Podcasts about seps

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.

In this episode of the Six Figure Author Experiment, Lee and Russell are joined by Seth Norris, CPA and founder of Author CPA. Together, they demystify accounting, taxes, and cash flow for authors, with a focus on the popular Profit First method. Seth explains how authors can structure their finances to increase profit, manage ad spend, and avoid costly tax mistakes. From S-Corps to home office deductions, they cover practical strategies to help authors keep more of what they earn while building a sustainable business mindset.Topics Covered:* Why most authors avoid money conversations—and why that's a mistake* The core principles of the Profit First method* How to use multiple bank accounts to enforce profit, taxes, and expenses* Recommended Profit First percentages for authors under $250K/year* What “real revenue” means and why ad spend may belong in cost of goods* Challenges of funding growth and why debt can be dangerous* How to reinvest profit and owner pay strategically* The role of intellectual property as an asset in author businesses* When and why to consider switching from sole proprietor/LLC to S-Corp* The true tax differences between LLCs and S-Corps* How “reasonable compensation” works under IRS rules* Smart ways to save on taxes: SEPs, Solo 401Ks, and home office deductions* Hobby vs. business rules and how to prove intent to profit* Why mindset matters: paying yourself and thinking like a business owner* Memorable tax court cases authors can learn from (including a brothel research deduction!)* Building systems that support sustainable growth and financial confidenceWebsite: authorcpa.comYoutube: youtube.com/@authorcpaNewsletter: norriscpafirm.com/newsletter This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sixfigureauthorexperiment.com

Fed cut rates by 25bps to 4.00-4.25%, as expected, citing a shift in risk balance. Bowman and Waller joined consensus, calling for a 25bps reduction; new Governor Miran dissented, preferring a 50bps cut.Nine of the 19 Fed officials see two additional cuts in 2025, two see one cut, and six see no more reductions.Fed Chair Powell said he doesn't feel the need to move quickly on rates, and that “you could think of the cut as a risk management cut”, and that decisions will be taken on a meeting-by-meeting approach.Markets saw an initial dovish reaction to the FOMC statement followed by a hawkish reversal heading into and during Chair Powell's press conference. Fed rate cut in December still fully priced in.APAC stocks traded mixed following the choppy reaction to the FOMC meeting; European equity futures indicate a positive cash market open with Euro Stoxx 50 futures up 0.5%.Looking ahead, highlights include US Jobless Claims, New Zealand Trade Balance (Aug), BoE Announcement, Norges Bank Announcement, SARB Announcement, Speakers include ECB's Lagarde, de Guindos, Nagel & Schnabel, US President Trump & UK PM Starmer press conference, Supply from Spain, France & US, Earnings from FedEx & Lennar.Read the full report covering Equities, Forex, Fixed Income, Commodites and more on Newsquawk

Owning a business can be one of the best wealth-building opportunities, but it also comes with unique challenges, especially when it's time to think about retirement. Too many business owners assume their company alone will carry them through, but as Craig and Jennifer explain, that's often a dangerous misconception. In this episode, they share common myths business owners believe and the risks of relying solely on a business for future security. They discuss why saving outside your business matters, how to think about retirement plans like SEPs and 401(k)s, and why things like HSAs and Social Security shouldn't be overlooked. Real-world stories, from clients who faced unexpected tax bills to cautionary lessons about family transitions, bring these lessons to life. If you've poured your heart into building a company, don't let misconceptions put your retirement at risk. Here's some of what we discuss in this episode:

Welcome back to The Sentinel Show! Today, Melissa and Kasey tackle an unusual but important topic: pairing SEPs (Simplified Employee Pensions) with Cash Balance Plans.This question led to a deep dive into how these two types ofretirement plans can (and sometimes can't) work together. Can you retroactively add a cash balance plan to a SEP? What's the IRS rule about Form 5305? Why does the 31% combined plan limit matter? And ultimately—why might a 401(k) with a cash balance plan offer more flexibility and higher long-term savings potential than a SEP with one?Melissa and Kasey walk through the rules, limits, andreal-life scenarios to highlight the pros, cons, and tax advantages that come with these different plan combinations.Have any questions about this episode's topic? Let us know!Visit our website for more information: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sentinel Pension (sp-tpa.com)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Call us at 225-300-8478⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow us on LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow us on Facebook ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Music by Adam Vitovsky

Welcome to Episode 95! In this episode, we give our takes on the obvious winners and losers of the patch, and the sneaky winners and losers of the patch. We have played a bunch, but we are also only three dudes with very limited meta horizons so take our observations with a grain of salt.We love you all! Join the Slack and have fun list-building with us!

