Podcasts about UPC

U.S. Freedom and Liberty Lost (1) (audio) David Eells, 5/31/26  I'm going to share some warning revelations about America losing its freedom to the beast. I believe some of these things are coming to pass now and some are happening very soon.   The Light Is True Liberty Cheri Watson - 06/24/2005 (David's notes in red) In a dream, I saw the Statue of Liberty with a great light behind it. Then I saw the right arm, holding the light, broken and brought down; then the statue crumbled and fell. Then I saw a figure that had been behind the statue. The figure was shaded because the light all around it was so bright that you couldn't make out any details... and the figure said, “I wore the crown of thorns and I AM the light. I tell you, America will be brought low, and I shall be raised up!“ (Considering all of the antichrist leaders of the U.S. who came after, Christians should rethink whether they should pledge allegiance to this Babylonish nation. Our allegiance is to Jesus who tells us to obey its laws.) Shortly after receiving this vision, I saw on the news where Condoleezza Rice (Secretary of State under George W. Bush) had invited Egypt and Saudi Arabia to be equal partners in Israel's peace agreement with the Palestinians, along with the EU, UN, and Russia, and I knew that the Lord must be really upset with America for taking such a strong stance against Israel...God, have mercy! (U.S., UN, and E.U. were increasingly ruled by the D.S. satanists. This is just one step on a long road of turning from the Lord against our own Liberty and Light.) (The Statue of Liberty holds the light, and it has what appears to be a crown of thorns on its head. But in truth it is not so. Many natural and manmade catastrophes will dissolve much false thinking about whose side America is on and Who is true Liberty. Death, burial, and resurrection will reveal the true Jesus hidden behind America. I believe it will start while America, as a harlot, is attempting to gratify herself at great cost to others. She is attempting to divide Israel for her own advantage. In the natural, God said, “I will curse those who curse thee“. In the spiritual, this is true for God's true New Testament, born-again people who are being increasingly crucified in America.) Statue of Liberty Falls to Its Knees Anonymous - 03/17/2012 (David's notes in red) I was awakened at 4:13 am and started praying in the Spirit earnestly and then the Spirit spoke to me, “It has begun“. Then I had a vision of a giant Statue of Liberty tripping over Washington, D.C. (Father will begin to judge the nation. Our freedom will be taken away by the nation stumbling over its foolish leadership.) Its knees hit the ground around the Mississippi River and the ground shook mightily. (The shaking of the New Madrid? Recently the Mississippi dried up and shipping and drinking water to a great extent ceased.) Then it proceeded to place its hands on the ground and bow down, facing west toward China. It looked defeated and tired. (China and its goods and political power have increased greatly in the U.S..) Here is another dream that fits with the U.S. bowing to China: Shelly Lynch (David's notes in red) I dreamed on 9/07/10, I heard an announcement which said, “America has been sold to the People's Republic of China“. “When?“ I asked. “25“, came the answer. I do not know what the dream means, except that there is a coming economic collapse of America, which is even now being sold to China. (As of 2010 USDA data, Chinese entities own approximately 384,000 acres, representing less than 1%of all foreign-held agricultural land in the United States. But now in 2026, if we Google, How much land and agriculture does China own in the US? We get: “This image cannot be generated.“ What are they hiding? Could it be a sign of fear that some states forbid China to own land in their state?) The other dream I had about 25 was on December 31, 2011, at 8:00 a.m. It was similar to the apples being picked in the spring dream. Then, right after that, there was the dream about the large gathering which was to be held on the 25th, where we were feeding pasta to unbelievers who were hungry. This is the verse given: {Isa.45:20} Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations. {49:10} They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them will lead them, even by springs of water will he guide them. {11} And I will make all my mountains a way, and my highways shall be exalted. {12} Lo, these shall come from far; and, lo, these from the north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim [China]. (How close these verses are to the Statue of Liberty dream verses below. Could this be the wilderness gathering after the quakes and Man-child anointing?) I asked the Father for a scripture to send along with this vision, and my finger was on: {Psa.132:15} I will abundantly bless her provision: I will satisfy her poor with bread. This is encouraging to me that even though bad things are coming upon this country, the Father will still provide for us and protect us, even in the midst of it all. Here it is in text: {13} For Jehovah hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for his habitation. {14} This is my resting-place for ever: Here will I dwell; for I have desired it. {15} I will abundantly bless her provision: I will satisfy her poor with bread. {16} Her priests also will I clothe with salvation; And her saints shall shout aloud for joy. {17} There will I make the horn of David to bud: I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed. {18} His enemies will I clothe with shame; But upon himself shall his crown flourish. (The Man-child ministry will soon be anointed to lead the true Zion Bride and Church.) The Spirit told me to look up the word knees in the Strong's in relation to the Statue of Liberty, and the ones that stood out to me are shown in the following text: {Deu.28:33} The fruit of thy ground, and all thy labors, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway; {34} so that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see. {35} Jehovah will smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore boil, whereof thou canst not be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the crown of thy head. {36} Jehovah will bring thee, and thy king whom thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation that thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone. (Could this nation which we have not really known turn against us and plunder us? Jesus said, “Ye shall be hated of all nations for my name sake.“) {Eze.7:15} The sword is without, and the pestilence and the famine within: he that is in the field shall die with the sword: and he that is in the city, famine and pestilence shall devour him. {16} But those of them that escape shall escape, and shall be on the mountains like doves of the valleys (The doves or truly Spirit filled shall escape the valley low places to the mountains of high places of God.), all of them moaning, every one in his iniquity. {17} All hands shall be feeble, and all knees shall be weak as water. {18} They shall also gird themselves with sackcloth, and horror shall cover them; and shame shall be upon all faces, and baldness upon all their heads. {19} They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be as an unclean thing; their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of Jehovah: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels; because it hath been the stumblingblock of their iniquity. (Truly, money has been God.) {Eze.21:4} Seeing then that I will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked, therefore shall my sword go forth out of its sheath against all flesh from the south to the north (Great earthquakes breaks loose?): {5} and all flesh shall know that I, Jehovah, have drawn forth my sword out of its sheath; it shall