettes Detox Protokoll (kostenlos): Hier klicken✨Mehr Infos zu Ralf Brosius: https://ralfbrosius.de & https://www.revoblend.com/✅ Neues Patent für Monsantos „Super-Brokkoli“ erteilt: Hier klicken✅ Die Wahrheit über Ackergifte: Hier klicken✅ Kleingärtner als Schwerkriminelle: 25.000 Euro Strafe für den Anbau alter Obst- und Gemüsesorten: Hier klickenInhaltsverzeichnis: 00:00 Intro 03:00 Brokkoli Patent: Ein Skandal, der uns alle betrifft 06:00 Monsanto und die Macht über unser Gemüse 09:00 Glyphosat: Das heimliche Gift in unserem Leben 12:00 Insektensterben: Wie uns die Landwirtschaft zerstört 15:00 Super Brokkoli: Wie Patente die Ernährung kontrollieren 18:00 Der Skandal um alte Tomatensorten und deren Verbot 21:00 Bio vs. konventionell: Was du wirklich essen solltest 23:00 Detox 27:00 Der versteckte Zusammenhang zwischen Ernährung und GesundheitAchtung betreffend Interviews, Nahrung, Geräten und Supplements:Vorliegend habe ich meine eigene Erfahrung und die von Interviewpartnern genannt. Das sind die Effekte, die ich bei mir gespürt habe. Diese können bei jedem unterschiedlich ausfallen. Natürlich kann kein Lebensmittel, keine Nahrungsergänzung oder Superfoods sowie Inspirationen aus diesem Podcast alleine für sich eine Heilwirkung erzielen oder versprechen. Die Aussagen der Interview-Gäste stehen für sich. Diese spiegeln nicht zwingend die Meinung des Herausgebers. Links mit * sind Affiliate-Links.

Chris Holman welcomes back Mikhail Murshak, Senior Attorney, Foster Swift, Lansing, MI, 5 offices across Michigan. This is part 1 of 2 for a discussion on Intellectual Property and where things stand in late 2025. You help both startups and established firms build IP portfolios — what are the most common mistakes you see early-stage companies make when they first think about patents or trademarks? Your experience spans industries from medical devices to aerospace to consumer products. How does IP strategy differ when you're working across such diverse sectors, and what universal principles apply in all cases? With the recent launch of your “IP Monday” blog and changing rules at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, what trends should business owners watch now to avoid costly IP pitfalls? » Visit MBN website: www.michiganbusinessnetwork.com/ » Subscribe to MBN's YouTube: www.youtube.com/@MichiganbusinessnetworkMBN » Like MBN: www.facebook.com/mibiznetwork » Follow MBN: twitter.com/MIBizNetwork/ » MBN Instagram: www.instagram.com/mibiznetwork/

In this episode, I dive into Zootopia 2 and the absolutely unhinged fact that the entire plot revolves around a forged patent. Yes, a Disney movie about talking animals turns into a full-blown IP scandal involving a snake inventor, a corrupt businessman who steals her journal, rips out her real patent, forges his own, murders the witness (in a children's film!), frames the inventor, and builds a dynasty on the world's least plausible legal cover-up. I breaks down what the movie hilariously misunderstands about patents, why none of this could ever happen with a real patent, and why it still makes for the greatest animated patent thriller ever made!

Jeff is the founder of Intellectual Strategies, a law firm changing the way startups and scaling businesses access legal support through a “Fractional Legal Team” which gives innovators access to the right legal expertise from the right attorney at the right time, on a fractional basis and budget.Given his background, Jeff has a “superpower” to translate between technical, legal, and business topics with ease. He's also focused on bringing perspective and insight into every conversation. Admitted to practice in California, Utah, and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, he's a true jack-of-all-trades—an inventor, a strategist, and an attorney who's helped founders tackle complex business and legal problems for over two decades.Jeff's work and passion spans business strategy, technology, intellectual property, and law. He's revolutionizing how companies access the legal support they need, empowering them to “Innovate with Confidence” while his team handles the complexities in the background. He's committed to innovative solutions and being a go-to resource for ambitious companies looking to thrive in today's fast-paced world.Jeff's Links:Website: https://www.intellectualstrategies.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/holman/Podcast: https://www.intellectualstrategies.com/podcastThe Impatient Entrepreneur's links:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheImpatientEntrepreneurPod⁠LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/theimpatiententrepreneurpod/⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theimpatiententrepreneurpod/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheImpatientEntrepreneurPod⁠Online: https://www.theimpatiententrepreneurpod.comConnect with us⁠⁠: https://www.theimpatiententrepreneurpod.com/contact⁠Kwedar & Co.'s links:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kwedarco⁠LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/kwedarco⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kwedarco⁠YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@KwedarCo⁠Online: www.kwedarco.comConnect with us: https://www.kwedarco.com/book-consultation

He knew a secret about a 1975 computer that nobody should have known. He described a future of civil war and nuclear catastrophe. Then he disappeared. Who was John Titor?