Brian, Alex, and our callers dig into one of the most overlooked but urgent problems in personal finance: our retirement system is broken—and most people don't even realize it. The conversation opens with an honest critique of the current mess of savings vehicles: 401(k)s, SIMPLEs, SEPs, IRAs, Roths—all with different rules, limits, and levels of access. The hosts explain why these inconsistencies create a fundamental inequality: if you're self-employed, you can stash away $70K pre-tax, but if you're a W-2 employee? You're capped at less than half that. It's a system built with good intentions that's now a patchwork of inefficiency, confusion, and lopsided opportunity. The episode features a practical case study from a young entrepreneur trying to offer retirement benefits to a small team with limited resources. Alex breaks down the real math behind startup retirement plans and offers realistic paths forward. They also take a call from a college student who saved $10K and wants to invest it wisely—an unexpected reminder that real financial planning starts early, and opportunity favors the intentional.   Listen, Watch, Subscribe, Ask! https://www.therealmoneypros.com Host: Brian Wiley & Alex Lundgren ————————————————————— SPONSORS: Guild Mortgage: https://guildmortgage.com Ataraxis PEO https://ataraxispeo.com Tree City Advisors of Apollon: https://www.treecityadvisors.com Apollon Wealth Management: https://apollonwealthmanagement.com/ Formations: https://get.formationscorp.com/real-money-pros —————————————————————

Why Agents Should Think Twice Before Celebrating Industry “Good News”On the latest episode of Insurance Business Babes, hosts Kathe Kline and Joanna Wyckoff dive into the issues behind Medicare's disaster SEPs (Special Election Periods), recent government reversals, and why not all agent celebrations are necessarily cause for joy. If you're an agent who's popped the champagne over recent changes, this episode is for you.When "Wins" Aren't Wins for EveryoneThe government recently reversed a rule, now allowing agents to enroll clients using the disaster SEP again, rather than having clients call Medicare directly. On the surface, this sounds like a win, but Kathe and Joanna urge caution. The reversal makes it easier for bad actors—especially call centers—to abuse SEPs for commission, often enrolling vulnerable clients in unsuitable or unnecessary plans. The end result? Honest agents face unfair competition and a system that can hurt clients without careful oversight.The Real Cost of Abused SEPsDisaster SEPs are meant for people genuinely affected by natural disasters and unable to enroll during typical periods. Kathe shares stories about agents moving clients between plans quarter after quarter under questionable pretense. Not only does this strain trust in the industry, but it also puts pressure on carriers and small agents alike. Frequent rollovers, rapid disenrollment, and adverse selection can damage both client outcomes and carrier profitability, leading to fewer good products in the market.Small Business Agents: The Ones Getting SqueezedAs Joanna notes, regulatory changes intended to clamp down on abuse often make life harder for solo agents and small agencies, not the big call centers causing most issues. Increased documentation, lengthy disclaimers, and constant regulation can be overwhelming, especially when honest agents get painted with the same broad brush.Celebrate Wisely—and Put Clients FirstFinally, Kathe and Joanna remind agents that cutting corners or exploiting loopholes ultimately harms your reputation and client base. Instead, build your book with integrity, focus on true client needs, and don't be swayed by industry “wins” that may only benefit the big players. Diversify, cross-sell, and always act as if you were advising your own family member—your clients (and your business) will thank you for it.This episode is sponsored by ⁠CertifiedMedicareAgents.com⁠. Use the coupon code BABES2024 for a free lifetime BRONZE membership.

In part two of our NGSS series, we're diving into its three-dimensional nature —specifically, SEPs (Science and Engineering Practices) and CCCs (Crosscutting Concepts). You'll hear my take on what they are and how you can practically teach them. Plus, I'll share plenty of ideas for assessing them beyond traditional tests!➡️ Show Notes: https://itsnotrocketscienceclassroom.com/episode178Resources Mentioned:Culture Mini CoursePhotosynthesis Relay ActivityNeuron Communication and Signal Transmission Inquiry Activity Female Cycle Inquiry Activity Secondary Science Simplified® Virtual PD Course BundleEpisode 177, Unpacking the NGSS: What High School Science Teachers Need to KnowEpisode 173, 9 Quick Ways to Use AI to Simplify Your Life as a TeacherDownload your FREE Classroom Reset Challenge.Send me a DM on Instagram: @its.not.rocket.scienceSend me an email: rebecca@itsnotrocketscienceclassroom.com  Follow, rate, and review on Apple Podcasts.Related Episodes and Blog Posts:Episode 176, Teaching AP Biology, Exam Review, FRQ Prep, and MORE with Tiffany of AP Bio Penguins Episode 107, NGSS and Standards-Based Grading with Guest Boni HamiltonEpisode 106, Standards-Based Grading, Citizenship Grades, Motivation and MORE with Guest Jennica Harrison

Episode 248FACULTY: Jason Ackerman, CPA aka J-Rabbit aka the Accounting High Lunch LadyCLASS: #ShoperationsIn this episode, Jason Ackerman, CPA, co-founder of WealthRabbit, discusses the importance of accountants providing advisory services and setting up retirement plans for clients. Ackerman explains the challenges and opportunities in offering simple IRAs, SEPs, and other retirement plans, and emphasizes the need for accountants to evolve from mere compliance work to value-driven services. The conversation delves into the development of WealthRabbit, the integration with payroll systems, and the importance of customer service in both accounting and software businesses.