not return any more. {6} Sigh therefore, thou son of man; with the breaking of thy loins and with bitterness shalt thou sigh before their eyes. {7} And it shall be, when they say unto thee, Wherefore sighest thou? that thou shalt say, Because of the tidings, for it cometh; and every heart shall melt, and all hands shall be feeble, and every spirit shall faint, and all knees shall be weak as water: behold, it cometh, and it shall be done, saith the Lord Jehovah. Statue of Liberty's Nakedness Exposed B.A. - 10/24/2012 (David's notes in red) I saw myself standing on Liberty Island, NY, where the Statue of Liberty is located. I watched as the arm of the Lord Jesus came down out of Heaven and took the crown from off her head and cast it into the sea. (Job.19:9) He hath stripped me of my glory, And taken the crown from my head. He then stripped her of her garment, exposing her nakedness (her unrighteous acts). Then I saw the arm of the Lord force the Statue's arm holding the torch down into the water and holding it there until the light went out. I watched as the Statue became bright red. (The leftists have become full blown communists and are trying everything, including by force of arms and plagues, to turn us into a red communist nation. Lev.14:37) and he shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow streaks, greenish (A nickname for the Statue of Liberty is “The Green Lady“) or reddish (Esau was red, or the color of the earth; beasts of the field with the colors or attributes of Satan), and the appearance thereof be lower than the wall; (38) then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days. (Tribulation?) She fell to her knees as her shame was exposed for the whole world to see. (Ecc.12:14) For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Left Wing Brings Death of Liberty Cheri Watson's Vision - 02/07/2006 (David's notes in red) I saw the Statue of Liberty as a huge knife whacked it in half. When the knife sliced through it from right to left, it looked like it just kind of jumped up for a second and then fell back onto the bottom half, slightly off-center. Then, in slow motion, the statue began to slide towards its left and it just plopped into the water. (Leftists are doing all they can to overthrow Christianity for Communism.) In Michael Boldea's dream of The Eagle and the Serpents, the second strike on the Eagle by a red and black diagonal-striped serpent heavily damaged its right wing. Since the first 9/11 brought about the destruction of the left wing, as in his dream, this could symbolize the destruction of the right wing of government through the next 9/11. If so, this would make the government fall hard to the left. This symbolizes the death of liberty, or freedom, in the waters of tribulation. Liberty and Leadership Lost, Take Refuge Gordon Borneman - 02/25/2009 (David's notes in red) Everyone must seek the Lord as they have not done so before, to understand their part in the plan and hold up their families for protection and mercy from the Lord. I listened to the broadcast from Trunews for February 23rd, which I've summarized below. The conjunction of the three guests' visions forms a composite picture of what I was seeing below. To recap: Dr. Igor Shafhid - first speaker - His vision is of the Statue of Liberty lying on the ground. Jesus is holding the wrist of one arm, feeling the pulse, while Satan is holding the other wrist, feeling the pulse. The entire Statue is in a dark shadow, except for the shoulder and arm that Jesus is holding. Then Jesus lets go of the arm, and the arm turns dark as well, signifying Jesus giving the country over to darkness. Nathan Leal had a vision on February 2, 2009, of the Statue of Liberty Decapitated! Last night, as I was seeking God, for a moment in the spirit, He allowed me to taste what is coming to our land. The only thing that I can describe is severe anguish and heartache. As I continued in prayer and waiting on Him for answers, He revealed to me that sorrow and distress are about to arrive here in America. When I asked Him for details, all that He would tell me was that His remnant needs to prepare to minister to one another and to comfort one another. The distress that is coming is going to test all of us in ways that we never imagined. As I went to sleep, I had a night vision. I found myself standing in a large field, and suddenly the Statue of Liberty appeared in front of me. She was on a small hill, maybe 50 to 75 feet high. She was not on Ellis Island. (He later said he thought this was on Capitol Hill.) She was about 500 feet away from me. I was just starting to look at her when suddenly her head fell off. It fell to the ground in front of her and started bouncing down the hill toward me. It stopped at my feet. The dream was over. I woke up and pondered it. I asked myself what this could mean. I wondered, does this mean America will be decapitated? I fell back asleep, and several hours later, I had the same dream again. Everything was repeating itself, but this time I saw a giant hand coming out of the clouds with a large sword. The sword was almost as tall as the statue. It was the hand of God, and this time, the hand with the sword chopped off the head of Lady Liberty! Again, the head bounced down the hill and stopped at my feet. Then I heard the words, “Liberty will be decapitated!“ The second dream was over. Augusto Perez comes on and explains three things the Lord showed him. Word: “They have planned a super-devaluation of the dollar“. (done) Vision: One of multiple Muslim terrorist training camps. They are training for a highly coordinated operation. The leaders are handing the teams two tubes or vials. One has a blue liquid, the other a gray liquid. They explain that they mix the two tubes together for the desired result. The date for the event was given as March 7th, but no year was given. The attacks will occur simultaneously in several American cities. (This bio attack has been prophesied or dreamed several times.) He also saw tens of thousands of white swans taking flight from all over the U.S. to go to the Caribbean Islands. When they did, rats flooded into the areas they left searching for them. (I believe the Caribbean Islands, which are popular paradise vacation spots, represent refuges in the midst of the sea of lost humanity for those in white. In Armenia, the Christians were warned just before the Muslims came over the mountains to slay, to flee to the U.S.. Will the Christians here be warned before it happens here as it has been dreamed?) The Buzzards and the Wrecking Ball Dream Deborah Rennier - 02/28/2009 (David's notes in red) I found myself standing on the sidewalk in front of the White House. Somehow, from this vantage, I could also see that the White House was flanked on either side by the Capitol Building and the Washington Monument. I saw the Stars and Stripes flying high up on all the buildings. As I watched, I saw a vast flock of very large birds approaching. At first, I thought they were eagles. However, I soon realized that they were buzzards. As I observed they began to attack and shred the flags. When they were done, the flags atop all three buildings were in unrecognizable tatters. (Freedom gone through those who prey on the dead.) Suddenly, out of nowhere, there appeared a huge wrecking ball. It began to strike and destroy the Washington Monument. Down came the Monument in a heap with bricks and dust flying everywhere. (An obelisk is an insult against God like many religious spires atop churches.) The ball then went to the Capitol building. As it commenced its destruction, I watched people screaming and running around. Then a loud voice spoke, “I do not hear your cries. You do not listen to MY voice“. Then the Capitol Building fell into ruins. Many were crushed as it fell. (This also has been prophesied with the decapitation of the government.) Then the wrecking machine turned to the White House. I again heard people screaming, “Let us escape first!