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 478. Related: The Universal Principles of Liberty Announcing the Universal Principles of Liberty Fusillo on the Universal Principles of Liberty and Liberland KOL473 | The Universal Principles of Liberty, with Mark Maresca of The White Pillbox Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection, in Legal Foundations of a Free Society A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability and Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith, in Legal Foundations of a Free Society Disentangling Legal and Economic Concepts Dualism, Monism, Scientism, Causality, Teleology: Hoppe, Mises, Rothbard Libertarian Answer Man: Mind-Body Dualism, Self-Ownership, and Property Rights God as Slaveowner; Conversations with Murphy Mises on God KOL293 | Faith and Free Will, with Steve Mendelsohn  This is my appearance on Adam Haman's podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), Kinsella's Legal Treatise On Universal Principles Of Liberty | Hn 185 (recorded Nov. 9,  2025; released Dec. 9, 2025). https://youtu.be/tc-hdB_yiS4?si=icPwq5mSS6nDU8LP Adam's show notes: On this episode of Haman Nature, libertarian poker pro Adam Haman is joined once again by libertarian legal theorist (and patent attorney who despises IP) Stephan Kinsella about his new creation: The Universal Principles of Liberty. (apologies, folks - my mic was a bit wonky on this one) 00:00 -- Intro. Welcoming author, attorney, world-traveler, and all-around great guy Stephan Kinsella! 02:54 -- What are "The Universal Principles of Liberty", and why should we be excited by it? 11:40 -- What is a "person"? What is "property"? Why are these things so important to think about clearly? 34:24 -- This simple and elegant document can handle deep and complex issues. 47:54 -- When (and why) does selling not imply ownership, and vice-versa? What does "dualism" have to do with this? What's the confusion between economics and law when dealing with this stuff? 56:53 -- Outro. Go comment on TUPoL! (linked below) Thanks for watching Haman Nature!  Shownotes, links, grok summary, and transcript below. Shownotes (Grok) Haman Nature Podcast – Show Notes Guest: Stephan Kinsella Host: Adam Haman Episode Topic: The Universal Principles of Liberty – A New Foundation for Free Societies   0:00 – Opening Banter & Liberland Passport Shenanigans Stephan shows up in casual clothes after taking a suit-and-tie selfie… for his upcoming Liberland passport photo   Only a libertarian would put on half a suit to pretend to be a government just to get a passport   Stephan is heading to Prague in December 2025 for the signing and announcement of the Liberland Constitution 1:04 – Who is Stephan Kinsella? Patent attorney turned leading anarchist legal theorist   Author of Against Intellectual Property and Legal Foundations of a Free Society   Recent Vegas trip with Adam: helicopter into the Grand Canyon, Venetian St. Mark's Square (tacky but awesome) 2:59 – Introducing “The Universal Principles of Liberty” (TUPoL) A one-page, elegant, civil-law-style statement of libertarian metanorms   Not a constitution, not a detailed legal code – a foundational layer that private legal systems can build upon   Voluntary opt-in document: you must explicitly sign on to be bound   Purpose: foster conflict-free interaction through reason, experience, and ethics – no state decree, no majority vote 5:09 – Origin Story: From Liberland → Bir Tawil → Universal Principles Stephan helped draft Liberland's early (still statist) constitution but was uneasy as an anarchist   Long history of libertarian startup-country projects (Seasteading, Atlantis, Prospera, etc.)   Max (FreeMax) approached Stephan about Bir Tawil (unclaimed land between Egypt & Sudan) and wanted principles instead of a state   Co-drafters: Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Alessandro Fusillo, David Dürr, Pat Tinsley 9:16 – Why This Document Now? Refinement of 30+ years of libertarian legal theory (Rothbard, Hoppe, Kinsella)   Earlier concise restatement now in the Libertarian Party platform (plank 2.1/2.2)   Goal: a short, uncontroversial, legally precise statement that any free society can point to 11:40 – Key Features & Definitions “Person” = any sentient being capable of moral agency (includes possible AGI/aliens, excludes animals)   Rights are exclusively property rights in scarce physical resources (no “right to life,” no IP)   Self-ownership is primary and inalienable (the Walter Block voluntary-slavery debate settled against alienability)   Body rights can only be forfeited by committing aggression (proportional punishment/restoration justified) 20:01 – Freedom is a Consequence, Not a Primary Right No need for enumerated positive rights (speech, religion, warm baths)   All legitimate freedoms flow from property rights in body and external resources 23:25 – Why Self-Ownership is Inalienable (and Walter Block is wrong) Body ownership arises from direct embodiment/control, not homesteading   You can abandon or sell homesteaded external resources; you cannot abandon “you”   Contracts are title transfers, not enforceable promises 29:12 – Punishment, Outlaws, and Estoppel Aggressors implicitly consent to proportional defensive/enforcement force   No need for prior signed contract with an outlaw – committing aggression waives the right to complain 34:26 – Weapons of Mass Destruction Clause (Article 8) Indiscriminate devices that cannot be aimed solely at aggressors are legitimately restrictable   Practical insurance/neighborhood covenants would handle most cases anyway 37:39 – Evidentiary Standards Borrowed from Tradition Severe remedies require heightened standards (e.g., beyond reasonable doubt, jury nullification rights)   Roman & common law are largely libertarian and will serve as starting points 40:41 – Select Unjust Laws & Aspirational Closing Explicitly lists taxation, IP, conscription, etc. as unjust   Beautiful final paragraph: “We bow to no state… no power on earth will stop us” (mostly written by Max) 42:47 – Why Law Must Develop Organically (Quote from Stephan's blog) Detailed armchair legal codes are premature and counterproductive   Law evolves case-by-case through real disputes, custom, and decentralized courts 47:58 – Deep Dive: “Selling Does Not Imply Ownership” & Misesian Dualism Crucial distinction between possession/control (causal/economic) and legal ownership (normative)   Robinson Crusoe has possession but no ownership   Labor/services are not ownable – employment contracts are conditional title transfers of money, not sales of “labor”   Confusing the two realms leads to the fallacious justification for intellectual property 1:06:20 – Free Will, Compatibilism, and Scientism In the causal realm there is no free will (no downward causation)   In the teleological realm of human action we unavoidably treat people as purposeful choosers   Stephan's “Misesian compatibilism” – both views are correct in their respective domains 1:16:53 – Closing & Future Plans Stephan will push to have TUPoL incorporated into the final Liberland Constitution (to the extent compatible)   Next big project: new comprehensive book on IP/copyright titled Copy This Book   Where to find everything: stephankinsella.com | Universal Principles of Liberty poster & text freely available Links   The Universal Principles of Liberty full text & poster: https://www.stephankinsella.com/principles/   Stephan's blog announcement: https://stephankinsella.com/2025/08/announcing-the-universal-principles-of-liberty/   Adam's original Substack post: https://hamannature.substack.com/p/kinsellas-legal-treatise-on-universal Enjoy the episode and go read (and sign!) the Universal Principles of Liberty! Transcript (Youtube/Grok): Haman Nature Interview: Stephan Kinsella on The Universal Principles of Liberty (Corrected transcript – spelling, punctuation, minor grammar, no paraphrasing. Long speaking blocks broken into ≤10-sentence paragraphs. Topical headers with timestamps added.) Opening Banter & Liberland Passport Story [0:00] Adam Haman: Intro. Welcoming author, attorney, world-traveler, and all-around great guy Stephan Kinsella! [0:00] Stephan Kinsella: You forgot your cue. I told you to ask me about my adventure this morning and putting on a suit and tie. [0:06] Adam: I thought that was off because you, sir, are not wearing a suit and tie anymore. [0:11] Stephan: I know. So it wasn't for you. You know how people—well, I don't want to mess my shirt up. I can reuse it now. You know how it's probably common knowledge now that ever since the Zoom era, a lot of people were telecommuting and so they would put on a shirt and tie but they were wearing shorts underneath, right? [0:37] Stephan: So I did something this morning and I was thinking only a libertarian would do this. I put on a suit and tie to take a photo of myself because I need a passport photo. But I don't need a regular passport photo. I need a photo that I can use for my Liberland passport because I'm going to Prague in December for the signing and announcement of the Liberland Constitution. Formal Introduction [1:04] Adam: Hello and welcome to Haman Nature. I am Adam Haman and that fine fellow fiddling with his pipe on a Houston morning is one Stephan Kinsella. How you doing, sir? [1:15] Stephan: I'm in fine fettle. You're fine fettle and a fine fellow. [1:22] Adam: For those of you who just woke up underneath a rock, Stephan Kinsella is a legal theorist, one of our best, and also the author of this highly influential book here,