In this conversation, Cole Lundstrom, Gavin StGeorges, and Nick Gawreluk discuss the common challenges faced by print shop owners in achieving profitability. They explore the importance of understanding costs, pricing strategies, and the contribution margin as key factors in running a successful printing business. Nick shares insights from his extensive experience in the industry, emphasizing the need for clarity in financial data and the role of software in providing actionable insights. The discussion also touches on the future of data and AI in the printing industry, highlighting the potential for improved decision-making and profitability.Interested in Print Profit?https://www.printprofit.com/colePowered by Seps.io and Merch TroopTakeawaysUnderstanding your costs is fundamental to profitability.Sales figures can be misleading without profit clarity.Contribution margin helps determine the true profitability of jobs.Overhead costs must be factored into pricing strategies.Contract printing can fill capacity but should be evaluated for profitability.Data-driven insights can enhance decision-making in printing businesses.Software tools can provide real-time financial insights.A pricing matrix should be flexible based on market conditions.AI can automate data analysis for better business insights.Team alignment on financial goals is crucial for success.Keywordsprinting, profit, pricing strategies, contribution margin, overhead, contract printing, software, AI, financial insights

In this episode of "Insurance Business Babes," hosts Joanna Wyckoff and Kathe Kline delve into the complexities and evolving landscape of disaster-related special election periods (SEPs) and their potential phase-out, largely due to misuse by giant call centers and regulatory changes from CMS. They discuss the impact these changes have on independent agents, including the challenge of managing client enrollments and commissions amidst growing restrictions and automatic enrollments. The episode covers various industry issues such as the influence of high-profile figures in policy-making, the role of nonprofits like Health Agents for America in advocating for agents' rights, and the struggle with non-commissionable plans and undertrained SHIP counselors. The hosts emphasize the importance of structured client processes, regulatory compliance, and the need for diversification into other insurance products to mitigate the risks posed by these systemic changes. This episode is sponsored by CertifiedMedicareAgents.com

In this episode, Sev talks about many of the Retirement Savings & Income Planning topics that could be tested on the CFP® exam. Topics such as ADP and ACP testing, qualified and non-qualified plans, age-weighted plans, IRAs and qualified plan taxation along with SEPs & SIMPLEs are just some of the things Sev will talk about. ____________________________________________ About Sev Meneshian

Are you MAXIMIZING your taxes to work for YOU? Real estate agents are notoriously bad with their finances...So what if you could learn EXACTLY what to do to keep more of the money you earn with just a few smart tax strategies?I sat down with Michael Perna to unpack the tax strategies every real estate agent should know. We dove into how to maximize your income—not just by earning more, but by keeping more of it in your pocket where it belongs.We broke down the Augusta Rule, explored how to leverage HSAs and SEPs for retirement, and covered cost segregation strategies to make your properties work for you. Michael also shared the one thing you should do every month that will save you so much stress when it is time to pay taxes…It's time to take control of your financial future—not just for yourself, but for your family.You work hard to earn your money. Now, learn how to keep it.

In this special episode of Clause 8, host Eli Mazour speaks with Ann Cathcart Chaplin at the Qualcomm Museum, which is right at the heart of Qualcomm's headquarters in San Diego. Ann shares her journey from being an IP litigator to in-house counsel and from GM to Qualcomm.As General Counsel of Qualcomm, Ann oversees all legal matters for the world's leading innovator of connectivity solutions. Before Qualcomm, she served in a variety of deputy general counsel roles at General Motors (GM). Ann spent most of her career prior to that focused on IP litigation, including as litigation practice group leader at one of the world's biggest IP firms.Her leadership experience at a major auto company before joining Qualcomm provides her with a unique vantage point about the role of standard essential patents (SEPs), the relationship between cellular innovators like Qualcomm and auto companies, and the surrounding debates.From her beginnings in Minnesota, initial aspiration to become a public defender as a Harvard Law student, and eventual transition into IP litigation, Ann shares her unlikely journey. Now at Qualcomm, she touches on the challenges and opportunities of navigating IP issues in one of America's most significant and innovative tech companies, which relies heavily on a functioning IP system that promotes innovation.Ann Chaplin's transition from IP litigation at a law firm to in-house counsel at GM is a significant highlight of this episode. She discusses adapting her IP litigation skills to address GM's pressing legal concerns, including for diverse fields such as product liability, class actions, and corporate governance,. Ann's role at Qualcomm involves overseeing IP and licensing, emphasizing its critical role in driving innovation. Her key concerns include attacks on the patent system and the need for policies that support sustainable R&D investments.Check out the full VIDEO Interview on Voice of IPDisclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

Laurie Fitzgerald joins Eli to tell the story of how she led Avanci to an 8-year overnight success. Avanci's pioneering efforts to provide an efficient, simpler option for the automotive industry to license cellular SEPs are now widely heralded as one of the greatest stories of successful innovation in the patent world. Laurie, who has been with Avanci since 2018, shares her journey and the strategic decisions behind the one-stop shop licensing platform that now boasts participation from 70 licensors and 100 automotive brands.The discussion highlights how Avanci navigated the complexities of linking cellular innovators with automotive manufacturers, detailing how they established a uniform licensing fee and why this model works efficiently for both licensors and licensees. They discuss the role of independent patent evaluations, the challenges of negotiating acceptable agreements among varied stakeholders, the process for determining royalty allocations, and what others can learn from Avanci about how the private sector can provide efficient solutions for SEP licensing.Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