“ It was like whoever was running the machine was not listening as it started its demolition of the White House. Soon, the White House was also a pile of rubble. Then it was over, and I awoke. Michael Boldea, Jr.: I was in a prayer meeting this past Wednesday here in Wisconsin, and as I was praying, I saw the words “a nation in mourning“ written in fire. Last night I saw the same words in the same manner in a dream. As yet, I do not know what or when, but I felt I needed to share it. We are living in truly perilous times, and as such must be more certain of our foundation now than ever before. The huge earthquakes coming.) America's Christians Lose Their Freedom Amos Scaggs - 11/16/2010 (David's notes in red) In a vision, I saw the British soldiers wearing tricorne hats and drab, abstract, black uniforms in an endless line coming against a militia of ordinary citizens, as we had during the Revolutionary War. (London is a seat of the Deep State and they are making revolutionary war on us.) The militia was in whitish trousers and tan shirts of that period. The table was light-colored with dark legs. They had several hard-fought battles. But in the face of an incoming force they could not defeat because of the sheer numbers, they pulled the plans off the table and rolled them up like a scroll to retreat with only the few in number they had left. Those last few escaped without harm as the bullets were flying all around them. (Some in the government are speaking of a golden age because of NESARA but after Revelation 12 and the Man-child anointing comes the mark of the beast in Rev. 13.) I thought, in the first Revolutionary War, we won our freedom from tyrants, but in this last struggle, we lose it to them. (Because of rebellion against God.) It appears from this that the battle for America's independence (freedom) will be lost. There will be some hard battles and hard fighting, but in the end, the militias will have to retreat. They will be simply outgunned and outnumbered. (Because of repentance. This is just as George Washingtons vision of the third great peril.) We know that Many Christians will fight to gain their freedom from an America taken over by banksters and corporate fascism but they will fail because they are disobedient to the commands of God in this regard. In the time of the tribulations in history, when God sent the Man-child to lead the people to freedom, they had become subjugate to the beast kingdoms that swallowed them up for their sins. America is being possessed by the beast nature from the pit for this purpose. In the time of Moses and that tribulation, the people of God had become slaves in Egypt. Only in Goshen was there light in the houses and deliverance from the plagues. In the time of Joseph and that tribulation, the people were at the mercy of the state, begging for food, losing their property. In the time of Daniel, the people were conquered in tribulation and under the authority of ruthless dictators who took their lives at will. In the time of Mordecai, the people in tribulation were under the sentence of death by the beast and fighting for their lives. In the time of Jesus, the people were under the iron fist of the Roman beast tribulation, with no representation or rights of their own. Jesus told them to flee to the mountains -- above the world and its influence. History always repeats (Ecclesiastes 1:9; 3:15). In this time of the end-time Man-child, in whom Jesus lives, a combination of all of the above will happen in tribulation. Christians have been just as rebellious as their predecessors and are in just as much need of crucifixion of self -- in just as much need of new leadership and old truths. Instead, they have insulated themselves only in their minds with lies of dominion, prosperity, once saved always saved, all fly away rapture, etc. America Is Being Conquered By Communism G. C. - 06/14/2009 (David's notes in red) In a dream, I recall being somewhere in the western region of the U.S. I was in the home of a man who was loading up guns and stocking up on ammo. He was worried about protecting his home and property. Something was about to happen, though I am not sure what, but even the most undiscerning person could feel it in the air; we were on the verge of great lawlessness. The man, I thought, was taking the wrong approach in his preparation, and he ridiculed me for not taking up arms. (Militant patriots are preparing to “take the country back“ from the liberal communists who are destroying the Constitution and laws from within.) After this scene, I was in the eastern part of the nation. I quickly realized that I was in Washington, D.C. I was standing and looking at the White House. I saw that it was set in a peculiar position, which was with the back of the building facing a body of water. (The head of Babylon that is sitting on many waters?) I saw the Americans doing something in the water and, as I continued watching, many submerged vessels appeared on the surface of the water. These vessels were not American; they were Russian and they quickly moved ashore. This is where I saw many soldiers run up the shore and proceed to enter the back of the White House. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of these men overtaking the building. (Yes, the waters behind the White House represent the peoples ruled by it. Out of these waters have arisen the leftists who have taken the White House before many times and are very angry they have lost it now. This revelation was when Obama took office. These are ruled by the same principalities that ruled the Russian revolution of communists. It is a spiritual war. The right wing went down in flames -- losing the propaganda war before the coming physical war. A few years ago, we received a dream that the Statue of Liberty was shot at with missiles from a Russian sub and was cut in half, as the country is now. (The Bolshevik revolution was accomplished by very few people.) The top half, containing the head or government, then fell to the LEFT and into the water. At that time, I said this represented the coming of a left-wing government. This has only begun. Even though public sentiment is swinging back toward the right, there will come a stunning reversal of this trend, as God permits, that will bring great persecution to Christians and the mark. The something that was about to happen in the first paragraph above could be the scenario below.) The White House was quickly overrun and taken over by this force. The next thing I recall is that I was underground, beneath the White House itself. What I found was breathtaking; there was an extensive tunnel system underneath the structure. (We have learned that these tunnels were used by the DS to move trafficked children and other satanic evils.) I saw a few Americans resisting but, ultimately, being overcome by multitudes of Russians. (representing like the Bolshevik revolution) The invading force used the weapons systems that were stored down there against the Americans and quickly overcame them. (The underground, liberal, communist left is now taking over America by using its own political weapons against it. One of the weapons the right used to partially turn the country right was a false flag attack [9/11]; now it appears from this and other revelations, like below, that the left will use this method to turn the government left. See The Eagle and the Serpents and Civil War Is Coming.) This whole scene reminded me of a colony of enemy ants invading another colony and overtaking it. After seeing all that I had seen, my heart sank. I said within myself, “The whole country must be under attack! America has fallen!