Joshua Goldberg, Co-Managing partner at Nath, Goldberg & Meyer – the #1 ranked patent law firm for biotech and pharmaceutical technologies joins Enterprise Radio.… Read more The post Why early-stage patent decisions can make or break future licensing deals appeared first on Top Entrepreneurs Podcast | Enterprise Podcast Network.

In this episode, we sit down with Caitlyn Krebs, Co-founder and CEO of Nalu Bio, to discuss how her company is leveraging generative AI to revolutionize drug discovery. Caitlyn shares how they are creating novel chemical entities five times faster than traditional methods to tackle massive unmet needs like endometriosis and post-surgical pain.We also dive deep into the business of biotech: the looming $250 billion "Patent Cliff" facing big pharma, the reality of the fundraising "rollercoaster," and why bringing innovation back to the US is critical for the industry's future.If you are interested in the intersection of AI and biology, the future of pain management, or the grit required to build a life sciences startup, you won't want to miss this conversation.⭐ Sponsored by Podcast10x - Podcasting agency for VCs - https://podcast10x.comKey Topics Covered:- The Next GLP-1? Why the endocannabinoid system is the largest regulator in the human body.- AI in Biotech: How Nalu Bio uses "digital twins" and virtual patients to de-risk drug development.- The $250B Opportunity: Understanding the massive patent cliff approaching the pharma industry.- Women's Health: Solving endometriosis with non-hormonal, non-opioid therapeutics.- Founder Resilience: Caitlyn's story of a lead investor walking away at the final document stage and how she bounced back.- Building Moats: How to protect IP and technology in a competitive market.Connect with Caitlyn & Nalu Bio:* Website: https://nalubio.com* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/caitlynkrebs* Email: caitlyn@nalubio.comVC10X website - https://VC10X.comDon't forget to LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, and turn on notifications for more deep dives into the future of technology and healthcare!#Biotech #AI #DrugDiscovery #Endometriosis #Startup #NaluBio #HealthTech #Entrepreneurship #GLP1 #Pharma