In this episode, Cole and Gavin discuss the challenges of hiring and building a team. They share their experiences and insights on finding the right people, determining the right time to hire, and creating a strong company culture. They emphasize the importance of reliability, respect, and clear communication in building a sustainable team. They also provide tips on the hiring process, including creating job descriptions, conducting interviews, and onboarding new hires. Additionally, they discuss the significance of firing bad fits and the need to prioritize the financial stability of the business.Free Checklisthttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1YOTtAZZAV26wfJVdUtXlHLXJ93ZFTfmfVORbXe1tV3g/edit?usp=sharingPowered by Merchtroop.com and Seps.iokeywordshiring, building a team, finding the right people, company culture, reliability, respect, communication, job descriptions, interviews, onboarding, firing, financial stabilitytakeaways Finding the right people and putting them in the right seat is critical for business success. Reliability, respect, and clear communication are key factors in building a sustainable team. Hiring should be based on specific roles and responsibilities, rather than hiring jack-of-all-trades. Firing bad fits is necessary for the overall health and success of the business. Creating a strong company culture and core values is essential for employee satisfaction and retention. Chapters00:00Introduction and Importance of Hiring03:09Determining the Right Time to Hire05:49Creating a Strong Company Culture09:06Tips for the Hiring Process11:32Interviewing and Onboarding15:36Specializing Roles and Firing Bad Fits18:26Building a Sustainable Team and Prioritizing Financial Stability21:53Conclusion and Free Hiring Checklist

In this episode, Cole and Gavin discuss the challenges of hiring and building a team. They share their experiences and insights on finding the right people, determining the right time to hire, and creating a strong company culture. They emphasize the importance of reliability, respect, and clear communication in building a sustainable team. They also provide tips on the hiring process, including creating job descriptions, conducting interviews, and onboarding new hires. Additionally, they discuss the significance of firing bad fits and the need to prioritize the financial stability of the business.Free Checklisthttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1YOTtAZZAV26wfJVdUtXlHLXJ93ZFTfmfVORbXe1tV3g/edit?usp=sharingPowered by Merchtroop.com and Seps.iokeywordshiring, building a team, finding the right people, company culture, reliability, respect, communication, job descriptions, interviews, onboarding, firing, financial stabilitytakeaways Finding the right people and putting them in the right seat is critical for business success. Reliability, respect, and clear communication are key factors in building a sustainable team. Hiring should be based on specific roles and responsibilities, rather than hiring jack-of-all-trades. Firing bad fits is necessary for the overall health and success of the business. Creating a strong company culture and core values is essential for employee satisfaction and retention. Chapters00:00Introduction and Importance of Hiring03:09Determining the Right Time to Hire05:49Creating a Strong Company Culture09:06Tips for the Hiring Process11:32Interviewing and Onboarding15:36Specializing Roles and Firing Bad Fits18:26Building a Sustainable Team and Prioritizing Financial Stability21:53Conclusion and Free Hiring Checklist

Sponsored by-Seps.ioMerchTroop.comIn this episode of *Building Your T-Shirt Empire*, hosts Gavin StGeorges and Cole Lundstrom take a deep dive into the real-world challenges and triumphs of running a t-shirt business. From Gavin's transition from a nomadic lifestyle to settling down, to Cole's decision to shut down his long-running screen printing shop, this episode is packed with personal stories and industry insights.Gavin and Cole discuss the hard decisions shop owners face, like knowing when to pivot or even close a business that no longer serves you. Cole opens up about the challenges of managing a team, the impact of overhead costs, and how he found new opportunities in the industry by shifting to DTF transfers and consulting. They also explore the broader trends affecting the print industry, from the rise of digital printing to the recent consolidation of major distributors like S&S and Alpha Broder.If you're a print shop owner or aspiring entrepreneur, this episode offers a candid look at the realities of the business, along with practical advice on how to stay lean, adapt to industry changes, and ultimately thrive in a competitive market. Tune in for an honest conversation that might just inspire your next big move.

Sponsored by-Seps.ioMerchTroop.comIn this episode of *Building Your T-Shirt Empire*, hosts Gavin StGeorges and Cole Lundstrom take a deep dive into the real-world challenges and triumphs of running a t-shirt business. From Gavin's transition from a nomadic lifestyle to settling down, to Cole's decision to shut down his long-running screen printing shop, this episode is packed with personal stories and industry insights.Gavin and Cole discuss the hard decisions shop owners face, like knowing when to pivot or even close a business that no longer serves you. Cole opens up about the challenges of managing a team, the impact of overhead costs, and how he found new opportunities in the industry by shifting to DTF transfers and consulting. They also explore the broader trends affecting the print industry, from the rise of digital printing to the recent consolidation of major distributors like S&S and Alpha Broder.If you're a print shop owner or aspiring entrepreneur, this episode offers a candid look at the realities of the business, along with practical advice on how to stay lean, adapt to industry changes, and ultimately thrive in a competitive market. Tune in for an honest conversation that might just inspire your next big move.

