Podcasts about Patent

Mon, 01 Dec 2025 16:25:00 +0000 https://jungeanleger.podigee.io/2799-sportwoche-otv-spitzentennis-podcast-sandro-kopp-karrierehoch-lilli-tagger-im-duell-um-die-grosse-chance-uberholt-worden 68556d9f17f0ef82fba73e5750b73ba6 Ende Woche 48/2025: Die Storyline hinter "Lilli Tagger gegen Emerson Jones (AUS) um eine historische 10-Wochen-Chance" (und welche Rolle Iva Jovic dabei spielt) geht weiter. Und: Gratulation an Sandro Kopp zu einem Karrierehoch. SportWoche ÖTV-Ö Top10: Julia Grabher, Sinja Kraus und Lili Tagger bei den Damen sowie Filip Misolic, Sebastian Ofner, Lukas Neumayer, Jurij Rodionov, Joel Schwärzler, Sandro Kopp und Neil Oberleitner bei den Herren sind WTA/ATP-übergreifend die Top10 aktuell. In welcher Reihenfolge, das wird im Podcast verraten. Presenter: mumak.me http://www.sportgeschichte.at/oetv Inside In, der ÖTV-Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/7KNsgeD8XyXTsAgCFKfI7Y https://www.oetv.at Thomas Schweda im Podcast: https://audio-cd.at/page/podcast/3521 Quelle Rankings: Live-Rankings von live-tennis.eu Die Marke, Patent, Rechte und das Archiv der SportWoche wurden 2017 von Christian Drastil Comm. erworben, Mehr unter http://www.sportgeschichte.at . Der neue SportWoche Podcast ist eingebettet in „ Wiener Börse, Sport, Musik (und mehr)“ auf http://www.audio-cd.at und erscheint, wie es in Name SportWoche auch drinsteckt, wöchentlich. Bewertungen bei Spotify oder Apple machen mir Freude: http://www.audio-cd.at/spotify , http://www.audio-cd.at/apple . Die SportWoche Podcasts und SportlerInnen sind weiters unterstützt by Instahelp: Psychologische Beratung online, ohne Wartezeit, vertraulich & anonym. Nimm dir Zeit für dich unter https://instahelp.me/de/ . Unter http://www.sportgeschichte.at/sportwochepodcast sieht man alle Folgen, auch nach Hörer:innen-Anzahl gerankt. Du möchtest deine Werbung in diesem und vielen anderen Podcasts schalten? Kein Problem!Für deinen Zugang zu zielgerichteter Podcast-Werbung, klicke hier.Audiomarktplatz.de - Geschichten, die bleiben - überall und jederzeit! 2799 full no Christian Drastil Comm. (Agentur für Investor Relations und Podcasts)

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...

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.

Legginsy i sweter damski oversize to mój niezawodny patent na zimową stylizację. Jako miłośniczka nonszalanckich fasonów i wygody sięgam po ten duet od lat, dostosowując ulubione swetry do zmieniających się trendów z pomocą prostych trików. Kluczowy w tym przypadku jest wybór ponadczasowych fasonów wysokiej jakości swetrów z wełny, które są inwestycją na lata, a nie sezonowym kaprysem. Jakich zasad trzymam się, stylizując legginsy do swetra, a jakie nowe elementy wprowadzę w życie w tym roku? Autorka: Ewelina Kołodziej Artykuł przeczytasz pod linkiem: https://www.vogue.pl/a/legginsy-i-sweter-stylizacje-zima-2025-2026

Trust Stamp EVP John Bridge joined Steve Darling from Proactive to outline the company's newly announced patent-protected framework for embedding links to a biometrically validated, cryptographic chain of provenance directly into stablecoins. The update comes as global regulators intensify scrutiny on the misuse of stablecoins for illicit finance. According to recent insights from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), stablecoins have become one of the most commonly used virtual assets by bad actors — including North Korean cybercriminals, terrorist financiers, and drug trafficking networks — with most on-chain illicit activity now concentrated in stablecoin transactions. Bridge explained that Trust Stamp's USPTO Patent #11,681,787 captures the company's strategy to serve as a critical infrastructure provider where distributed digital identity and digital asset issuance converge. The patent covers a system for validating ownership of cryptographic asset contracts using irreversibly transformed identity tokens. This technology enables every unit of a stablecoin to be cryptographically linked to a tokenized, non-reversible representation of its owner's identity — without exposing any personally identifiable information on-chain. The result is a privacy-preserving, biometrically anchored chain of provenance that supports embedded ownership authentication. Bridge highlighted that the framework is designed to meet emerging regulatory expectations, offering quantum-resistant security while enabling compliant, transparent, and privacy-first issuance of digital assets in a rapidly evolving global regulatory environment. #proactiveinvestors #truststamp #nasdaq #idai #IdentityTech #DigitalIdentity #Fintech #GhanaID #SouthKoreaStartup #AsiaExpansion #KStartupChallenge #FinancialServices #Biometrics #TechExpansion #ProactiveInvestors #AndrewGowasack #wallet #TSI3 wallet #biometrics #DigitalIdentity #CryptoWallet #BiometricWallet #StableIT2 #DeFiSecurity #KYC #CryptoRecovery #LostCryptoKeys #Stablecoin #BlockchainTechnology #Web3

Sun, 23 Nov 2025 17:31:00 +0000 https://jungeanleger.podigee.io/2777-sportwoche-otv-spitzentennis-podcast-lilli-tagger-gegen-emerson-jones-aus-um-eine-historische-6-wochen-chance 51e75687e0f46f2259a310e7934f92e1 Ende Woche 47/2025: Die Storyline hinter "Lilli Tagger gegen Emerson Jones (AUS) um eine historische 10-Wochen-Chance" (und welche Rolle Iva Jovic dabei spielt). Davor: O-Ton von PK nach dem Daviscup. SportWoche ÖTV-Ö Top10: Julia Grabher, Sinja Kraus und Lili Tagger bei den Damen sowie Filip Misolic, Sebastian Ofner, Lukas Neumayer, Jurij Rodionov, Joel Schwärzler, Sandro Kopp und Neil Oberleitner bei den Herren sind WTA/ATP-übergreifend die Top10 aktuell. In welcher Reihenfolge, das wird im Podcast verraten. Presenter: mumak.me http://www.sportgeschichte.at/oetv Inside In, der ÖTV-Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/7KNsgeD8XyXTsAgCFKfI7Y https://www.oetv.at Thomas Schweda im Podcast: https://audio-cd.at/page/podcast/3521 Quelle Rankings: Live-Rankings von live-tennis.eu Die Marke, Patent, Rechte und das Archiv der SportWoche wurden 2017 von Christian Drastil Comm. erworben, Mehr unter http://www.sportgeschichte.at . Der neue SportWoche Podcast ist eingebettet in „ Wiener Börse, Sport, Musik (und mehr)“ auf http://www.audio-cd.at und erscheint, wie es in Name SportWoche auch drinsteckt, wöchentlich. Bewertungen bei Spotify oder Apple machen mir Freude: http://www.audio-cd.at/spotify , http://www.audio-cd.at/apple . Die SportWoche Podcasts und SportlerInnen sind weiters unterstützt by Instahelp: Psychologische Beratung online, ohne Wartezeit, vertraulich & anonym. Nimm dir Zeit für dich unter https://instahelp.me/de/ . Unter http://www.sportgeschichte.at/sportwochepodcast sieht man alle Folgen, auch nach Hörer:innen-Anzahl gerankt. Du möchtest deine Werbung in diesem und vielen anderen Podcasts schalten? Kein Problem!Für deinen Zugang zu zielgerichteter Podcast-Werbung, klicke hier.Audiomarktplatz.de - Geschichten, die bleiben - überall und jederzeit! 2777 full no Christian Drastil Comm. (Agentur für Investor Relations und Podcasts)

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.