Join us for a timely webinar examining the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Revision to Rules of Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” which proposes significant changes to how inter partes review (IPR) petitions are instituted. This session will present arguments from both sides while covering how the proposed rules aim to curb serial and duplicative challenges, shift institution discretion, and bolster patent­holder certainty, while also covering concerns about limiting access to review and adverse impacts on operating companies. With the official public comment deadline extended to December 2, 2025, this webinar aims to provide informative insight before the comment window closes. Don’t miss this chance to hear competing views on one of the most consequential patent-policy debates of the year. Featuring: Hon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLPDavid Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors AllianceJoseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLCBrian O'Shaughnessy, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP(Moderator) Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr

Corey Salsberg, one of the leading voices on intellectual property policy in the United States, joins Clause 8 to discuss surviving the anti-pharma activism of the last administration, why he's encouraged by the current administration's approach to patent policy, and even the scientific possibility of “resurrecting the woolly mammoth.”As Global Head of IP at Novartis, Salsberg has a unique vantage point on how legal uncertainty affects the future of healthcare innovations. His work testifying before Congress has placed him at the center of the debate over the Supreme Court's Mayo, Myriad, and Alice decisions — rulings that he thinks have been followed by years of instability around Section 101, threatening investment in critical biotech and diagnostic breakthroughs.The conversation explores the political landscape surrounding the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), the persistence of myths like “patent thickets,” and the consequences of letting misinformation shape innovation policy. It also highlights what Congress can do to prevent the U.S. from falling behind in the race for gene and AI-driven therapeutics.Ultimately, Salsberg's perspective underscores how constructive, good-faith dialogue across industries remains essential to safeguarding innovation.

Mr. Beast Biography Flash a weekly Biography.Good evening, listeners. Here's your MrBeast update for the past few days.The YouTube megastar, whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson, has been absolutely everywhere lately. Most recently, the 27-year-old content creator launched Beast Land, a pop-up theme park in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, opening with over seven thousand people on day one. According to reports from his team, the launch was a logistical masterpiece—Donaldson personally appeared to meet fans, and they had to design an intricate system distributing 250 golden tickets just to manage the crowds wanting photos with him. It's the kind of spectacle only MrBeast could pull off.On the business front, trademark filings reveal Donaldson is expanding into fintech. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Beast Holdings LLC filed for a neobank application in October, indicating plans to launch financial services including short-term lending, investment management, and cryptocurrency exchange. It's another piece of his sprawling empire that already includes MrBeast Burger, his entertainment studio, and upcoming ventures.But here's where it gets interesting on the philanthropic side. The Rockefeller Foundation, one of America's oldest charities, announced a major strategic partnership with Beast Philanthropy. According to sources close to the deal, the two organizations are combining Donaldson's unmatched ability to capture youth attention with the foundation's 112 years of development expertise. They're planning a trip to Ghana next year to tackle child labor in cocoa farming, directly connecting to Donaldson's chocolate company Feastables, which aims to prove chocolate production can be profitable without child labor.Perhaps most revealing is Donaldson's recent candid admission about his finances. Despite being worth an estimated one billion dollars on paper, the YouTube star says he has very little personal cash because he reinvests nearly everything into content and philanthropy. In fact, he's reportedly borrowing money from his mom to pay for his upcoming wedding to author Thea Booysen, whom he proposed to on Christmas 2024. He spent roughly a quarter billion dollars on content this year alone.Looking ahead, Donaldson is launching the One Billion Acts of Kindness campaign, inviting creators worldwide to participate in what could be his most ambitious philanthropic initiative yet.Thanks for tuning in to this MrBeast edition. Please subscribe to never miss an update, and search the term "Biography Flash" for more great biographies.And that is it for today. Make sure you hit the subscribe button and never miss an update on Mr. Beast. Thanks for listening. This has been a Quiet Please production."Get the best deals https://amzn.to/4mMClBvThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Trump strikes back! In this explosive Bonus Episode 226 of The Alan Sanders Show, dive into President Trump's executive order nullifying Biden's controversial autopen-signed directives. Ukraine corruption exposed: Zelensky's inner circle raided amid massive Energoatom scandal. Tesla's game-changing 4680 battery patent breakthrough promises cheaper EVs. Plus, Supremacy Clause showdown as Oregon's governor clashes with federal authority. And it is perfectly legal, both from US law and International Law to destroy Narco-terrorist threats. Unpack the headlines shaking America! Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR,  TRUTH Social and YouTube by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!