Episode 34  join Dwitters, avacado and thunderbound to go through more legion 260!

In this episode I go over Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) are FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms.   If someone comes up with a patent for a technology, and that technology because a standard for an industry, then the company that owns the patent MUST adhere to FRAND principals by licensing it on a "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminary" basis. Listen to the episode for more details and examples!   Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament Phone/Text: (424)281-0162 YouTube Channel LinkedIn

Florian Mueller shares his remarkable journey from leading a major fight against pro-software patent legislation in Europe to becoming one of the most influential voices in the IP world. For over a decade, his FOSS Patents blog became the go-to destination for anyone who wanted to follow developments related to standard-essential patents (SEPs). After a brief hiatus, Florian recently reemerged as the publisher of ip fray, which is quickly starting to play the role for all of IP that FOSS previously played for SEPs.Drawing on his extensive background, Florian provides fascinating insights about what led to the European Union's controversial SEP proposal, the potential outcomes, and the burgeoning influence of AI on patent law. He also shares the story of why and how Real Madrid came to him asking for help along the way.Key Topics:* How German court decisions and other alleged dynamics led to EU's pending SEP proposal* Problems with EU's pending SEP proposal* How the rest of the process is likely to play out at the EU & related strategies* Why innovators are at a disadvantage in the debate* Shifting views of different tech companies regarding SEPs over time* Role of patent pools/platforms in the SEP battles* Impact of AI This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

Join us on a captivating journey to the heart of the t-shirt industry with 'Building Your T-Shirt Empire,' featuring the illustrious Jon Ladd, the visionary behind Terminus Tees. This exclusive episode, proudly sponsored by ShirtAgency.com and Seps.io, dives deep into the secrets of building a successful t-shirt business from the ground up. Learn firsthand how Jon Ladd entered the industry, his innovative strategies for growth, and how Terminus Tees has become a beacon of quality and creativity. Whether you're a budding entrepreneur or an established business looking to expand, this episode offers invaluable insights, practical advice, and inspiration to take your venture to the next level. Subscribe and discover how to transform your t-shirt business into an empire today!

Join us on a captivating journey to the heart of the t-shirt industry with 'Building Your T-Shirt Empire,' featuring the illustrious Jon Ladd, the visionary behind Terminus Tees. This exclusive episode, proudly sponsored by ShirtAgency.com and Seps.io, dives deep into the secrets of building a successful t-shirt business from the ground up. Learn firsthand how Jon Ladd entered the industry, his innovative strategies for growth, and how Terminus Tees has become a beacon of quality and creativity. Whether you're a budding entrepreneur or an established business looking to expand, this episode offers invaluable insights, practical advice, and inspiration to take your venture to the next level. Subscribe and discover how to transform your t-shirt business into an empire today!

Key Takeaways: Retirement Planning for Business Owners - Plan ahead using retirement strategies such as 401(k)s or SEPs to effectively reduce taxes and build savings. Strategic Monthly Contributions - Implement a monthly contribution schedule to retirement plans to manage cash flow and maximize tax benefits over time. Understanding Plan Benefits - Recognize the substantial tax credits offered by new retirement plans, incentivizing business owners to maintain such programs for fiscal advantage. Deferred Compensation Plans - High-earners may find deferred comp plans valuable for unlimited pre-tax deductions, though they entail specific risk considerations. Continuous Tax Strategy Adaptation - Proactively engage in tax planning discussions and stay updated on developments throughout the year to maintain a commanding financial position. Chapters: Timestamp Summary 0:00:45 Allison Reif Martin mentions the March 15 deadline for filing tax returns 0:01:27 Discuss the importance of tax planning for retirement 0:02:51 Encourages monthly contributions to retirement plans 0:04:07 Emphasizes the importance of retirement planning 0:05:19 Philip asks about deferred comp plans 0:05:47 Allison expresses support for deferred comp plans   Powered by ReiffMartin CPA and Stone Hill Wealth Management   Social Media Handles    Follow Phillip Washington, Jr. on Instagram (@askphillip)   Subscribe to Wealth Building Made Simple newsletter https://www.wealthbuildingmadesimple.us/   Thank you for checking out our free content on financial planning, the wealth mindset, and investing in innovation. If you've found value in our blog posts, I invite you to take your knowledge and commitment to the next level. Sign up for our premium paid newsletter today and receive daily insights and expert analysis directly in your inbox. Stay ahead of the curve and unlock the secrets to financial success. Don't miss out on this opportunity to deepen your understanding and gain an edge in the world of finance. Join our premium community now and embark on a journey towards financial abundance and investment excellence. Sign up today and let's grow together!   WBMS Premium Subscription   Phillip Washington, Jr. is a registered investment adviser. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investments involve risk and, unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial adviser and/or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed herein. Past performance is not indicative of future performance.