Neumann, Andreas www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Heute vor 160 Jahren reichte Levi Alexander bei der amerikanischen Regierung das Patent für eine, wie es hieß, Maschine zum Waschen von Geschirr ein.

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  

In this episode of the LYB Podcast, host Deepi Sidhu speaks with Simon Foster, Industry Marketing Manager at LyondellBasell, about the North America launch of the Purell polymer portfolio. Already trusted in Europe, the Purell portfolio includes medical-grade polyolefins designed for use in applications such as medical devices and pharmaceutical packaging. Simon shares how Purell supports industry needs for consistency, reliability and regulatory readiness — backed by the Purell Service Concept, which includes traceability systems, change notification policies and documentation aligned with global standards. If you're working in healthcare manufacturing — or want to learn how LYB is enabling material innovation — this episode offers insights into a milestone launch that expands local access to proven solutions. Connect with us on social media: LinkedIn: LyondellBasell Facebook: LyondellBasell Instagram: LyondellBasell X: @LyondellBasell Disclaimer Purell is a trademark owned and/or used by the LyondellBasell family of companies and is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Before using a product sold by a company of the LyondellBasell family of companies, users should make their own independent determination that the product is suitable for the intended use and can be used safely and legally.   LYONDELLBASELL MAKES NO WARRANTY; EXPRESS OR IMPLIED (INCLUDING ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR ANY WARRANTY) OTHER THAN AS SEPARATELY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN A CONTRACT. LyondellBasell prohibits or restricts the use of its products in certain applications.  For further information on restrictions or prohibitions of use, please contact a LyondellBasell representative. Users should review the applicable Safety Data Sheet before handling the product. Forward-looking statements The statements in this podcast relating to matters that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based upon assumptions of management of LYB, which are believed to be reasonable at the time made and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. When used in this podcast, the words “estimate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “should,” “will,” “expect,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain such identifying words. Actual results could differ materially based on factors including, but not limited to, market conditions, the business cyclicality of the chemical, polymers and refining industries; the availability, cost and price volatility of raw materials and utilities, particularly the cost of oil, natural gas, and associated natural gas liquids; our ability to successfully implement initiatives identified pursuant to our Value Enhancement Program and generate anticipated earnings; competitive product and pricing pressures; labor conditions; our ability to attract and retain key personnel; operating interruptions (including leaks, explosions, fires, weather-related incidents, mechanical failure, unscheduled downtime, supplier disruptions, labor shortages, strikes, work stoppages or other labor difficulties, transportation interruptions, spills and releases and other environmental risks); the supply/demand balances for our and our joint ventures' products, and the related effects of industry production capacities and operating rates; our ability to manage costs; future financial and operating results; benefits and synergies of any proposed transactions; receipt of required regulatory approvals and the satisfaction of closing conditions for our proposed transactions; final investment decision and the construction and operation of any proposed facilities described; our ability to align our assets and expand our core; legal and environmental proceedings; tax rulings, consequences or proceedings; technological developments, and our ability to develop new products and process technologies; our ability to meet our sustainability goals, including the ability to operate safely, increase production of recycled and renewable-based polymers to meet our targets and forecasts, and reduce our emissions and achieve net zero emissions by the time set in our goals; our ability to procure energy from renewable sources; our ability to build a profitable Circular and Low Carbon Solutions business; the continued operation of and successful shutdown and closure of the Houston Refinery, including within the expected time frame; potential governmental regulatory actions; political unrest and terrorist acts; risks and uncertainties posed by international operations, including foreign currency fluctuations; and our ability to comply with debt covenants and to repay our debt. Additional factors that could cause results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements can be found in the Risk Factors section of our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, which can be found at www.lyb.com on the Investor Relations page and on the Securities and Exchange Commission's website at www.sec.gov.There is no assurance that any of the actions, events, or results of the forward-looking statements will occur, or if any of them do, what impact they will have on our results of operations or financial condition. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they were made and are based on the estimates and opinions of management of LYB at the time the statements are made. LYB does not assume any obligation to update forward-looking statements should circumstances or management's estimates or opinions change, except as required by law. This podcast contains time-sensitive information that is accurate only as of the date hereof. Information contained in this release is unaudited and is subject to change. We undertake no obligation to update the information presented herein, except as required by law. Our reported emissions and expected reductions are based on a combination of measured and estimated data and are based on industry standards and best practices, including the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and guidance from the American Petroleum Institute. Emissions reported are estimates only, and data is subject to change as methods, data quality, and technology improvements occur. Our goals to reduce emissions are good-faith efforts based on current relevant data and methodology, which could be changed or refined as we evolve our approach to identifying, measuring, and addressing emissions.    

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."

Sun, 16 Nov 2025 17:35:00 +0000 https://jungeanleger.podigee.io/2759-sportwoche-otv-spitzentennis-podcast-die-19-otv-stars-sind-derzeit-in-wta-oder-atp-top1000-dazu-die-kurzvorstellung-von-mumak-me 93dbde4102b8cd9a2fbcd1c6d86500c9 Ende Woche 46/2025: Diesmal geht es um alle 19 ÖTV-Stars, die aktuell entweder in ATP (12) oder WTA (7) in den Top 1000 zu finden sind. Zudem stelle ich unseren neuen Partner mumak.me kurz vor und es gibt einen Kultfiguren-Spoiler. https://mumak.me SportWoche ÖTV-Ö Top10: Julia Grabher, Sinja Kraus und Lili Tagger bei den Damen sowie Filip Misolic, Sebastian Ofner, Lukas Neumayer, Jurij Rodionov, Joel Schwärzler, Sandro Kopp und Neil Oberleitner bei den Herren sind WTA/ATP-übergreifend die Top10 aktuell. In welcher Reihenfolge, das wird im Podcast verraten. http://www.sportgeschichte.at/oetv Inside In, der ÖTV-Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/7KNsgeD8XyXTsAgCFKfI7Y https://www.oetv.at Thomas Schweda im Podcast: https://audio-cd.at/page/podcast/3521 Quelle Rankings: Live-Rankings von live-tennis.eu Die Marke, Patent, Rechte und das Archiv der SportWoche wurden 2017 von Christian Drastil Comm. erworben, Mehr unter http://www.sportgeschichte.at . Der neue SportWoche Podcast ist eingebettet in „ Wiener Börse, Sport, Musik (und mehr)“ auf http://www.audio-cd.at und erscheint, wie es in Name SportWoche auch drinsteckt, wöchentlich. Bewertungen bei Spotify oder Apple machen mir Freude: http://www.audio-cd.at/spotify , http://www.audio-cd.at/apple . Die SportWoche Podcasts und SportlerInnen sind weiters unterstützt by Instahelp: Psychologische Beratung online, ohne Wartezeit, vertraulich & anonym. Nimm dir Zeit für dich unter https://instahelp.me/de/ . Unter http://www.sportgeschichte.at/sportwochepodcast sieht man alle Folgen, auch nach Hörer:innen-Anzahl gerankt. Du möchtest deine Werbung in diesem und vielen anderen Podcasts schalten? Kein Problem!Für deinen Zugang zu zielgerichteter Podcast-Werbung, klicke hier.Audiomarktplatz.de - Geschichten, die bleiben - überall und jederzeit! 2759 full no Christian Drastil Comm. (Agentur für Investor Relations und Podcasts)

Bears and phishing and crazy old men. All the new you love form Japan. Send us a voice message https://www.speakpipe.com/ChunkMcBeefChest Linktree https://linktr.ee/chunkmcbeefchest