How AI Is Democratizing Patent Protection: Insights from Ophir Katzir, Co-Founder & CEO of senseIPIn this episode of The Thoughtful Entrepreneur, host Josh Elledge sits down with Ophir Katzir, Co-Founder and CEO of senseIP, to explore how artificial intelligence is transforming the world of intellectual property (IP) and patent protection. With a background spanning volunteer firefighting, inventing, and startup leadership, Ophir brings a rare blend of resilience, technical expertise, and mission-driven innovation. This conversation offers a practical roadmap for inventors, founders, and enterprises ready to protect their ideas faster, more affordably, and more confidently using AI.How AI Is Reshaping Patent Protection for InnovatorsOphir begins by drawing parallels between firefighting and startups—two environments that demand calm decision-making under pressure, adaptability, and teamwork. Those same principles fuel senseIP's mission: breaking down traditional barriers in the patent system that have historically favored well-funded companies over individual inventors and early-stage founders.He explains why the legacy patent process is so intimidating: high attorney fees, complex legal language, lengthy timelines, and unpredictable costs tied to office actions. These hurdles often discourage innovators from filing at all. senseIP's AI-driven platform, guided by its conversational agent Leo, changes that. Inventors can start with a single sentence and receive instant clarity on patentability, prior art, freedom to operate, and whether their idea is truly novel.Finally, Ophir outlines how AI enables faster, more precise filings—along with ongoing support. From one-click provisional applications to automated handling of office actions, senseIP helps innovators protect their intellectual property without surprise bills or legal confusion. This shift democratizes access to patents and gives businesses of all sizes a smarter, more scalable way to manage their IP portfolios.About Ophir KatzirOphir Katzir is the Co-Founder and CEO of senseIP, a serial inventor, and a former volunteer firefighter whose resilience and problem-solving approach shape his leadership style. Passionate about democratizing innovation, Ophir blends deep technical expertise with a mission to make patent protection accessible, affordable, and transparent for everyone.Connect with Ophir on LinkedIn.About senseIPsenseIP is an AI-powered patent platform designed to simplify intellectual property protection for inventors, startups, and enterprises. Using conversational intelligence, automated prior art searches, and one-click provisional filing, senseIP removes cost and complexity while providing transparent, all-inclusive IP support.Links Mentioned in This EpisodesenseIP WebsiteOphir Katzir on LinkedInKey Episode Highlights:How firefighting shaped Ophir's resilience and decision-making in startupsThe high cost, complexity, and unpredictability of traditional patent filingsHow senseIP's AI agent Leo simplifies patentability assessment and filingThe importance of early IP protection in an era of rapid AI-driven innovationPractical steps for inventors to validate, refine, and secure their ideas with...

Mr. Beast Biography Flash a weekly Biography.Jimmy Donaldson, known worldwide as MrBeast, has been making major moves across multiple ventures as we head into the final month of 2025. According to Global Fintech Insider, the YouTube megastar filed a trademark application in October under Beast Holdings LLC for what appears to be a neobank targeting his 447 million subscribers. The filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office lists services for short-term cash advances, consumer lending, investment management, financial education, cryptocurrency exchange, and credit and debit card issuance. While trademark filings are preliminary steps and a significant distance from actual bank licensing, this move signals serious intentions to enter the financial services space, building on Donaldson's previous investments in fintech companies like Current and Bitski.On the philanthropy front, Beast Philanthropy announced a major strategic partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation on November 24th. This collaboration pairs Donaldson's unparalleled ability to engage youth audiences with the foundation's 112-year legacy of tackling global problems. The partnership focuses on inspiring younger generations, particularly Gen Z, to care about vulnerable populations worldwide. Notably, the two organizations plan to visit Ghana early next year to collaborate on development and community-led change initiatives. Through his snack company Feastables, Donaldson continues championing fair-trade chocolate production and fighting child labor on cacao farms, hoping to provide farmers with living wages while rallying consumers around ethical practices.Beyond these ventures, MrBeast's sprawling empire continues expanding. According to Business Insider reporting, the creator revealed ownership stakes in Beast Industries during a deposition, underscoring the scale of his business empire estimated at around five billion dollars. The company has been aggressively hiring new executives to strengthen content production and brand partnership capabilities.The partnership with Rockefeller Foundation represents perhaps the most significant development, signaling a maturation of Donaldson's approach to philanthropy. Rather than operating solo, he's deliberately seeking established expertise to ensure his charitable work creates lasting, measurable impact beyond viral moments.Thanks so much for tuning in to this episode. Please subscribe to never miss an update on MrBeast and search the term Biography Flash for more great biographies.And that is it for today. Make sure you hit the subscribe button and never miss an update on Mr. Beast. Thanks for listening. This has been a Quiet Please production."Get the best deals https://amzn.to/4mMClBvThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