J. John Lee is the Chief Counsel for IP in the US House of Representatives and helms the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, which is chaired by Congressman Darrell Issa.  In that role, he is one of only four staffers in Congress who focus on IP issues and help set the agenda for what happens with America's IP system. John joins Eli on this lively episode to discuss how he ended up in that role after serving as a Lead Judge on the PTAB, how he is currently working closely with the other IP staffers in Congress to advance legislation to fix Section 101 and the PTAB, what it will take for Section 101 legislation to pass, why broad consensus is necessary for IP legislation, what's driving the bitter disagreements over IP issues, and much more!  The episode was recorded at the end of last year.   You don't want to miss this episode if you want to learn what changes might be in store for patent law or how the patent policy sausage is made in Washington DC Selected Timestamps | 0:04:52 | How John Lee became Chief counsel for IP in the House of Representatives | | 0:08:05 | John Lee's role as chief counsel for IP and his relationship with Congressman Darrell Issa | | 0:10:18 | John Lee's experience stepping into his role on the Hill | | 0:12:13 | Making positive impressions on IP staffers in Congress | | 0:16:04 | Trajectory of patent system over last 20 years | | 0:24:52 | Proposal to exercise march-in rights under the Bay-Dole Act | | 0:31:27 | Administration's failure to build consensus on - and widespread congressional opposition to - proposals to waive & seize IP rights| | 0:33:26 | Uncertainty and lack of administration policy on standard essential patents (SEPs)| | 0:38:08 | The need to protect US leadership in technology and innovation | | 0:39:19 | Concerns about the state of Section 101 and the weaknesses of the patent system | | 0:44:04 | How patent system creates an innovation engine by encouraging disclosure of innovations | | 0:45:12 | Importance of consensus for significant changes in IP law | | 0:49:54 | Cooperation between Republicans and Democrats on IP, AI, and other related issues | | 0:53:39 | Heated opposition in House on USPTO's ANPRM proposing changes for the PTAB | | 0:57:12 | Optimism for patent bills and substantial progress in the House and Senate. | | 1:02:28 | Possibility of introducing companion bills for Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)| | 1:05:13 | Pain points that might drive agreement on Section 101: third party litigation funding, discretionary denials at PTAB, and standard essential patents (SEPs) | || 1:06:26 | Negative impact on Federal Circuit from suspension of Judge Pauline Newman | | 1:07:44 | Cannot comment on the details of the issue involving Judge Pauline Newman. | | 1:07:57 | Role of lobbyists in development of IP policy |

J. John Lee is the Chief Counsel for IP in the US House of Representatives and helms the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, which is chaired by Congressman Darrell Issa.  In that role, he is one of only four staffers in Congress who focus on IP issues and help set the agenda for what happens with America's IP system.John joins Eli on this lively episode to discuss how he ended up in that role after serving as a Lead Judge on the PTAB, how he is currently working closely with the other IP staffers in Congress to advance legislation to fix Section 101 and the PTAB, what it will take for Section 101 legislation to pass, why broad consensus is necessary for IP legislation, what's driving the bitter disagreements over IP issues, and much more!  The episode was recorded at the end of last year.  If you know anyone else who might be interested to learn what changes might be in store for patent law or how the patent policy sausage is made in Washington, please share with others:Selected Timestamps| 0:04:52 | How John Lee became Chief Counsel for IP in the House of Representatives || 0:08:05 | John Lee's role as Chief Counsel for IP and his relationship with Issa and Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan || 0:10:18 | John Lee's experience stepping into his role on the Hill || 0:12:13 | Making positive impressions on IP staffers in Congress || 0:16:04 | Trajectory of patent system over last 20 years || 0:24:52 | Proposal to exercise march-in rights under the Bay-Dole Act || 0:31:27 | Administration's failure to build consensus on - and widespread congressional opposition to - proposals to waive & seize IP rights|| 0:33:26 | Uncertainty and lack of administration policy on standard essential patents (SEPs)|| 0:38:08 | The need to protect US leadership in technology and innovation || 0:39:19 | Concerns about the state of Section 101 and the weaknesses of the patent system || 0:44:04 | How patent system creates an innovation engine by encouraging disclosure of innovations || 0:45:12 | Importance of consensus for significant changes in IP law || 0:49:54 | Cooperation between Republicans and Democrats on IP, AI, and other related issues || 0:53:39 | Heated opposition in House on USPTO's ANPRM proposing changes for the PTAB || 0:57:12 | Optimism for patent bills and substantial progress in the House and Senate. || 1:02:28 | Possibility of introducing companion bills for Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)|| 1:05:13 | Pain points that might drive agreement on Section 101: third party litigation funding, discretionary denials at PTAB, and standard essential patents (SEPs) || 1:06:26 | Negative impact on Federal Circuit from suspension of Judge Pauline Newman || 1:07:57 | Role of lobbyists in development of IP policy | This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