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:

In this episode of The Game Deflators, John and Ryan welcome special guest Barry Carenza from PM Studios! Barry dives into the exciting lineup of upcoming titles from PM Studios and gives listeners a behind-the-scenes look at how ESRB ratings are set up for video games—yes, there's more to it than just slapping a letter on the box. The trio then tackles the latest legal drama surrounding Palworld, including updates on the Nintendo JPO patent denial and what it could mean for the game's future. In a surprising twist, they discuss the bombshell news of Halo making its way to the PS5—could this be the beginning of a new era in cross-platform gaming? To wrap things up, the crew takes a nostalgic trip back to the 16-bit hardwood with a review of NBA Jam for the SNES. Is it still "on fire" after all these years? 00:00 Introduction to the Gameplayers Podcast 02:30 Recent Game Pickups and Personal Updates 07:57 Current Gaming Experiences and Reviews 12:49 The ESRB Rating Process Explained 19:17 Behind the Scenes in Game Development 25:53 Navigating Game Quests and Challenges 31:17 Looking Ahead: Future Gaming Plans 32:31 Nintendo's Legal Struggles with Pal World 39:15 The Impact of Competition on Game Development 44:16 The Patent Office and Legal Maneuvering 54:13 The Evolution of Console Wars 01:00:15 Microsoft and Sony: A New Era of Cooperation 01:08:21 The Future of Gaming Resolutions 01:11:23 The Xbox Performance Dilemma 01:13:34 Physical vs Digital: The Game Ownership Debate 01:20:53 NBA Jam: A Classic Revisited Want more Game Deflators content? Find us at www.thegamedeflators.com     Find us on Social Media Twitter @GameDeflators Instagram @TheGameDeflators Facebook @TheGameDeflators YouTube @The Game Deflators   Permission for intro and outro music provided by Matthew Huffaker http://www.youtube.com/user/teknoaxe 2_25_18 

Daniel, Dave, Eric and Marty reflect on recent reviews of the M5, some new patents, and outcomes from the two day developer conference. New M5 Vision Pro Apple's Vision Pro with M5 is better than the first, but still awfully lonelyhttps://www.theverge.com/tech/807963/apple-vision-pro-m5-review-specs-release-dateVideo: Testing the New M5 Apple Vision Prohttps://www.macrumors.com/2025/10/30/m5-vision-pro-review/Apple Vision Pro M5 review: A better beta is still a betahttps://www.engadget.com/ar-vr/apple-vision-pro-m5-review-a-better-beta-is-still-a-beta-130000284.htmlApple has improved the Vision Pro, but its days could be numberedhttps://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/mobile/wearables/apple-vision-pro-m5-review-singapore-price-buySamsung XR reviewSamsung Galaxy XR review: This Apple Vision Pro challenger is cheaper, lighter and buggierhttps://www.tomsguide.com/computing/augmented-reality/galaxy-xr-review SAMSUNG & GOOGLE SHOW OFF THEIR ANSWER TO THE APPLE VISION PROhttps://www.slashgear.com/2014442/google-samsung-galaxy-xr-reveal-price/ Side-by-side comparisonsM5 Apple Vision Pro vs. Samsung Galaxy XR: Processing power vs. Alhttps://appleinsider.com/inside/apple-vision-pro/vs/m5-apple-vision-pro-vs-samsung-galaxy-xr-processing-power-vs-ai Samsung Galaxy XR Beats Vision Pro Display at Half Pricehttps://virtual.reality.news/news/samsung-galaxy-xr-beats-vision-pro-display-at-half-price/ PatentsApple Reinvents Gesture Input for AR/VR with Sensor-Based Pose Detectionhttps://x.com/PatentlyApple/status/1983874991570743520Apple files patent that details Nose-Bridge Eye-Tracking System for Smartglasseshttps://x.com/PatentlyApple/status/1983851822717800641 Apple wins Patent for Supplemental Mirror System that could Boost Immersion in Future Apple Headsetshttps://x.com/PatentlyApple/status/1983557913475252709How to downgradeHOW TO DOWNGRADE VISION PROhttps://justin.searls.co/posts/how-to-downgrade-vision-pro-dfu-mode/ 2 day developer programTwo Day Developer Program by Apple Held During the M5 Vision Pro Launch Weekhttps://www.ilounge.com/news/two-day-developer-program-by-apple-held-during-the-m5-vision-pro-launch-week Headband jokersAl jokers take Vision Pro's new headband to wild extremeshttps://www.cultofmac.com/news/vision-pro-dual-knit-band-goes-wild Small TouchWhat's your favorite "small touch" or hidden detail you've discovered while using the Vision Pro?https://www.reddit.com/r/VisionPro/comments/1on42dv/whats_your_favorite_small_touch_or_hidden_detail/ 256GB returned and got 1TBhttps://www.reddit.com/r/VisionPro/comments/1om8jvl/256gb_returned_and_got_1tb APPS Thanks to Matt for Test Flight of Wyld Stylus https://testflight.apple.com/join/UjyBzzsn Swiss Alpine Questhttps://apps.apple.com/us/app/swiss-alpine-quest/id675471153Finalist Daily Plannerhttps://apps.apple.com/us/app/finalist-daily-planner/id6447014685?platform=vision Website: ThePodTalk.NetEmail: ThePodTalkNetwork@gmail.com YouTube: YouTube.com/@VisionProFiles

DPS Gaming Channel:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBGYnElxgf6v24IahArK6XgCheck out Gaming Forte:https://www.youtube.com/gaming_fortehttps://twitter.com/gaming_forte​Check out SloMoBackSlap:https://twitch.tv/slomobackslaphttps://twitter.com/slomobackslaphttps://www.tiktok.com/@UCClIAvHh1FKUQcdwgQH82Qw

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.

Check out our Patreon for a daily Lawrence Select™ Meme: https://www.patreon.com/insidegamesYTJoin the Inside Games notification Discord server for alerts when we publish new videos: http://discord.gg/ArvphbMPFJHosted by:Lawrence: http://twitch.tv/sirlarr | Bruce: http://twitch.tv/brucegreene Edited by: Shooklyn: https://linktr.ee/ShooklynSources --https://www.ign.com/articles/fortnite-sidekicks-are-here-epic-confirms-you-can-customize-the-appearance-of-your-pet-just-once-and-its-permanenthttps://www.epicgames.com/help/en-US/fortnite-battle-royale-c-202300000001636/gameplay-c-202300000001721/how-do-i-customize-the-appearance-of-my-sidekick-a202300000021343https://www.epicgames.com/help/en-US/fortnite-battle-royale-c-202300000001636/gameplay-c-202300000001721/how-do-i-customize-the-appearance-of-my-sidekick-a202300000021343https://www.reddit.com/r/FortNiteBR/comments/1okk24y/comment/nmbdws5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_buttonhttps://www.reddit.com/r/FortNiteBR/comments/1okk24y/comment/nmbpiqu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_buttonhttps://www.rockpapershotgun.com/amazon-have-reportedly-cancelled-their-lord-of-the-rings-mmo-againhttps://www.newworld.com/en-gb/news/articles/update-on-new-worldhttps://www.ign.com/articles/mmo-new-world-enters-maintenance-mode-as-amazon-cuts-14000-jobs-but-whats-happening-with-its-lord-of-the-rings-mmohttps://www.change.org/p/reinstate-ags-new-world-aeternum-team?cs_tk=A-UAbO118d4nRqtmC2kAAHicq64FAAF1APk0NTA1OTk3OTkxYjdkNWE5ZGRkOTQyMjQ2ODBkMjkwMWZlYWU4OGRlN2NkMDk2Y2M1N2E1M2I0ZDVmM2I1NDZi&utm_campaign=d8ca4022446a43d1ad1af47892f1fcf3&utm_content=20250430_supporter_milestone_5000_v1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=633943_supporter_milestone_5000&utm_term=itblhttps://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/1okullc/new_world_players_on_steam_fell_from_41k_on/https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/take-twos-ceo-doesnt-think-a-grand-theft-auto-built-with-ai-would-be-very-good/https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/nintendo-has-been-denied-a-patent-in-japan-for-a-pokemon-like-capturing-mechanic/https://gamesfray.com/japan-patent-office-rejects-nintendo-application-relevant-to-palworld-dispute-cites-games-like-ark-as-prior-art-after-third-party-submissionMusic —Switch It Up - Silent Partner https://youtu.be/r_HRbXhOir8Funk Down - MK2 https://youtu.be/SPN_Ssgqlzc