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

Szerda este első alkalommal vettük fel élőben a Tyúkólt, ráadásul egy nagyon különleges vetítéssel egybekötve! Az eseményen a közönség előbb megnézhette Podhradská Lea Apám lánya című filmjét (ami elnyerte a legjobb magyar dokumentumfilm díját a 22. Verzió Emberi Jogi Dokumentumfilm Fesztiválon), ezt követően pedig a rendezővel és meghívott vendégeinkkel beszélgettünk a film kapcsán nők elleni erőszakról, társadalmi előítéletekről, és a hallgatás okairól. Többek között. Miért beszélgettünk erről? A magyar férfiak alig több mint tizede gondolja azt, hogy a féltékenykedés is a párkapcsolati erőszak része. A bántalmazás társadalmi megítélése visszás és a fizikai agressziót sem tartják az emberek minden esetben erőszaknak. Ezeket a sokkoló tényeket eddig főleg a bántalmazott nőket támogató szervezetek tapasztalataiból tudtuk, nemrég viszont megjelent a PATENT Egyesület és a 21 Kutatóközpont közös kutatása, ami rámutat arra, hogy az egyes esetek mögött társadalmi mintázat húzódik meg, és valóban rendszerszintű a probléma. Kevesen bíznak az igazságszolgáltatás erejében, a legtöbben pedig úgy vélik, a családnak kellene segítenie. Csakhogy a család nem mindig segít. Erről, és még sokkal többről mesél az Apám lánya című film is (itt megnézhetitek az előzetesét), amelyben a rendező saját, több évtizede eltűnt nővérét, Denit keresi. A történet húsba vágóan érzékletes módon mutatja be nemcsak a bántalmazás, hanem a környezet közönyének hatásait is. Ezt az epizódot a filmvetítés után vettük fel, a rendezővel, valamint Les Krisztinával a PATENT Egyesület, és Kiss Katával a 21 Kutatóközpont szakértőjével beszélgettünk. Mielőtt elkezded hallgatni szólunk, hogy az adás több helyen is spoileres!!4! A filmet december 4-étől a magyar mozikban is vetítik majd, mi mindenképpen nagyon ajánljuk. Bővebben: 00:56 - Különleges ez az adás, nem nekünk kellett megnyomni a gombot! 03:28 - Miért nem elég a tapasztalati tudás, ha erőszakról van szó? Miért kellenek a számok? Mit lehet elérni a kutatással? 07:02 - Magyarországon a nők elleni erőszakot pillanatok alatt relativizálják. 10:40 - A társadalom szerint a családtól remélhetnek segítséget az érintettek. 15:15 - Ezeket a traumákat gyakorlatilag lehetetlen feldolgozni. És a viselkedésminták a családon belül újra is termelhetik magukat. 25:27 - Pozitív eredménynek számít, hogy Magyarországon majdnem mindenki elismeri, hogy a fizikai bántalmazás erőszaknak számít. 29:56 - A féltékenykedés megítélése sokkal visszásabb. A popkultúrában ráadásul sokszor úgy ábrázolják, hogy ennek helye van és romantikus. 34:21 - A film jelenetei, a beszélgetések iszonyú megterhelők, de Lea rengeteg dolgot kivágott az interjúkból, hogy emészthető legyen a végeredmény. 39:21 - Judit Hermann szerint a traumában a legsúlyosabb a hallgatás, a titok és a szégyen. 41:40 - Az áldozatoknak teljesen irreálisnak tűnő megküzdési stratégiákat kell választaniuk, hogy átvészeljék a legnehezebb időszakokat. Ez Deni esetében sincs másképp és a film meg is mutatja, hogyan alakul a személyisége ennek mentén. 44:45 - Deni elmesélte a történetét, de ezzel azokról is mesél, akik már nem tudnak megszólalni. Ez az adás két nappal a Néma Tanúk Felvonulás után jelenik meg, ahol olyan nők történeteit olvassák fel, akiket családon belüli vagy párkapcsolati erőszak során öltek meg. 46:00 - Nem tudunk semmi olyat mondani, ami pikk-pakk megoldaná a problémát. De igyekszünk hangot adni és felületet ahhoz, hogy ez a téma megjelenjen és az áldozatokhoz is eljussanak az olyan szervezetek, akik segíthetnek nekik. Ezúton is nagyon köszönjük, hogy ott voltatok velünk, hogy hallgattok minket, hogy időről időre írtok nekünk. Olvasnivaló: A PATENT és a 21 Kutatóközpont hivatkozott kutatásának összefoglalója itt érhető el. A PATENT Egyesület oldalát itt találod. A PATENT és a 21 Kutatóközpont közös kutatása a reproduktív jogok megítéléséről 2024-ben készült. Erről is beszélünk a podcastban, elolvasni pedig itt tudod az összefoglalót. Podcastunk kéthetente jelentkezik új adással, meghallgatható a 444 Spotify- és Apple-csatornáján is. Korábbi adásaink itt találhatók. Javaslataid, ötleteid, meglátásaid a tyukol@444.hu címre várjuk. Illusztráció: Kiss Bence/444See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

At the Via Licensing Alliance's Bridge Summit 2025 in San Francisco, Clause 8 host Eli Mazour sat down with two leaders who ushered in the modern age of patent pools: Garrard Beeney, founder of Sullivan & Cromwell's IP practice, and John Sideris, Principal Licensing Counsel at Philips.Their conversation traces the evolution of patent pools — from the early days of MPEG LA and antitrust uncertainty to today's complex, global licensing ecosystem.Garrard Beeney recalls how early skepticism toward joint licensing eventually gave way to an appreciation of how collaboration between innovators can expand access, reduce friction, and drive technological growth. He warns, however, that increasing regulatory interference — particularly in Europe — risks undermining a system that largely works.John Sideris brings the perspective of a major technology innovator. He discusses how Philips built a licensing culture that values both innovation and fairness, explaining why patent pools remain one of the most efficient and balanced ways to manage IP rights. He also shares a rare insider view into how companies factor intellectual property costs into product development — and why responsible licensing keeps the innovation cycle healthy.Together, their insights offer a window into how markets, not mandates, can sustain innovation — and why listening across the licensor-licensee divide remains essential for the future of IP.