Ever thought about how AI can amp up your T-shirt printing? We've got 5 smart AI ideas that'll transform your print shop from busy to buzzing! We're talking less grunt work, more genius work, all thanks to AI. Big shoutout to our sponsors SEPS.io and ShirtAgency.com for their support. Dive in to find out how you can make these AI ideas work for you. #TShirtPrinting #AI #PrintShopHacks #SEPSio #ShirtAgency

Ever thought about how AI can amp up your T-shirt printing? We've got 5 smart AI ideas that'll transform your print shop from busy to buzzing! We're talking less grunt work, more genius work, all thanks to AI. Big shoutout to our sponsors SEPS.io and ShirtAgency.com for their support. Dive in to find out how you can make these AI ideas work for you. #TShirtPrinting #AI #PrintShopHacks #SEPSio #ShirtAgency

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io -  Join us in this episode as we dive deep into the fascinating world of screen printing. Discover the intricate science and chemistry behind adhesives for split tape, explore the printer-friendly features of Lane Seven products, and gain valuable insights from industry experts. From the growth of businesses to the latest trends and tools, this episode covers it all. Whether you're a seasoned professional or just starting in the industry, there's something for everyone. Tune in for an engaging conversation that unveils the secrets of successful screen printing. 

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io -  Join us in this episode as we dive deep into the fascinating world of screen printing. Discover the intricate science and chemistry behind adhesives for split tape, explore the printer-friendly features of Lane Seven products, and gain valuable insights from industry experts. From the growth of businesses to the latest trends and tools, this episode covers it all. Whether you're a seasoned professional or just starting in the industry, there's something for everyone. Tune in for an engaging conversation that unveils the secrets of successful screen printing. 

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. In this special episode, we dive into the world of Seps.io  a revolutionary platform changing the game for screen printing shops. Gavin, feeling the post-show fatigue, shares his experiences and excitement from the recent trade show. Cole sheds light on the unique challenges faced by print shops when it comes to artwork, emphasizing the headaches caused by in-house graphic design and the expensive outsourcing options available. Seps comes to the rescue by offering a comprehensive platform that integrates seamlessly into the existing workflow of print shops.

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. In this special episode, we sit down with Andrew from PMI Tape. Discover PMI Tape's commitment to sustainability and their innovative nonprofit initiative, "Case for Kids." Learn how every purchase of PMI Tape contributes to charitable causes, allowing customers to choose where donations go through a QR code system. 

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. In this special episode, we sit down with Zach from ROQ, unraveling the layers of his journey in the world of printing, basketball, and street art. The conversation kicks off at ROQ Fest, where Zach shares the vibrant atmosphere and his enthusiasm for bringing positive energy to the community.

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. In this special episode, we sit down with Kevin From SetSales, The conversation covers a range of topics, from navigating slow seasons to effective outbound sales approaches. Kevin shares invaluable insights on building a robust sales process, crafting targeted messaging, and the importance of customer acquisition and targeting strategies. 

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. In this special episode, we sit down with Andrew from PMI Tape. Discover PMI Tape's commitment to sustainability and their innovative nonprofit initiative, "Case for Kids." Learn how every purchase of PMI Tape contributes to charitable causes, allowing customers to choose where donations go through a QR code system. 

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. In this special episode, we sit down with  Anbin from YoPrint, unveiling the power of print management in the ever-evolving printing industry. Anbin discusses how YoPrint is revolutionizing the market with its modern UI and customer portal, providing a seamless experience for print shops. 

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. In this special episode, we dive into the world of Seps.io  a revolutionary platform changing the game for screen printing shops. Gavin, feeling the post-show fatigue, shares his experiences and excitement from the recent trade show. Cole sheds light on the unique challenges faced by print shops when it comes to artwork, emphasizing the headaches caused by in-house graphic design and the expensive outsourcing options available. Seps comes to the rescue by offering a comprehensive platform that integrates seamlessly into the existing workflow of print shops.

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. In this special episode, we sit down with Melissa from Lane7Apparel as she shares insights into the exciting world of apparel printing. Melissa, the Sales Director at Lane7, brings her vibrant energy to the conversation, reflecting the positive atmosphere of the trade show.Discover the unique qualities of Lane7Apparel products that make them a printer's friend. Melissa highlights the ease of printing on Lane7 fabrics, emphasizing the profitability and comfort they offer. From 100% cotton tees to the Nantucket fleece, Lane7 brings a variety of quality options to the table.

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. In this special episode, we sit down with Zach from ROQ, unraveling the layers of his journey in the world of printing, basketball, and street art. The conversation kicks off at ROQ Fest, where Zach shares the vibrant atmosphere and his enthusiasm for bringing positive energy to the community.

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. In this special episode, we sit down with Melissa from Lane7Apparel as she shares insights into the exciting world of apparel printing. Melissa, the Sales Director at Lane7, brings her vibrant energy to the conversation, reflecting the positive atmosphere of the trade show.Discover the unique qualities of Lane7Apparel products that make them a printer's friend. Melissa highlights the ease of printing on Lane7 fabrics, emphasizing the profitability and comfort they offer. From 100% cotton tees to the Nantucket fleece, Lane7 brings a variety of quality options to the table.