Send us a textFrisch von der Patentanmeldung - Rolex verbessert den Voll-/Jahres-/Ewigen Kalender Mechanismus mit einem neuen Patent, ausserdem hat Rolex ebenso einen neuen Namen registriert, Padellone, na wenn das nicht ein schönes Gerücht ist. Danach geht es um die Zeitumstellung und warum wir uns damit immer noch rumquälen! Viel Spass Danke für Deine Zeit und für's Zuhören. Sendet mir eine Voicemail und wir hören uns im Podcast:https://www.speakpipe.com/opportunistischesdurcheinanderBitte folgt mir/uns auf instagram IG: @leuchtmasse_podcast oder schreibt mir: opportunistischesdurcheinander@gmail.com

Abu⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and Obssa continue their read-through of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Exhalation⁠⁠⁠ by Ted Chiang. They dive into the fifth short story in the collection, Dacey's Patent Automatic Nanny, and explore the challenges of raising children in a technological world. Get bonus content and helpful reading materials: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/scifibookclubpod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Keep the conversation going in our free Discord: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/bVrhwWm7j4⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Watch the video version of this episode: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/@loreparty⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Keep up with this season's reading schedule: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://tinyurl.com/sfbc-season3⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Refah için Hukuk'un bu bölümünde Daha İyi Yargı Derneği Başkanı Mehmet Gün, 7 Eylül'de Resmi Gazete'de 2026 – 2028 yılları için yayımlanan Orta Vadeli Program'ı (OVP) Gamze Elvan'a değerlendiriyor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Founder JOhn Rokos shares how MagSafe inspired OpenCase—an iPhone case with a recessed opening that locks MagSafe accessories in place to prevent sliding, improve charging/heat, and cut weight. He covers patenting, vetting manufacturers in China, yearly fit changes, testing with dummy phones, and building an open accessory ecosystem.  This edition of MacVoices is brought to you by our Patreon supporters. Get access to the MacVoices Slack and MacVoices After Dark by joining in at Patreon.com/macvoices. Show Notes: Chapters: [0:00] Intro and why this case is different [1:22] MagSafe sparks the recessed-opening idea [2:12] Preventing slide-off; charging and heat benefits [5:46] Prototyping and patent path [7:22] Finding a manufacturer; risks and quality control [12:35] Pre-announcement samples and real-device fit checks [13:48] iPhone 17 fit, rigidity, and button/camera changes [19:33] Growing an open accessory ecosystem (wallets, batteries, stands) [25:13] Color requests vs. MOQs; why black dominates [35:43] Pricing and accessory lineup [38:34] What's included; opening size 96×65 mm (9 mm corners) [40:15] Where to buy and future plans [41:37] Listener discount code details Links: MacVoices Viewers and Listeners can take 10% off their first order at TheOpenCase.com. Restrictions apply, offer good through November 2025. Guests: JoHn Rokos is the brains behind The Open Case, a “MagSafe Perfected” iPhone case. MacVoices Viewers and Listeners can take 10% off their first order at TheOpenCase.com. Support:      Become a MacVoices Patron on Patreon      http://patreon.com/macvoices      Enjoy this episode? Make a one-time donation with PayPal Connect:      Web:      http://macvoices.com      Twitter:      http://www.twitter.com/chuckjoiner      http://www.twitter.com/macvoices      Mastodon:      https://mastodon.cloud/@chuckjoiner      Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/chuck.joiner      MacVoices Page on Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/macvoices/      MacVoices Group on Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/groups/macvoice      LinkedIn:      https://www.linkedin.com/in/chuckjoiner/      Instagram:      https://www.instagram.com/chuckjoiner/ Subscribe:      Audio in iTunes      Video in iTunes      Subscribe manually via iTunes or any podcatcher:      Audio: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesrss      Video: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesvideorss

In this episode, Dr. Thomas Brewer, a nutritional blood microscopist, discuss the powerful insights your blood can reveal about your health and wellness. Dr. Brewer explains the difference between live and dry blood microscopy and how looking at your blood in real time can uncover everything from nutrient absorption issues to stress markers, immune system activity, and the presence of toxins or pathogens. He also shares practical guidance on how often to test, what to watch for, and how lifestyle choices—from diet to supplements—show up in your blood. Learn more at https://www.drthomasbrewer.com.Bio:Dr. Brewer obtained his PhD in inorganic chemistry from Michigan State University in 1992. He worked in both industry and the national laboratory system as a senior research scientist for over a decade before starting his own consulting business.Dr. Brewer's research expertise in the disciplines of heterogeneous catalysis, waste remediation, and metal oxides resulted in the granting of one U.S. Patent, sixteen invention disclosures, and numerous papers and journal articles. His main strength is the ability to explain both complex and fundamental scientific phenomena in a simple and straightforward manner.He lectures on the importance of enzymes, macronutrients (proteins, carbohydrates, and fat sources), micronutrients (vitamins and mineral sources), the root cause of disease and illness, and how one can heal oneself from any health issue using fundamental principles.Laura is a Celebrity Psychic who has been featured by Buzzfeed, The Weakest Link, Beast Games, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, the CW, Motherboard by Vice Magazine and the #1” Ron Burgundy Podcast” with Will Ferrell. Laura Powers is a clairvoyant, psychic medium, writer, actress, producer, writer, and speaker who helps other receive guidance and communicate with loved ones. Laura travels nationally and internationally for clients, events, television appearances, and speaking engagements. She is also the author of 7 books on the psychic realm and 1 book on podcasting. Laura also works as a psychic, entertainer, and creative entrepreneur.For more information about Laura and her work, you can go to her website www.healingpowers.net or find her on X @thatlaurapowers, on Facebook at @realhealingpowers and @mllelaura, and on Instagram, TikTok and Insight Timer @laurapowers44.