“ (Could this be Babylon spiritually falling near the beginning of the tribulation?) (Yes) But then a word from the Lord was given to me: “The goal of this operation is to weaken the country first; then, once weakened, America will be susceptible to a wave of Muslim terrorist attacks that will come later“. (Speaking of Babylon physically falling in the years to follow.) Just as quick as before, I was ushered off into the heavens. As I looked down, I saw what seemed to be military installations. I saw missile silos somewhere in the country; then I found myself looking down at the Pentagon. I realized that everything I was looking at was still in the hands of the Americans. I had thought the whole country was taken over, but the military infrastructure was uncompromised. (This made me think, even more, that the White House invasion is spiritual.) (Yes, this is an ideological attack by the Reds, a symbol of communists but also one of sinners, as in Isa.1:18.) My body was quickly translated from the heavens to the Pentagon below. I found myself in the presence of a very high-ranking general. I quickly alerted him that there was a Russian siege on the White House: everything was lost, and it was a total takeover. I was taken aback by his response. Although he did confirm to me that he and the other generals were well aware of the invasion, they were confident that the invasion would be contained to only the White House. It seemed to me they had taken steps to ensure that the invasion would not spread, but I was not as confident as him. (I saw the Pentagon and missile silos, and they were not breached, and the general took confidence in that, but look at it like this, friends: The Pentagon represents the muscles of the nation, the arm of flesh. No matter how strong a man is, if he loses his head, then his muscles are good for nothing; they cannot save him.) (Although it is true the U.S. Military is still full of right-wing people and not nearly as leftist/communist as the government, this may also be speaking of something spiritual. The other militant group that, from within, invaded the White House stand opposed to the right-wing militants who now have no access to the White House but falsely think they can still keep the country from being completely ideologically taken over.) If the communist-Russian invasion in the White House was not altogether physical, rather spiritual, then those without spiritual eyes cannot see the truth, or they underestimate the growing danger, due to their blindness. (Pro.22:3) A prudent man seeth the evil, and hideth himself; But the simple pass on, and suffer for it. It could be that the invading Russians represent communist ideology. The generals may realize that the White House has become socialist, but they remain confident that the military might of the nation will be able to detour any takeover. I was in deep thought about the dream for hours after I had it, and then I asked the Lord what it meant. But all I was getting was the word “infiltration“. This word came to me many times over the course of the day. This is the excerpt from a JFK speech about the NWO, which he warned was a growing threat 60 years ago:   For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence -- on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.   (Before the physical invasion comes the spiritual one will come, according to Revelation 18. Before the physical fall of any nation comes the spiritual fall.) An angel to Dumitru Duduman said, “The Russian spies have discovered where the most powerful nuclear missiles are in America. It will start with the world calling for 'peace, peace'. Then there will be an internal revolution in America, started by the Communists. (The liberal one-worlders.) Some of the people will start fighting against the government. The government will be busy with internal problems. Then, from the oceans, Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Central America, Mexico, and two other countries (which I cannot remember) will attack! The Russians will bombard the nuclear missile silos in America. America will burn“. The Bears Attack Lisette Renaud - 08/16/2009 (David's notes in red) I dreamed I was outside by myself, resting somewhere in a park setting. (I can't say where I was exactly, but I was close enough to my house that I could run to it. I live in Alberta, Canada.) (Those who are resting in the safety of the Lord.) It was a beautiful, cool and fresh day, like a fall day, when I heard people screaming that bears were coming. Something terrible had just happened suddenly (another 9/11 from the left). (Bears could represent Russia as communism, socialism, or an attack on our freedoms as we know them. It could represent a greater economic collapse -- bear representing the bear market. It could also represent a sudden physical attack, like a nuclear bomb or something. Whatever it was, I sensed that it was something very big that had JUST HAPPENED and was affecting everyone.) (I believe the bear attacks represent all of the above calamities, another 9/11 coming upon the U.S. and Canada, because they are turning to the beast principality that ruled Russia/USSR under Communism, instead of God. Most Russians agree that this brought failure to their country's economy, totalitarianism, loss of freedom and many lives. This appears to be a confirmation of G. C.'s dream above.) People were panicking and were so afraid that they were running everywhere, not knowing where to turn. (The terrible calamities Jesus said would come are now here and will continue to increase. Those who called us crazy and said we were all a bunch of “conspiracy nuts and bible-thumping fanatics“ will be running like scared cats with no place of refuge, no hope. The world will be in shock at what is happening.) I did not run. I was confronted with a bear, but believed he could not hurt me because I was under God's protection. All the time he was in front of me, trying to attack me, I kept thanking God for His protection. (The true remnant of Christ will be at peace when this big calamity strikes, knowing that He has everything under control. The remnant will be resting in God, trusting Him, trusting in His Word. Those who are expecting the Man-child, who know they will be here for the tribulation period, yet protected under His wings, those who believe His Word and stand on His Word will be at peace, even though the world around them is turned upside down. They will not fear. They will experience Psalm 91.) When I took a good look at him, he looked like a big teddy bear. Then he finally left. (We have the authority of Christ. He has been preparing His remnant to be overcomers, to stand on His Word, and soon we will be put to the test.) Once he was gone, I ran home to check up on my husband. When I got into the house, I saw my husband sitting down on a chair, talking on the phone. His face was bleeding. He was covered in blood. He looked so distraught. (Concerned for their loved ones, the remnant will go to them and will see that because of these terrible calamities, many believers who had become cold toward God will now be calling on Him for help. The people we have been praying for (family, friends, neighbors) will finally get a sudden realization that they must get in touch with God quickly and get right with Him, if they want His protection.) Somehow, I knew he had not been attacked by a bear, but by thugs. (I realized that two things were going on: regular attacks by “thugs“ [People attacking our freedoms?] which seemed to have been going on for some time, by the comment that I heard later on in the dream, and now this new terrible thing that had just happened.) I then went downstairs, where some members of my husband's family were. I believe I saw his father, who had been deceased for some time. He was also covered in blood. Then I heard someone say, “How much more of this can we take?