Dive into the high-stakes world of firearm innovation with hosts Mark Kelley from Kelley Defense and Rick Hogg from War HOGG Tactical on the latest episode of the On The Range Podcast. Recorded live amid the adrenaline-fueled action of the CANCON Range event by Recoil Magazine, special guest Lawrence—President of Rare Breed Triggers—pulls back the curtain on his groundbreaking work developing forced reset triggers (FRT). From engineering the game-changing FRT-15 to navigating fierce court battles against rival companies over patented force reset trigger technology, Lawrence shares insider stories on legal fights, innovation hurdles, and the tactical edge these triggers bring to competitive shooting and self-defense. Perfect for fans of AR-15 upgrades, trigger mechanics, and 2A advocacy, this episode unpacks the drama behind rapid-fire tech that's reshaping the industry. Catch it now on the On The Range Podcast and arm yourself with knowledge! ForceResetTriggers RareBreedTriggers FRT15 PatentBattles CANCONRecoil AR15Triggers TacticalInnovation

Today, I'm joined by Shahab Elmi, co-founder & CEO of Cymbiotika. With 100M+ packets sold in its first six years, Cymbiotika is bringing transparency to the supplement industry with liposomal formulations and rigorous third-party testing. In this episode, we discuss building a supplement brand focused on efficacy over marketing. We also cover: Liposomal delivery as a differentiator Why churn reveals true product efficacy Avoiding the wellness DTC race to the bottom    Subscribe to the podcast → insider.fitt.co/podcast   Subscribe to our newsletter → insider.fitt.co/subscribe   Follow us on LinkedIn → linkedin.com/company/fittinsider    Cymbiotika's Website: www.cymbiotika.com  Cymbiotika's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cymbiotika/  - The Fitt Insider Podcast is brought to you by EGYM. Visit EGYM.com to learn more about its smart fitness ecosystem for fitness and health facilities. Fitt Talent: https://talent.fitt.co/  Consulting: https://consulting.fitt.co/  Investments: https://capital.fitt.co/   Chapters:  (00:00) Introduction  (01:15) Shahab's background and Cymbiotika's origin story  (02:00) The problem with the supplement industry  (02:45) Why transparency and testing matter  (04:15) Churn rate as the ultimate success metric  (05:45) Organic celebrity endorsements vs paid sponsorships  (09:00) Liposomal delivery technology explained  (12:30) Manufacturing in-house vs outsourcing  (16:00) The DTC race to the bottom  (18:30) Building trust through radical transparency  (20:30) Competing on efficacy, not marketing spend  (23:00) Taking on industry fraud and fake claims  (24:30) Announcing multiple third-party clinical trials  (26:50) Patent enforcement and liposome validation  (27:35) Product roadmap (29:25) Conclusion  

The best biotech and pharmaceutical innovations mean nothing if they can't be protected—and protected fast. Our next guest, Josh Goldberg, is solving this challenge as co-managing partner at Nath, Goldberg & Meyer, the #1 ranked patent law firm for biotech and pharmaceutical technologies. With nearly three decades of IP law experience and a unique background as a lab researcher, Josh brings an insider's understanding of how innovation actually happens. He's helped industry leaders like Amgen, Takeda, and GlaxoSmithKline turn breakthrough treatments into patent-protected portfolios—often in under a year instead of the typical four-year timeline. Driven by a passion for focus and strategic IP timing, Josh shares his pioneering approach to biotech and pharmaceutical patent prosecution. Join us to discover how smart IP strategy drives licensing power, regulatory success, and company valuation. Let's go!Episode Highlights:Focus drives success – Companies fail by trying to do everything at once; staying deliberate and focused is key to making real impactOne-year patent timelines vs. four years – Josh uses USPTO's Track 1 program to secure patents in record time, improving fundraising and M&A positioningClient-centered approach wins – Listening to unique client needs instead of one-size-fits-all strategies earned the firm its #1 rankingDiagnostic patents are back – New USPTO Director signals the patent office is "open for business" again after a decade of restrictionsScientist turned patent attorney – Josh's lab background gives him insider understanding of how innovation actually happensAbout our Guest: Joshua is the patent attorney innovation-driven pharmaceutical companies call when they need to turn complicated technologies into protected assets in record time.As co-managing partner at Nath, Goldberg & Meyer—the #1 ranked patent law firm for biotech and pharmaceutical technologies in both 2024 and 2025—Joshua leads IP efforts across industries like biotech, pharma, agriculture, renewable energy, and advanced materials. Whether it's a blockbuster acne treatment like DUAC, a vitamin D analog lotion like Sorilux, OTC solutions like Salonpas and Germagic, or a leading drug used to reduce stomach acid and treat conditions like GERD, ulcers, and heartburn—like Protonix—Joshua helps turn high-stakes R&D into patent-protected portfolios, often in under a year instead of the typical four-year timeline.Though his climate and agricultre IP expertise has made him famous as the “green patent guy,” Joshua moves between disciplines skillfully and has helped industry leaders like Amgen, Takeda, Guilford Pharmaceuticals, Mayne, and Stiefel Laboratories (which was acquired by GlaxoSmithKline) build pharma portfolios that hold up under investor, acquirer, and FDA scrutiny.His journey didn't begin in IP law, but in the lab, researching experimental pharmaceutical delivery systems. It gave him an edge most attorneys don't have: understanding how innovation actually happens, and how to protect it without slowing a business down. Links Supporting This Episode: Nath, Goldberg & Meyer Website: CLICK HEREJoshua Goldberg LinkedIn page: CLICK HERENath, Goldberg & Meyer LinkedIn: CLICK HEREMike Biselli LinkedIn page: CLICK HEREMike Biselli Twitter page:...

Jackie Samuelson, founder of Alpha Lady LLC, discusses why she started her company, her personal reason for inventing a new nursing cover, whether tariffs are affecting her business, and her experience pitching the "sharks" on the ABC television program "Shark Tank."