This Day in Legal History: Saturday Night MassacreOn October 20, 1973, a pivotal event in American legal and political history unfolded: the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox was fired by Solicitor General Robert Bork at the direct order of President Richard Nixon. Nixon's decision came after both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused to carry out the order and instead chose to resign. Cox had insisted on obtaining White House tapes related to the Watergate break-in, and Nixon, citing executive privilege, ordered him removed.The dismissals plunged the Justice Department into chaos and sparked widespread public outrage. Nixon's actions were viewed by many as a blatant abuse of power and a threat to the independence of the justice system. Congress was inundated with demands for Nixon's impeachment, and confidence in the executive branch eroded further. Though Bork ultimately carried out the dismissal, he later stated he believed it was his duty to preserve the functioning of the Justice Department.The fallout from the Saturday Night Massacre significantly intensified the Watergate investigation. Within months, new Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski was appointed, and he continued the push for the tapes. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States v. Nixon (1974) that Nixon had to turn them over. The tapes revealed evidence of a cover-up, which led directly to Nixon's resignation in August 1974.President Trump commuted the federal prison sentence of former U.S. Representative George Santos, ordering his immediate release. Santos, who had been sentenced in April to over seven years for fraud and identity theft, was serving time for falsifying donor information and inflating fundraising figures to gain support from the Republican Party during his 2022 campaign. His short and controversial congressional tenure ended in expulsion following numerous scandals, including false claims about his education, employment history, and family background.Trump announced the commutation on Truth Social, arguing that Santos had been “horribly mistreated” and drawing comparisons to other “rogues” in the country who do not face such lengthy prison terms. Earlier in the week, Santos had publicly pleaded for clemency, praising Trump and expressing remorse for his actions. The commutation fits into a broader pattern of Trump's second-term use of clemency powers, which included mass pardons of January 6 defendants and relief for political figures from both parties. The Constitution grants the president wide authority to issue pardons or commute sentences for federal offenses.Trump commutes prison sentence of former lawmaker George Santos, orders him released | ReutersA proposed class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Connecticut, accusing eight major U.S. banks—including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, and U.S. Bank—of conspiring to fix the U.S. prime interest rate for over three decades. The plaintiffs, representing potentially hundreds of thousands of borrowers, claim the banks coordinated to align their prime lending rates with the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate, which is typically set at three percentage points above the federal funds rate. This rate influences trillions of dollars in consumer and small-business loans, such as credit cards and home equity lines.The suit alleges that this coordination inflated borrowing costs for consumers and small businesses, who were led to believe the rates were set independently. It also asserts that up until 1992, the Wall Street Journal published a range of prime rates that reflected competitive differences among banks, but since then has moved to publishing a single rate derived from input by a select group of large banks. Although the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones are not named as defendants, the lawsuit challenges the transparency and independence of the current rate-setting process.Plaintiffs argue that decades of nearly identical prime rate pricing among the banks defies the notion of independent rate-setting. The banks named in the case have not yet made court appearances and mostly declined to comment. The suit, Normandin et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et al, aims to hold the institutions accountable for what plaintiffs call a longstanding, anti-competitive scheme.Borrowers sue major US banks over alleged prime rate-fixing scheme | ReutersChief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for Delaware issued a ruling that could significantly alter how early-stage patent litigation is handled, particularly regarding willful infringement claims. Reversing his earlier stance, Connolly held that requests for enhanced damages due to willful patent infringement are not standalone claims subject to early dismissal if the underlying infringement claims proceed. The decision came in a case involving clot-removal device patents, Inari Medical Inc. v. Inquis Medical Inc.This shift may complicate early settlements by increasing uncertainty and widening the valuation gap between plaintiffs and defendants. Because Delaware is a leading venue for patent disputes, Connolly's ruling may influence how courts across the country handle similar motions, although it's uncertain whether other judges will adopt the same reasoning. Legal scholars and practitioners note the opinion could lead to more aggressive pre-suit tactics from patent holders, such as sending demand letters alleging willfulness, which could provoke accused companies to initiate preemptive litigation in favorable jurisdictions.Connolly's approach represents a sharp departure from his prior treatment of willfulness claims and, according to experts, effectively lets plaintiffs include such allegations in their complaints without risk of early dismissal. However, the ruling also reaffirmed that plaintiffs still need to establish pre-suit knowledge of the patents to succeed on claims of post-suit willfulness or indirect infringement.Connolly's Willfulness Ruling Risks Scuttling Patent Settlements 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

What happens when the USPTO lets artificial intelligence join the patent process? In this episode, I breaks down the brand-new Automated Search Pilot Program, a six-month experiment where AI runs a pre-exam prior art search before a human examiner even touches your application. I explains what it is, how to join, who it helps (and who it doesn't), and why it might just change the way patents get examined, all with some healthy skepticism about letting robots near our inventions.   Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com   Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament   Phone/Text: (424)281-0162   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5cTADZzJfPoyQMjnW-rtRw   Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/trademarkpatentlaw/   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-diament-j-d-ph-d-180a005/   Amazon Book Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B005SV2RZC/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=831aff71-513b-4158-ad73-386ede491e93  

Simon talks to Patent attorney, John Rizvi, about the "jam up" between Smuckers and Trader Joe's over the similarities between 'crustable' products. Also, Simon discusses the announcement by the DOJ that a man was arrested today in LA for being a Hamas militant involved in the atrocities of Oct 7, 2023 in Israel. And finally a few final words about this weekend's protests nationwide labled the "No Kings" protest.

Jeff Grubb is joined by Rhys Elliot to end the week with all the video game news! We're talking about a new Nintendo patent, The Pokemon Company facing some legal battles, Switch 2 production ramping up, this week's Bomb 12, and more!

A patent dispute in 2024 nearly blocked ML-KEM. But emerging thinking raises concern that the 2024 resolution did not guarantee full, clear access to all ML-KEM implementations. We explain.

Brian Decker gets it. This dude actually gets what it means to be a serial entrepreneur. Not the fake kind you see plastered all over social media. The real kind. Brian spent 22 years building businesses the right way. Started as a CPA. Hated it. Jumped into mortgage lending right before the 2008 crash. Then doubled down when everyone else ran away. Built himself into one of the top loan officers in the country. Made multiple seven figures. Then did something most people never do. He recognized the trap. So he did what real entrepreneurs do. Kept the golden goose running. Took one out of every eight golden eggs. Invested it into the next thing. Then the next. Now he's CEO of a solar energy company with AI and machine learning built in. Recurring revenue model. SaaS multiple. Patent potential. That's how you build real wealth. Brian breaks down the mentality shift from chasing money to watching your employees' lives change. That Christmas party where someone's wife thanks you in tears because she could finally stop working to be with her kids. That's the real reason you do this. This episode will change how you think about building businesses. About what makes something scalable. About knowing your lane and staying in it. Brian's been in the trenches for over two decades. He's made mistakes. He's built the systems. And he's showing you exactly what works.We Meet: Brian Decker, Soar Energy, Modern Lending, CryptochargedConnect:Connect with Rick: https://linktr.ee/mrrickjordanConnect with Brian: https://www.thebriandecker.com/ Subscribe & Review to ALL IN with Rick Jordan on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/RickJordanALLINAbout Brian: Brian Decker is a serial entrepreneur with several successful exits. He is the CEO of Soar Energy, President/Founder of Modern Lending, real estate investor, cryptocurrency investor/educator, and keynote speaker/creator known for his passion for empowering others to achieve financial freedom.