“ (Those who have some knowledge of God but do not have a relationship with Christ, those who are spiritually dead, will become discouraged, for there will be no hope, no escape, no refuge, only turmoil for them, unless they turn to God.) Then I woke up. Russians Behind Civil War in U.S.  Cheri Watson - 02/03/2008 (David's notes in red) I had a dream this morning at about 6:00 am. I saw the Statue of Liberty; one side of the statue was black and the other side was white. (In the dream, I said that the left side was black and the right side was white.) I knew what the Lord was showing me was division and the civil war coming to America. Anyway, in front of the Statue, there was a tank in the shadows with the cannon facing the Statue. I knew the tank in the shadows to be Russia running the show behind the scenes and provoking the Middle East to do its bidding. (Again this might be spiritual as the rest.) I also believe it has to do with the Christians -- so far as the coming revival and falling away. I also felt that all of these things would do MUCH destruction to our country and that Russia is waiting in the wings/shadows till it's time to make their move. I have no doubt the Russians are fueling fires even now. The Statue of Liberty represents America and its liberties. This division of black and white is somewhat racial, like in the Civil War. Also, it is that the left are the Communists and Democrats, and the right are Republicans and Christians. Cheri started thinking the Left were the guys in black (bad guys), but ended up seeing that the Right was also guilty. This is covertly started by the Bolshevik left in our country to weaken America, so they could militarily conquer her. Cultivating division in order to conquer is something both sides have been good at. I love it when The Lord does this... later in the morning, and every Sunday morning, several of us gather to listen to one of your teachings. This morning's teaching just happened to be Hidden Manna's - “U.S. Covenant, Civil War“!!! God is good! Anyway, David, I felt that this was confirmation for you for some reason and felt I was to share it with you today. Conspiracy Against Christianity  Brent Gearhart -10/23/2009 (David's notes in red) I dreamed on day four of a fast that I saw a man running naked with just a robe on barely covering him. (The false Christian leadership has not “put on the Lord Jesus“. They name “Christ“ as Savior, but they are not living in salvation. Their works do not cover them. They will be cast into great tribulation, as Jezebel --Revelation 2:20-23.) Then I saw a woman running behind him wearing a black, scanty outfit, as they were running to make an appointment somewhere. (The typical church pastor followed by the people. The woman is the harlot church in darkness, following its apostate leadership. Babylon's nakedness will be made known to all the world, as the Word says.) Then, I saw the same man and woman dressed up in formal attire, but now they wore disguises to appear older and distinguished. (Outwardly, they seem respectable in formal, black and white attire, but they profess the “light“ while walking in spiritual darkness. They are white-washed sepulchers full of dead men's bones.) They were trying to enter a formal party of some sort, but for some reason, the invitation they had was fake. (The formal “party“ is the Marriage Feast, where they have disguised themselves as “Christians“. Those who do not have the real wedding garment.) {Mat.22:8} Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.) When they approached the person who collected the invitations, the man started saying something to distract the ticket collector so they wouldn't pay attention to their fake invitation. It worked; they were granted admittance to the party. (Christian pretenders talk the talk so they can gain respect and acceptance. They have experienced only the fake calling, meaning invitation -- accept Jesus as your personal savior-type “invitations“, instead of the command to repent and believe. But this lukewarm Christianity is not dressing up for the seven-day Tribulation Wedding Feast. {Mat.22:11} But when the king came in to behold the guests, he saw there a man who had not on a wedding-garment: {12} and he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding-garment? And he was speechless. {13} Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.) (Note: It seems this is turning into the right-wing digging for dirt on the left-wing White House. This lukewarm spirit in Christianity above has bred many who seek change by political warfare instead of spiritual warfare.) When inside, I remember watching them split up right away, and it seemed like the man was looking for some information -- some files, perhaps, or some film from a camera. (They have no interest in the Feast but are conspiracy-chasers of the left-wing, like many apostates.) I remember seeing a little key like for a padlock or handcuffs. (Instead of seeking the key to freedom, they find only captivity.) I then saw them in the basement and I saw the man get caught and was about to be killed, perhaps by the owner of the house. (Possibly a plot that will bring this captivity is being hatched by the elites through the DS to bring disrepute to Christianity. Many spies have crept into the Trump administration and are being caught.) As they were down in the basement, the owner of the house took back what the first man had stolen and then planted a bomb in the utility room. (The Obama/Biden has lost much to the politically-minded, conservative Christians, but the blame put on them for the judgment of America will take back the ground lost. An apparent attack on the left-wing may actually be an attack on the right-wing.) Then he tried to blame it on the first man who got caught. (Called a “false flag“ operation. The owner sets off the thing and blames the Christians.) Right after the bomb went off, security came in. (Martial law) I saw my friend, Terry, from the UPC (he knows martial arts) and he was taking the man down who was being blamed for this false terrorist attack. (Possibly, Terry represents Christians under martial law, betraying other Christians, bringing great persecution to the church.) I remember seeing Terry take this man down with an armlock of some sort, actually; he had one arm spread out and he had the other arm locked in with his legs and it appeared the man who got caught looked like he was in a crucifixion position. (The apostates have always been used by Satan and the beast system to crucify true Christianity.) The man who got caught was looking at me to help him. I said, “Hey, I am staying out of it,“ and I remember picking up some of the pieces of the room that were torn apart. (The true Christians will have nothing to do with patriotic, political, militant Christianity, but will do what they can to repair the damage to the reputation of true Christianity. An attack will come and the blame will be put on “Christians“ who will be “crucified“ by the Law and false-professing Christians.) End of dream. Then a vision and prophecy began Then I lay back down, and I saw myself in a field, harvesting the crop. I felt impressed to go get my notebook and pen and write down what I saw or heard, as I am reaping the crop. I see a man come and talk me into stopping the harvesting and taking a break. I see myself taking a break and eating, drinking, and dancing with others. I then saw the laborers taken up by the Son of man as He came on the clouds for them. I saw the others get put into a winepress and squeezed. I heard, “This is the Day of the Lord, the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord“. (This is a day which is a year – Isa 34:8. This year comes after the 7 year tribulation of the saints to judge the wicked who persecuted and killed the saints. See Hidden Manna for the End Times. https://www.ubm1.org/?page=Hidden_Manna_for_the_End_Times-2 I was asked which group I wanted to be in, and I said, “The laborers“. He said, “Then