It's been quite the year for Obsidian Entertainment. Following three major releases in one year with Avowed, Grounded 2 (Early Access), and The Outer Worlds 2. Obsidian finds itself discussing their future and relevance in a world where "Microsoft Gaming" exists. Cog and Hoeg discuss the significance of revisiting the Pillars of Eternity universe with their latest turn based announcement. What does the future also hold for this studio? In addition to all the latest news in the world of Xbox! Please keep in mind that our timestamps are approximate, and will often be slightly off due to dynamic ad placement. 0:00:00 - Intro0:02:50 - Health Is Wealth0:05:01 - Does Cog Really Hate Exclusives?0:17:14 - Xbox Hybrid Future?0:33:59 - Cancelling Game Pass Ultimate?0:40:32 - Destiny 2 New Renegades expansion0:49:39 - Nintendo's Patent in Palworld Dispute is Being Re-examined1:03:54 - Devs believe Steam has a monopoly on PC games?1:14:03 - Consumers spend more on remakes than remasters1:22:42 - Battlefield 6 Has Reportedly Sold Over 10 Million Copies1:31:21 - Arc Raiders early success & roadmap1:40:33 - Black Ops 7 ROG Xbox Ally X Support1:44:22 - Expedition 33 & Final Fantasy VII Remake event1:52:52 - What We Are Playing2:11:36 - Obsidian announces Pillars of Eternity Turn-Based Mode & talks future2:42:41 - Xbox Q1 hardware sales down2:54:20 - Xbox - Ex-Boxer commercial Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Episode 271Special Guest:Philip Millerhttps://www.instagram.com/millermadeworkshop/https://www.youtube.com/@MillerMadeWorkshop Sponsor:Gorilla GlueA trusted brand with decades of experience! From glue, to woodfiller, to workshop floor kits, they have everything you need for your next project. Check out their new products along with great deals on all your trusted favorites at: www.gorillatough.comWTB WoodworkingCheck out WTBwoodworking.com for all your woodworking needs! In store specials, Giveaways, custom wood milling, and more!Huntingdon Valley PA Store now open!Enter the giveaway by going to:https://www.wtbwoodworking.com/giveaway Sign up for Patreon for Early access, and special Patreon-only content:https://www.patreon.com/anotherwoodshoppodcastPATREON GIVEAWAY!Donate to Maker's For St. JudeEvery $5 earns you an extra entry in the Patreon Giveaway (Paid Patrons Only)http://fundraising.stjude.org/goto/anotherwoodshoppodcast Whats on our bench:

OA1203 - Happy Halloween! We take shelter from a year of ghoulish legal news in the COURTHOUSE OF HORROR, a cabinet of macabre legal curiosities including: “SO I TRADEMARKED AN AXE MURDERER”: The historic Lizzie Borden House takes a whack at a nearby coffee shop “THE BONE DETECTOR”: Recent patent bar survivor Jenessa Seymour brings us the unbelievable story of the spookiest--and silliest!--lie detector ever registered by the US Patent & Trademark Office “ATTACK OF THE TORTIOUS CLOWNS”: Can you sue a haunted house for your fright-related injuries?  “THE GREENBRIER GHOST”: The bizarre tale of how a victim's testimony from beyond the grave helped to convict her killer in an 1896 West Virginia murder trial “CANDYMAN 5: SUMMARY JUDGMENT”: In a tasty conclusion to last year's Halloween footnote on consumers disappointed with the spookiness of their seasonal treats, a Florida federal judge finds as a matter of law that there is no wrong way to make a Reese's. Finally, we close on a serious note with Jenessa's guide to how every registered voter can do their part next week to change the plot of our ongoing American horror story. Order in Ghost Adventures LLC v. Miss Lizzie's Coffee, LLC, No. 23-2000 (1st  Cir.)(Selya, J.)(11/15/2024) “Federal Judge Known for Polysyllabic Prose Dies at 90,” Trip Gabriel, The New York Times, (3/21/2025) “Would You Confess Your Criminal Misdeeds to This Skeleton?,” Cara Giaimo, Atlas Obscura (5/16/2017) “Apparatus for Obtaining Criminal Confessions and Photographically Recording Them,” Patent #1749090, H.A. Shelby (filed 8/10/1927) “The Greenbrier Ghost Reexamined,” Greenbrier Historical Society, Arabeth Balseko (1/20/2022) Summary judgment order in Munoz v. Six Flags St. Louis LLC (10/12/2022)(Wallach, J.) Order granting motion to dismiss in Vidal et al v. The Hershey Company, FLSD No. 24-60831 (9/19/2025)(Damian, J.) “Your Cheat Sheet To The 2025 General Elections,” Daniel Nichanian, Bolts (10/1/2025) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Live Now! Arc Raiders Surges, Nintendo Patent Purges, Outer Worlds 2, Escape From Duckov, The best gaming podcast #551https://youtube.com/live/wfUpNRHCmQcArc Raiders blasts onto Steam with breakout numbers while Nintendo catches some heat over a head-scratching week. We unpack The Outer Worlds 2's launch vibes—Game Pass buzz, early impressions, and what's next—then quack our way through the surprise sensation Escape From Duckov and why it's pecking at the big boys. Plus quick hits, spicy takes, and your mailbag in the back half.