Run it Red 126, recorded October 2025, is here.  Seventy new/newly discovered cuts from the likes of Scuba, Serenda, Santos, Soulmate aka Deetron, Lando, Dimi Angelis and loads more - full tracklist below - support the labels/artists where you can.  Hit the charity links if you can, too... Charity Link: fanlink.tv/Charities Spotify Playlist: bit.ly/RUNITREDSPOTIFY Upcoming tour dates: bit.ly/BenSimsBIT 1. Scuba - Archives. Last Night On Earth 2. Mr. G - Work (Boy G Edit). Unknown 3. Ben Sims - Untitled. Unreleased 4. Santos - It's Not Over. Let Me Understand 5. Vect - DuckWalkCycle19. Forward 6. Waage - W15. X/OZ 7. Makaton - Devour. Rodz-Konez 8. The Deviantt - Holding. Soma 9. Nicolas Vogler - Return (To Da Swing). Bipolar Disorder 10. Architectural - Sección #1. Tikita 11. Serenda - Angry Sol. Rhythm Section International 12. Ron Allen - Sky High (Afromental Mix). Strobe 13. Bebe Winans - Father In Heaven (Two Soul Fusion Drumapella). Vega 14. Endlec - Precision Cuts Locked Groove. TH Tar Hallow 15. Lando - Fake Left. Face To Face 16. Obseth - Introversion. Rawsery 17. CAIV - Shimmer. Ooda 18. Santos - Play My Bleep. Let Me Understand 19. Waage - W14. X/OZ 20. JSPRV35 - Circus. Antidote 21. Mesh Convergence - Edge Of Perception. TH Tar Hallow 22. Obscur - Haarp. Newrhythmic 23. Aristides - Nago. 01366 24. Yotam Avni - Tribal Techno. ARTS 25. Architectural - Sección #2. Tikita 26. Jeroen Search - Mu. Repetitive Rhythm Research 27. TWO THREE - Cruise Control. Special Series 28. 10.000 BC - Fokus. Patent 29. Soulmate - Untitled. Unreleased 30. Gunjack - Devil's Pawn (Angel Alanis & Maria Goetz Deep Shade Mix). Slap Jaxx 31. Yoikol - Berlin Echo Chamber (SCB Edit). Hotflush 32. Antonio De Angelis - Ocean. Children of Tomorrow 33. Orion - Late Arrival. Absence of Facts 34. Ruman - Lizard. Warm Up 35. Flits - Asteroid. Planet Rhythm 36. Dimi Angelis - Highwire. Clergy 37. Benales - Cryo. Clergy 38. AeFe - BlipBlop. Children of Tomorrow 39. Deetron presents Soulmate - Code. Ilian Tape 40. Telegrama - Caldas 03. Milagrosa 41. Tarker - No Backup. Kazerne 42. DisX3 & Insolate - Slowburn. Soma  43. Augusto Taito - Ignorant. TH Tar Hallow 44. Decoder - Transitory. Illegal Alien 45. Plastique01 - Enhanced Tricks. Modular Side Music 46. A.Paul - Hipnotika. OHHCET 47. Shlomi Aber - Ride. Lost Episodes 48. PWCCA - Sprouts From The Grave. Mord 49. Petru KSS - Drifting Embers (Alexander Kowalski Remix). City Wall 50. Isaiah - Unleash. TRSN 51. Alexander Johansson & Mattias Fridell - Ravspel. Lomsk 52. Alexander Johansson & Mattias Fridell - Raljera. Lomsk 53. Regent - Stealthless. Malor 54. Jeroen Search - The Lost Land. Repetitive Rhythm Research 55. Jeff Mills - i9 (2025 Version). Axis 56. Yeiks - Moon. Demolition 57. Girls Of the Internet - Something (Deetron Remix/(Instrumental). Classic 58. Sciahri & Hertz Collision - Oroboros. Sublunar 59. JSPRV35 - Skye. Illegal Alien 60. Quince & Sayne - Work. Nowhere 61. Nicko Shuo - Elipsis. CMND CTRL 62. Invexis - Celebrity Algorithm. Index 63. Tav Shvi - Milo Appt (A Thousand Details Repaint). Splatter 64. Phara - Neon. Token 65. Yotam Avni - Fix. ARTS 66. Telegrama - Caqueta 02. Milagrosa 67. Astronomical Telegram - Amor Y Otros. Milagrosa 68. Sev Dah - One Tone. Falling Ethics 69. Marco Faraone & Yoav Nizri - Torin. Uncage 70. Reel By Real - Surkit (Ben Long & Oliver Way Remix). EPM

Welcome to Episode 191 of Inside The Line: The Catskill Mountains Podcast! On this episode, we sit down with surveyor and historian Rick Brooks to unravel the story behind the Hardenbergh Patent — the massive 18th-century land grant that shaped the Catskills and stirred up plenty of controversy along the way. We also catch up on Killian Jornet's latest feat and a recent rescue on the Devil's Path. Make sure to subscribe on your favorite platform, share the show, donate if you feel like it… or just keep tuning in. I'm just grateful you're here. And as always... VOLUNTEER!!!!Links for the Podcast: https://linktr.ee/ISLCatskillsPodcast, Donate a coffee to support the show! https://www.buymeacoffee.com/ITLCatskills, Like to be a sponsor or monthly supporter of the show? Go here! - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/ITLCatskills/membershipThanks to the sponsors of the show: Outdoor chronicles photography - https://www.outdoorchroniclesphotography.com/, Trailbound Project - https://www.trailboundproject.com/, Camp Catskill - https://campcatskill.co/, Another Summit - https://www.guardianrevival.org/programs/another-summitLinks: NYNJTC Trail-a-thon, Hardenbergh Patent, Killian Jornet Finishes His Quest, Old Eagle Nester Book, Hurricane Kitty IPAVolunteer Opportunities: Trailhead stewards for 3500 Club -https://www.catskill3500club.org/trailhead-stewardship, Catskills Trail Crew - https://www.nynjtc.org/trailcrew/catskills-trail-crew, NYNJTC Volunteering - https://www.nynjtc.org/catskills, Catskill Center - https://catskillcenter.org/, Catskill Mountain Club - https://catskillmountainclub.org/about-us/, Catskill Mountainkeeper - https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/ Post Hike Brews and Bites - Westkill Brewing, Woodstock Brewing#hardenberghpatent #history #hikethehudson #hudsonvalleyhiking #NYC #history #husdonvalley #hikingNY #kaaterskill #bluehole #catskillhiking #visitcatskills #catskillstrails #catskillmountains #3500 #catskills #catskillpark #catskillshiker #catskillmountainsnewyork #hiking #catskill3500club #catskill3500 #hikethecatskills #hikehudson

Learn how to automate tasks, save time, and increase your profit. No Coding required!

Today's guest is Kevin Ahlstrom, Associate General Counsel in Patents at Meta. Kevin brings extensive expertise in navigating intellectual property challenges in the rapidly evolving technology sector. He joins Emerj Editorial Director Matthew DeMello to discuss the evolving role of patent strategy in the age of AI innovation. Kevin also shares practical insights on streamlining legal workflows and aligning intellectual property management with AI development to drive greater innovation, efficiency, and ROI. Today's episode is sponsored by Filevine. Learn how brands work with Emerj and other Emerj Media options at emerj.com/ad1. Want to share your AI adoption story with executive peers? Click emerj.com/expert2 for more information and to be a potential future guest on the ‘AI in Business' podcast!

Ford Raptor T1 updates, Jeep Gladiator 4xe is dead, bad credit for new trucks, new Wrangler color, Hurricane-powered Dodge drag truck, Cobb Tuning news, Ford patent, recalls, and St. Bonaventure's parish festival. The Truck Show Podcast is brought to you in partnership with AMSOIL, Kershaw Knives, and OVR Mag.