you must die to self without complaining like you were today. There will be many days you will work more than 12 hours and have little time for your family. These days are coming soon“. Thus saith the Lord, You are being called into the harvest field. Your Nintendo Wii is not important; you must bear fruit 30-,60-,100-fold. No murmurers or complainers will make it through the wilderness. Stay out of those negative conversations; spirits are transferred there. Be wise, vigilant; the devil wants to sift you as he did Peter. (During this time, I heard the song, "How He Loves Us" by David Crowder, and then the song switched to "Lose This Life" by Tait.) You must lose your life to self, stick with the unleavened bread; don't let the devil separate you from them. Be patient and kind with your wife; she has gifts that the body will need and use. Be wise in all things. I love you. Try hard to join the marriage feast; join, Brent. Join". Then it ended. Vision to Evangelist A.A. Allen in the 1950s (See The Real Truth About Evangelist A.A. Allen below) As I stood atop the Empire State Building, I could see the Statue of Liberty, illuminating the gateway to the new world. Here, spread before me like an animated map, is an area 60 or 80 miles in diameter. I was amazed that the Spirit of the Lord should so move me, there atop the Empire State building. Why should I feel such a surge of His Spirit and power there? Suddenly I heard the voice of the Lord. It was as clear and as distinct as a voice could be. It seemed to come from the very midst of the giant telescope; but when I looked at the telescope, I knew it hadn't come from there, but directly from Heaven. The voice said, 2 CHRONICLES 16:9, "For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou has done foolishly; therefore, from henceforth thou shalt have wars". Immediately when I heard the voice of God, I knew this was a quotation of scripture, but never before had a thing come to me so forcibly by the power of the Spirit. The ticking of the telescope stopped. The man before me had used up his dime's worth. As he stepped away, I knew that I was next. As I stepped to the telescope and dropped in my dime, immediately the ticking started again. This ticking was an automatic clock which would allow me to use the telescope for a limited time only. As I swung the telescope to the north, suddenly the Spirit of God came upon me in a way that I had never thought of before. Seemingly, in the Spirit I was entirely caught away. I knew that the telescope itself had nothing to do with the distance which I was suddenly enabled to see, for I seemed to see things far beyond the range of the telescope, even on a bright, clear day. It was simply that God had chosen this time to reveal these things to me, for as I looked through the telescope, it was not Manhattan Island that I saw, but a far larger view. That morning, much of the view was impaired by fog; but suddenly as the Spirit of the Lord came upon me, the fog seemed to clear until it seemed that I could see for thousands of miles, but that which I was looking upon was not Manhattan Island. It was all of the North American continent spread out before me as a map is spread upon a table. It was not the East River and the Hudson River that I saw on either side, but the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans; and instead of the Statue of Liberty standing there in the bay on her small island, I saw her standing far out in the Gulf of Mexico. She was between me and the United States. I suddenly realized that the telescope had nothing to do with what I was seeing but that it was a vision coming directly from God; and to prove this to myself, I took my eyes away from the telescope so that I was no longer looking through the lens, but the same scene remained before me. There, clear and distinct, lay all the North American continent with all its great cities. To the north lay the Great Lakes. Far to the northeast was New York City. I could see Seattle and Portland far to the northwest. Down the west coast there were San Francisco and Los Angeles. Closer in the foreground lay New Orleans at the center of the Gulf Coast area. I could see the great towering ranges of the Rocky Mountains and trace with my eye the Continental Divide. All this and more I could see spread out before me as a great map upon a table. As I looked, suddenly from the sky I saw a giant hand reach down. That gigantic hand was reaching out toward the Statue of Liberty. In a moment her gleaming torch was torn from her hand, and in it instead was placed a cup; and I saw protruding from that great cup a giant sword, shining as if a great light had been turned upon its glistening edge. Never before had I seen such a sharp, glistening, dangerous sword. It seemed to threaten all the world. As the great cup was placed in the hand of the Statue of Liberty, I heard these words, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, drink ye and be drunken and spue and fall and rise no more because of the sword which I will send". As I heard these words, I recognized them as a quotation from Jeremiah 25:27. I was amazed to hear the Statue of Liberty speak out in reply, "I WILL NOT DRINK!" Then as the voice of the thunder, I heard again the voice of the Lord saying, "Ye shall certainly drink". (Jeremiah 25:28) Then suddenly the giant hand forced the cup to the lips of the Statue of Liberty, and she became powerless to defend herself. The mighty hand of God forced her to drink every drop from the cup. As she drank the bitter dregs, these were the words that I heard: "Should ye be utterly unpunished? Ye shall not be unpunished, for I will call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of the earth, saith the Lord of hosts". (Jeremiah 27:29) When the cup was withdrawn from the lips of the Statute of Liberty, I noticed the sword was missing from the cup, which could mean but one thing. THE CONTENTS OF THE CUP HAD BEEN COMPLETELY CONSUMED! I knew that the sword merely typified war, death, and destruction, which is no doubt on the way. Then as one drunken on too much wine, I saw the Statue of Liberty become unsteady on her feet and begin to stagger and to lose her balance. I saw her splashing in the gulf, trying to regain her balance. I saw her stagger again and again and fall to her knees. As I saw her desperate attempts to regain her balance and rise to her feet again, my heart was moved as never before with compassion for her struggles; but as she staggered there in the gulf, once again I heard these words: "Drink ye and be drunken and spue and fall and rise no more because of the sword which I will send among you". (Jeremiah 25:37) (The fall of Liberty) As I watched, I wondered if the Statue of Liberty would ever be able to regain her feet, if she would ever stand again; and as I watched, it seemed that with all her power she struggled to rise and finally staggered to her feet again and stood there swaying drunkenly. I felt sure that at any moment she would fall again, possibly never to rise. I seemed overwhelmed with a desire to reach out my hand to keep her head above water, for I knew that if she ever fell again, she would drown there in the gulf. "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night, nor for the arrow that flyeth by day, nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness, nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday". (Psalms 91:5-6) Then as I watched, another amazing thing was taking place. Far to the northwest, just out over Alaska, a huge, black cloud was arising. As it rose, it was as black as night. It seemed to be in the shape of a man's head. As it continued to arise, I observed two light spots in the black cloud. It rose further, and a gaping hole appeared. I could see that the black cloud was taking the shape of a skull, for now the huge, white, gaping mouth was