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. In this special episode, we sit down with Kevin From SetSales, The conversation covers a range of topics, from navigating slow seasons to effective outbound sales approaches. Kevin shares invaluable insights on building a robust sales process, crafting targeted messaging, and the importance of customer acquisition and targeting strategies. 

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. In this special episode, we sit down with  Anbin from YoPrint, unveiling the power of print management in the ever-evolving printing industry. Anbin discusses how YoPrint is revolutionizing the market with its modern UI and customer portal, providing a seamless experience for print shops. 

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. in this insightful conversation with Adrienne as we delve into the dynamic world of Direct to Film (DTF) printing. From industry trends to the impact of technology, we discuss how DTF is reshaping the landscape of apparel decoration. Adrieene shares valuable insights on the evolving preferences, the DTF Expo 2024, and the future of the printing industry. Don't miss out on this engaging discussion that explores the intersection of art, technology, and business in the realm of printing.

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. We have Nick from Eternal Designs. from exploring cutting-edge technology to discussing DTF innovations, Nick provides valuable insights. Learn about Unite Together's initiatives to promote diversity and inclusion in the industry, focusing on raising funds for Skills USA. Discover Nick's vision for creating a network of professional black printers, fostering camaraderie, and breaking barriers. Tune in for an engaging discussion on mindset, opportunities, and the exciting happenings at the show.

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. in this insightful conversation with Adrienne as we delve into the dynamic world of Direct to Film (DTF) printing. From industry trends to the impact of technology, we discuss how DTF is reshaping the landscape of apparel decoration. Adrieene shares valuable insights on the evolving preferences, the DTF Expo 2024, and the future of the printing industry. Don't miss out on this engaging discussion that explores the intersection of art, technology, and business in the realm of printing.

Hey there! Welcome to another electrifying episode of T-Shirt Empire! Join us, your hosts Cole from Shirtagency and Gavin from Seps.io , as we bring you a live and dynamic session straight from the heart of Impression Expo Long Beach 2024. We have Nick from Eternal Designs. from exploring cutting-edge technology to discussing DTF innovations, Nick provides valuable insights. Learn about Unite Together's initiatives to promote diversity and inclusion in the industry, focusing on raising funds for Skills USA. Discover Nick's vision for creating a network of professional black printers, fostering camaraderie, and breaking barriers. Tune in for an engaging discussion on mindset, opportunities, and the exciting happenings at the show.

Matteo Sabattini is well known in DC patent policy circles from his previous role as Director of IP Policy at Ericsson.  He now joins Eli from Italy to discuss his new role as President and Chief Licensing Officer of Convida, what he learned from his time in DC, keys to building a successful licensing program, why recent attempts to regulate licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs) are misguided, and much more!   Selected Timestamps | 0:11:03 | How shifting value from devices to services & platforms impacts who should license patents | | 0:17:46 | Licensing fueling further innovation | | 0:18:56 | Successful licensing means getting to point where both sides are equally unhappy | 0:19:20 | Importance of communicating the value of R&D for a successful licensing program | | 0:21:17 | Feedback loop between licensing and prosecution departments is crucial | | 0:25:41 | Why litigation is not always an indication of bad faith| | 0:26:30 | Unwilling licensees posing a toll on innovation | | 0:32:35 | Lessons learned from working at Sisvel | | 0:34:38 | Avanci and others proving that markets are functioning efficiently because of industry-led, licensing solutions and that new government regulations aren't necessary | | 0:38:57 | IEEE's patent policy change sparking Matteo's interest in policy| | 0:40:44 | Taking on policy role at Ericsson at low point of America's patent system| | 0:44:03 | Need for coalescing between different pro-patent interest groups | | 0:48:14 | Impact of issuance and withdrawal of SEP policy statements in the US | | 0:51:11 | European Commission's draft SEP proposals to supposedly help SMEs | | 0:56:22 | Idea to actually help SMEs with licensing of SEPs instead of unworkable regulation |

Ofinno's founder Esmael Dinan and CEO Kavon Nasabzadeh join the Clause 8 podcast to tell Ofinno's unique story of succeeding in the patent monetization space and talk about its plans for the future.    After spending years as an inventor at a large operating company, Esmael came to the conclusion that most such companies aren't good at obtaining valuable standard essential patents (SEPs) on their own.  This spurred him to found Ofinno in 2011, an R&D lab that would obtain such patents.  He almost quit after spending his savings and initially failing to find any buyer for Ofinno's patents.  Instead, Ofinno went on to sell patents to companies like Samsung, Comcast, Huawei, and Honda.  Ofinno recently joined Avanci's 5G Connected Vehicle licensing program and is executing on plans to start its own licensing programs in a wide variety of other technology areas, including next generation Wi-Fi, video compression, and semiconductors.  Esmael and Kavon also discuss: Kavon joining Offino as its first in-house patent attorney and becoming CEO earlier this year How Ofinno structures its patent development program to obtain valuable patents And, much more!