Walmart has announced they will be removing certain additives and chemicals from their store brand products, signaling a significant health minded shift driven in part by MAHA's advocacy. Author and blogger Vani Hari, known as the “Food Babe,” joins the Rundown to discuss the potential ripple effects of Walmart's decision across the food industry, the history of additives and chemicals in the American food supply, and the growing consumer demand for cleaner, more natural products. An AI-generated actress, named Tilly Norwood, is causing an uproar in Hollywood. She's the creation of the UK-based artificial intelligence production studio named Particle 6, and allegedly has talent agencies interested in her. Patent law expert John Rizvi joins the Rundown to discuss the rise of Tilly Norwood, concerns that AI is stealing copyrighted material from humans, and how this rapidly evolving technology may impact the entertainment industry. Plus, commentary from Kennedy, host of the Kennedy Saves the World podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this Throwback episode, host Josh interviews patent attorney Rich Goldstein about the importance of intellectual property (IP) protection for businesses, especially e-commerce sellers. Rich explains the differences between copyrights, design patents, utility patents, and trademarks, highlighting why registering trademarks in China is crucial for those sourcing products there. They discuss how IP protection helps prevent copycats, increases business value, and is essential for a successful exit. Rich also shares actionable tips for building an IP strategy and recommends resources for further learning. The episode concludes with advice on connecting with top experts in the Amazon and e-commerce space.Chapters:Introduction to Rich Goldstein and His Background (00:00:00)Josh introduces Rich Goldstein, his experience, and his role in helping businesses obtain patent protection.Josh's IP Mistake and the Importance of Early Protection (00:01:39)Josh shares his mistake of not getting IP protection early and discusses the risks of product copying on Amazon.Copyrights vs. Design Patents for Product Protection (00:02:56)Rich explains the difference between copyrights and design patents, and when each is applicable for product protection.The Importance of Registering Trademarks in China (00:04:33)Discussion about the risks of not registering trademarks in China and the potential consequences for e-commerce sellers.Understanding Utility Patents (00:06:16)Rich explains what utility patents are, what they protect, and how they differ from design patents.Three Actionable IP Takeaways for Entrepreneurs (00:08:44)Josh summarizes three key IP action items: trademarks, patents, and the value of IP for business exits.The Value of an IP Budget and Learning About IP (00:10:25)Rich emphasizes budgeting for IP as a business grows and the importance of entrepreneurs educating themselves about IP.Recommended Thought Leaders in E-commerce (00:12:06)Rich shares names of influential people and groups in the e-commerce and Amazon seller space.Where to Find Rich Goldstein and His Resources (00:14:32)Rich provides information on where listeners can find his website, book, podcast, and event updates.Links and Mentions:Tools and WebsitesGoldstein Patent LawBooksThe ABA Consumer Guide to Obtaining a PatentPodcastsInnovations and Breakthroughs PodcastNotable Individuals and GroupsKevin KingBrandon YoungTitan GroupNorm FarrarDanny McMillanTranscript:Josh 00:00:00  Today, I'm excited to introduce to you Rich Goldstein, who is on a mission to connect, protect, and educate. He helps small businesses, startups, and in e-commerce and digital marketers and inventors in their quest to obtain patent protection. Along with his team of attorneys. He counsels individual inventors and startups regarding the best steps to take for patent protection and when patent protection is available. Over the past 28 years, he has obtained more than £2,000 for his clients. And Rich is the host of the Innovations and Breakthroughs podcast and is the author of The Consumer Guide to Obtaining a Patent, published by the American Bar Association. So Rich, welcome to the podcast.Rich 00:00:46  Thanks so much, Josh. Thanks. Thanks for the warm introduction. And and really great to be on your podcast.Josh 00:00:51  Rich, I'm happy to say that we are a part of that number of 2000 plus, you know, patent successful patterns that you've been able to obtain and counting. Right.Rich 00:01:03  And counting.Josh 00:01:03  Yep. So thank you for your help and helping us get some of those design patterns that we've received for our business.Josh 00:01:10  So rich. Absolutely is the man.Rich 00:01:12  Absolutely. My pleasure. It's really exciting to see kind of what we're creating there in your company in terms of, asset value and protection, you know, against competitors. So, it's really cool. And someday we'll, we'll do a, you know, a Harvard business case study of some kind, to, you know, to take a look at what we've created here. I think it's pretty awesome.Josh 00:01:39  Well, I think that's the hope for both you and I that we're creating some significant value in the long run. Now, Rich, I shared this on previous podcast episodes as I shared some of the mistakes that I've made along my journey. One of those mistakes that I've made was not getting IP protection whatsoever for many of our products for four years, right? We literally went for in our business for four years before, you know, you and I fortunately met. And you're like, dude, you've got to start doing something here. And we had a great conversation.Josh 00:02:13  And now that we started getting copyrights issued for all of our products and then design design patents for some of our products, it's allowed us to actually protect more of our products, because prior to that, as many sellers know, as soon as you launch a product on Amazon, it's months, you know, sometimes as quick as a month later, sometimes 3 to 6 months later, you've got somebody copying your idea and being able to have something to protect yourself and even potentially get some of those other people knocked off or, you know, shut down their listings, I think is essential, especially as Amazon and e-commerce in general becomes more and more competitive. Would you agree with that, Rich?Rich 00:02:56  Yeah, absolutely I agree, and it's funny you mentioned that, like, you, you could put something up there for a month and then you'll find the competition and it's, it's almost as if. Well, I mean, it is as if there are tools that say, you know, copy this or copy that.Rich 00:03:10  There are analytics tools that, that, that point people in the direction of you when you're doing well. And so it's it's almost as if you're the software telling people, copy this guy, you know, and and so it really is, important to create as much of a moat as possible around, around what you're doing to prevent other people from, from copying you. and, you know, it's interesting to, like, in your case, like, a lot of your products are kind of content oriented, that copyrights are an option. for a lot of product ideas, copyrights are not really an option. They don't really provide, you know, covers don't provide protection for ideas. They provide protection for content type expression and then design patents, which you mentioned. Two are for the ornamental appearance for a product. The the look of a product. and I'd say the design patents are an issue for a lot are not an issue or an option for a lot of, sellers. Like if you have a product that has a unique look to it, then design patents are a good way to prevent other people from knocking you off by making a product that looks just like yours.Rich 00:04:24  So, you know, they're both effective tools, for protecting you on Amazon. So, yeah, I agree with all of that.

Today's guest is Shandon Quinn, Vice President of Patent Intelligence, Search and Analytics at Clarivate. Quinn joins Emerj Editorial Director Matthew DeMello to examine how AI-powered workflows are helping IP leaders deliver strategic impact, smarter decision-making, and tangible results for data-centric enterprises. Shandon also shares proven changes to patent review and portfolio management, including the shift to predictive analytics and benchmarking, enabling teams to save costs and create new business value through data and automation. This episode is sponsored by Clarivate. Learn how brands work with Emerj and other Emerj Media options at emerj.com/ad1. Want to share your AI adoption story with executive peers? Click emerj.com/expert2 for more information and to be a potential future guest on the ‘AI in Business' podcast!

Pokémon Sleep is bringing Natu and Xatu to the game with a new berry burst event. A new Pokémon Center opens in Japan next month. Pokémon and Nintendo got a patent approved that they filed back in 2023 and most of the internet didn't read it, so we do for you. Pokémon GO announced another Tour in February of 2026. LA will host a Pokémon TCG event this weekend that is free to the public. TIMESTAMPS00:00:00-Introduction00:03:35-Pokémon Sleep News00:18:20-Free Cherish Ball Slowpoke00:24:40-Pokémon Patent About Summons00:52:40-Pokémon GO News01:08:50-LA TCG Event01:20:30-CreditsLINKS