plainly visible. Finally, the head was complete. Then the shoulders began to appear; and on either side, long, black arms. It seemed that what I saw was the entire North American continent, spread out like a map upon a table with this terrible skeleton-formed cloud arising from behind the table. It rose steadily until the form was visible down to the waist. At the waist the skeleton seemed to bend toward the United States, stretching forth a hand toward the east and one toward the west--one toward New York and one toward Seattle. As the awful form stretched forward, I could see that its entire attention seemed to be focused upon the United States, overlooking Canada at least for the time being. As I saw the horrible black cloud in the form of a skeleton bending toward America, bending from the waist over, reaching down toward Chicago and out toward both coasts, I knew its one interest was to destroy the multitudes. As I watched in horror, the great black cloud stopped just above the Great Lakes region and turned its face toward New York City. Then out of the horrible, great gaping mouth began to appear wisps of white vapor which looked like smoke, as a cigarette smoker would blow puffs of smoke from his mouth. These whitish vapors were being blown toward New York City. The smoke began to spread until it had covered all the eastern part of the United States. (Biological Chemtrails) Then the skeleton turned to the west and out of the horrible mouth and nostrils came another great puff of white smoke. This time it was blown in the direction of the West Coast. In a few moments' time the entire West Coast and Los Angeles area were covered with its vapors. Then toward the center came a third great puff. As I watched, St. Louis and Kansas City were enveloped in its white vapors. Then on they came toward New Orleans. Then on they swept until they reached the Statue of Liberty, where she stood staggering drunkenly in the blue waters of the gulf. As the white vapors began to spread around the head of the statue, she took in but one gasping breath and then began to cough as though to rid her lungs of the horrible vapors she had inhaled. One could readily discern by the coughing that those white vapors had seared her lungs. (Biological chemtrails to take our Liberty.) What were these white vapors? Could they signify bacteriological warfare or nerve gas that could destroy multitudes of people in a few moments' time? Then I heard the voice of God as He spoke again: "Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty and maketh it waste and turneth it upside-down and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof. And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him. The land shall be utterly emptied and utterly spoiled, for the LORD hath spoken this word. The earth mourneth and fadeth away. The world languisheth and fadeth away. The haughty people of the earth do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant; therefore, hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate; therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are burned and few men left". (Isaiah 24:1-6) As I watched, the coughing grew worse. It sounded like a person about to cough out his lungs. The Statue of Liberty was moaning and groaning. She was in mortal agony. The pain must have been terrific, as again and again she tried to clear her lungs of those horrible white vapors. I watched her there in the gulf as she staggered, clutching her lungs and her breast with her hands. Then she fell to her knees. In a moment, she gave one final cough, made a last desperate effort to rise from her knees, and then fell face forward into the waters of the gulf and lay still as death. Tears ran down my face as I realized that she was dead! Only the lapping of the waves, splashing over her body, which was partly under the water and partly out of the water, broke the stillness. (The death of our Liberty) "A fire devoureth before them, and behind them a flame burneth; the land is as the Garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness, yea, and nothing shall escape them". (Joel 2:3) Suddenly the silence was shattered by the screaming of sirens. The sirens seemed to scream, "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" Never before had I heard such shrill, screaming sirens. They seemed to be everywhere--to the north, the south, the east, and the west. There seemed to be multitudes of sirens, and as I looked, I saw people everywhere running, but it seemed none of them ran more than a few paces, and then they fell. And even as I had seen the Statue of Liberty struggling to regain her poise and balance and finally falling for the last time to die on her face, I now saw millions of people falling in the streets, on the sidewalks, struggling. I heard their screams for mercy and help. I heard their horrible coughing as though their lungs had been seared with fire. I heard the moanings and groanings of the doomed and the dying. As I watched, a few finally reached shelters, but only a few ever got to the shelters. Above the moaning and the groaning of the dying multitudes, I heard these words: "A noise shall come even to the ends of the earth, for the Lord hath a controversy with the nations. He will plead with all flesh; he will give them that are wicked to the sword, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Behold, evil shall go forth from nation to nation, and a great whirlwind shall be raised up from the coasts of the earth, and the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth. They shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground". (Jeremiah 25:31-33) Then suddenly I saw from the Atlantic and from the Pacific and out of the Gulf rocket-like objects that seemed to come up like fish leaping out of the water. High into the air they leaped, each headed in a different direction, but everyone toward the United States. On the ground, the sirens screamed louder, and up from the ground I saw similar rockets beginning to ascend. To me, these appeared to be interceptor rockets, although they arose from different points all over the United States; however, none of them seemed to be successful in intercepting the rockets that had risen from the ocean on every side. These rockets finally reached their maximum height, slowly turned over, and fell back toward the earth in defeat. Then suddenly the rockets which had leaped out of the oceans like fish all exploded at once. The explosion was ear-splitting. The next thing which I saw was a huge ball of fire. The only thing I have ever seen which resembled the thing I saw in my vision was the picture of the explosion of the H-bomb somewhere in the South Pacific. In my vision, it was so real that I seemed to feel a searing heat from it. As the vision spread before my eyes and I viewed the widespread desolation brought about by the terrific explosions, I could not help thinking, while the defenders of our nation have quibbled over what means of defense to use and neglected the only true means of defense--faith and dependence upon the true and living God--the thing which she greatly feared has come unto her! How true it has proven in Psalms 127:1: Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. Then as the noise of battle subsided, to my ears came this quotation: "Blow ye the trumpet in Zion and sound an alarm in my holy mountain; let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand. 2. A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains, a great people and a strong, there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations. 3. A fire devoureth before them, and behind them a flame burneth; the land is as the Garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness, yea, and nothing shall escape them. 4. The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run. 5. Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array. 