Husband-and-wife team William Firth Wells and Mildred Weeks Wells conducted research that had the potential to make a big difference in the safety of indoor air. But it didn’t really have a significant impact on public health. Research: Associated Press. “Super-Oyster Is On its Way to Dinner Table Bigger and Better Bivalve Sports Pedigree.” 3/13/1927. https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn84020064/1927-03-13/ed-1/?sp=14 “Brought Back to Texas.” The Houston Semi-Weekly Post. 12/26/1889. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1196039760/ Decatur Daily Review. “Scientists Fight Flu Germs with Violet Ray.” 7/30/1936. https://www.newspapers.com/image/94335504/ Evening Star. “Scientific Trap-shooter.” 6/26/1937. https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83045462/1937-06-26/ed-1/?sp=7&q=William+Firth+Wells&r=0.668,0.557,0.438,0.158,0 Fair, Gordon M. and William Weeks Wells. “Method and Apparatus for Preventing Infection.” U.S. Patent 2,198,867. https://ppubs.uspto.gov/api/pdf/downloadPdf/2198867 Hall, Dominic. “New Center for the History of Medicine Artifact - Wells Air Centrifuge.” Harvard Countway Library. https://countway.harvard.edu/news/new-center-history-medicine-artifact-wells-air-centrifuge “Incubator Is Now Oyster Nurse.” Washington Times. 10/1/1925. https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn84026749/1925-10-01/ed-1/?sp=12 Lewis, Carol Sutton. “Mildred Weeks Wells’s Work on Airborne Transmission Could Have Saved Many Lives—If the Scientific Establishment Listened.” Lost Women of Science Podcast. Scientific American. 5/22/2025. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-public-health-researcher-and-her-engineer-husband-found-how-diseases-can/ Library and Archives Team. “William Firth Wells and Mildred Weeks Wells.” Washington College. https://www.washcoll.edu/people_departments/offices/miller-library/archives-special-collections/archives-blog/Wells%20papers.php Molenti, Megan. “The 60-Year-Old Scientific Screwup That Helped Covid Kill.” Wired. 5/13/2021. https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/ Perkins JE, Bahlke AM, Silverman HF. Effect of Ultra-violet Irradiation of Classrooms on Spread of Measles in Large Rural Central Schools Preliminary Report. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1947 May;37(5):529-37. PMID: 18016521; PMCID: PMC1623610. Randall, Katherine and Ewing, E. Thomas and Marr, Linsey and Jimenez, Jose and Bourouiba, Lydia, How Did We Get Here: What Are Droplets and Aerosols and How Far Do They Go? A Historical Perspective on the Transmission of Respiratory Infectious Diseases (April 15, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3829873 Riley, Richard L. “What Nobody Needs to Know About Airborne Infection.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Volume 163, Issue 1. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/ajrccm.163.1.hh11-00 Simon, Clea. “Did a socially awkward scientist set back airborne disease control?” The Harvard Gazette. 3/7/2025. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/03/did-a-socially-awkward-scientist-set-back-airborne-disease-control/ “Texas State News.” McKinney Weekly Democrat-Gazette. 4/17/1890. https://www.newspapers.com/image/65385350/ WELLS MW, HOLLA WA. VENTILATION IN THE FLOW OF MEASLES AND CHICKENPOX THROUGH A COMMUNITY: Progress Report, Jan. 1, 1946 to June 15, 1949, Airborne Infection Study, Westchester County Department of Health. JAMA. 1950;142(17):1337–1344. doi:10.1001/jama.1950.02910350007004 WELLS MW. VENTILATION IN THE SPREAD OF CHICKENPOX AND MEASLES WITHIN SCHOOL ROOMS. JAMA. 1945;129(3):197–200. doi:10.1001/jama.1945.02860370019006 WELLS WF, WELLS MW. AIR-BORNE INFECTION. JAMA. 1936;107(21):1698–1703. doi:10.1001/jama.1936.02770470016004 WELLS WF, WELLS MW. AIR-BORNE INFECTION: SANITARY CONTROL. JAMA. 1936;107(22):1805–1809. doi:10.1001/jama.1936.02770480037010 Wells, W F, and M W Wells. “Measurement of Sanitary Ventilation.” American journal of public health and the nation's health vol. 28,3 (1938): 343-50. doi:10.2105/ajph.28.3.343 Wells, William Firth and Gordon Maskew Fair. Viability of B. coli Exposed to Ultra-Violet Radiation in Air.Science82,280-281(1935).DOI:10.1126/science.82.2125.280.b Wells, William Firth and Mildred Weeks Wells. Measurement of Sanitary Ventilation American Journal of Public Health and the Nations Health 28, 343_350, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.28.3.343 Zimmer, Carl. “Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe.” Dutton. 2025. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The possible contenders for the title of inventor of spray paint were actually working across decades. And really, all those people contributed pieces of the story. Research: Abplanalp, R.H. “Valve mechanism for dispensing gases and liquids under pressure.” U.S. Patent Office. March 17, 1953. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/65/be/710e864cf870d8/US2631814.pdf “About Binks.” https://binks.com/about-us/ Andreassen, Dag. “The world's first spray can?” Teknismuseum. Nov. 6, 2024. https://www.tekniskmuseum.no/en/stories/spray-can “Atomizer.” Smithsonian National Museum of American History. https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_721925 Baisya, Pramila. “A Brief History of Spray Paint.” UP Magazine. https://upmag.com/a-brief-history-of-spray-paint/ Bancroft, Hubert Howe. “The book of the fair; an historical and descriptive presentation of the world's science, art, and industry, as viewed through the Columbian Exposition at Chicago in 1893.” The Bancroft Co. 1893. https://archive.org/details/bookfair1banca/page/68/mode/2up Bellis, Mary. "The History of Aerosol Spray Cans." ThoughtCo, May. 11, 2025, thoughtco.com/history-of-aerosol-spray-cans-1991231 “Boss of the Year Secretary Speaker in Sycamore.” The Sycamore Tribune. April 29, 1960. https://www.newspapers.com/image/898198730/?match=1&terms=Edward%20H.%20Seymour “Definitions of “Aerosol Product” and Related Terms in Various Federal and State Regulations, Standards and Codes.” National Institute od Standards and Technology. February 2012. https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/pml/wmd/Definitions-of-Aerosol-Product.pdf “DeVilbiss Atomizers.” Wood Library Museum of Anesthesiology. https://www.woodlibrarymuseum.org/museum/devilbiss-atomizers/ “Francis Davis Millet and Millet family papers, 1858-1984, bulk 1858-1955.” Smithsonian. https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/francis-davis-millet-and-millet-family-papers-9048/biographical-note Greenbaum, Hillary and Dana Rubinstein. “The Origin of Spray Paint.” New York Times magazine. Nov. 4, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/magazine/who-made-spray-paint.html Haberkorn, Stephen. “Seymour of Sycamore: Aerosol Paint Inventor Still Mass Producing.” The Daily Chronicle. May 31, 2014. https://www.newspapers.com/image/183344909/?match=1&terms=%22Nancy%20Seymour%20Heatley%22 Linden, Chris. “The 1893 Columbian Exposition: Remembering Chicago’s White City.” Northwest Quarterly. Dec. 10, 2012. https://northwestchicagoland.northwestquarterly.com/2012/12/10/the-1893-columbian-exposition-remembering-chicagos-white-city/ “Oslo, Home of the Spray Can.” Oslo Science Park. Sept. 24, 2024. https://www.forskningsparken.no/en/news/2024-oslo-home-of-the-spray-can “A Patent on a Rattle in a Can.” The Lemont Herald. May 22, 1952. https://www.newspapers.com/image/700713398/?match=1&terms=%22Edward%20H.%20Seymour%22 Rotheim, Erik. “METHOD AND MEANS FOR THE ATOMIZING OR IDISTRIBUTION OF LIQUID OR SEMI-LIQUID MATERIALS.” United States Patent Office. April 7, 1931. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f5/fb/c3/05208e6542c01c/US1800156.pdf Seymour, E.H. “HERMETICALLY SEALED PACKAGE FOR MIXING AND DISCHARGING ” Dec. 25, 1951. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c0/4b/45/2677a2b12e2430/US2580132.pdf “Seymour Man Develops New Spray Device.” The Daily Chronicle. May 27, 1952. https://www.newspapers.com/image/126585367/?match=1&terms=%22Edward%20H.%20Seymour%22 “Summary of the Clean Air Act.” EPA. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.