6. Before their face the people shall be much pained; all faces shall gather blackness. 7. They shall run like mighty men; they shall climb the wall like men of war, and they shall march every one on his ways, and they shall not break their ranks. 8. Neither shall one thrust another; they shall walk every one in his path; and when they fall upon the sword, they shall not be wounded. 9. They shall run to and fro in the city; they shall run upon the wall; they shall climb up upon the houses; they shall enter in at the windows like a thief. 10. The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble; the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. (Joel 2:1-10) Then the voice was still. The earth, too was silent with the silence of death. Then to my ears came another sound--a sound of distant singing. It was the sweetest music I had ever heard. There was joyful shouting and sounds of happy laughter. Immediately I knew it was the rejoicing of the saints of God. I looked, and there, high in the heavens, above the smoke and poisonous gases, above the noise of the battle, I saw a huge mountain. It seemed to be of solid rock, and I knew at once that this was the Mountain of the Lord. The sounds of music and rejoicing were coming from a cleft high up in the side of the rock mountain. It was the saints of God who were doing the rejoicing. It was God's own people who were singing and dancing and shouting with joy, safe from all the harm which had come upon the earth, for they were hidden away in the cleft of the rock. There in the cleft they were shut in, protected by a great, giant hand which reached out of the heavens and which was none other than the hand of God, shutting them in until the storm be overpassed.     Printer-friendly version  

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

Christian Persecution Coming (1) (audio) David Eells, 5/10/26 (David's notes in red) Let me begin with some revelations we have on our site. We are closer now to all these words and warnings of persecution than we were then. This first one is from 2009, and it's an article from the American Holocaust and Coming New World Order blog. I remind you that the great revival begun by Jesus in the Man-child reformers is followed by a pendulum swing in Revelation 13, the forced mark of the beast to outlaw Christians who will be hated of all nations, as Jesus said. Also the right-wing roundup and prosecution and death sentences of leftist criminals at this time will be reciprocated. The pendulum swings back.    Coming Persecution and Christian Beheading   Prophesied MARTYRDOM is Coming to Christians USA Bible Prophecy and Coming Martyrdom of Christians to America By Pamela Schuffert - presenting investigative journalism with a Christian perspective - 02/20/2009 SO many Christians in America have become dangerously lukewarm and comfortable with where America is. Centuries of religious freedom and lack of persecution on a major scale have lulled many into a false state of “safety-comfort-denial” in this hour. In the minds of most Christians, in fact, no persecution could ever come to the Christians in America! And this is exactly what their flesh wants to hear and believe, for no one really ever wants suffering or persecution to invade their lives. However, my many years of performing investigative journalism nationwide and at times worldwide have uncovered something entirely different. Unfailing Bible prophecy also confirms what I am uncovering. Planned persecution is COMING to the Christians in North America. Here is what my research has uncovered. This persecution will be prolonged and intense. It will seek to seize churches and turn them over to the government for secular purposes, much as in communist Russia. It will seek to arrest and persecute both religious leaders and the rest of the Christians throughout this nation. It will seek to cause Christians to renounce their faith in Jesus Christ to join their New World Order agenda, or subsequently martyr them when they refuse to deny Jesus Christ. It will seek in fact to BEHEAD the Christians who remain faithful to Jesus Christ. (Muslims have been brought in by the Deep State to invade western Christianity, whose book tells them to behead unbelievers.) Or to transport Christians arrested via prisoner boxcars with shackles to awaiting FEMA/Homeland Security detention camps scattered nationwide and also in Alaska and Canada, where there, much as in Russia and Eastern Europe under communism, the Christians will be severely persecuted, including torture and interrogation, ridiculed and finally terminated when finished. And ALL quite “legally” under martial law and the Presidential Executive Orders and other legislation written to prepare the way for THE COMING AMERICAN HOLOCAUST of the innocents. For the serious student of END TIME BIBLE PROPHECY, none of this should come as a complete surprise. When Jesus said in Matthew 24, regarding what would be the sign of His coming and the end of this age, He warned His disciples that worldwide persecution against His disciples would come FIRST. He warned that His disciples would be HATED OF ALL NATIONS for His name's sake. ONLY under a ONE WORLD ANTICHRIST GOVERNMENT (NWO of Revelation 13) can all nations simultaneously HATE THE CHRISTIANS and deliver them up to tribulation and to be put to death. AMERICA must be included in this WORLDWIDE persecution of the disciples of Jesus Christ, if Jesus' words are to be taken literally. And that is precisely the dark intentions of the coming NEW WORLD ORDER to be imposed on America under MARTIAL LAW. Years of travel and interviews to uncover the plans of the NWO against the Christians in America have confirmed that the NWO planners for decades have been conspiring to bring persecution and death to the Christian opponents of the antichrist world globalist (communist) agenda for this nation. One of the most satanically controlled agencies in the world, the CIA, plays a major role in helping this NWO take over in America someday. My frequent interviews with former CIA officers, many of whom have now become Christians and feel compelled to admit the truth, have uncovered the fact that plans from within the CIA have been made for many years, both to persecute and ultimately terminate the Christians to pave the way for establishing their antichrist NWO agenda in America. (Father has not forsaken His children but He needs to be taken seriously and the history of the Gospels and acts will be repeated.) Much of the planning for Christians to be arrested under martial law and taken away to the camps for termination came out of the CIA (Operation paperclip imported the Nazi's and their demons into our government to repeat history here.), especially under the era of George Bush Sr. being head of the CIA, according to many former CIA employees working under him. But then, the Bush Illuminati satanic bloodline has always been active behind the scenes in working hard for the realization of a NEW WORLD ORDER. Even as Bible prophecy declares that this tyrannical world dictatorship of antichrist (Revelation 13) will receive its power directly from “THE DRAGON” or satan/Lucifer himself, the ILLUMINATI or satanists of this NWO agenda now openly admitted as much. One former CIA assassin under Bush Sr. admitted to me while being interviewed, “We satanists are the backbone, and Lucifer is the HEAD of the New World Order”... and as such, “...ALL the Christians have to go. We satanists realized that Christians would never accept our satanically based NEW WORLD ORDER. The very camps you are now investigating were designed to be used to terminate the Christians in America under martial law”... (Admission of Elaine, former satanist/assassin and NWO planner under Bush Sr. in CIA.) My investigative journalism has uncovered the reality of thousands of PRISONER BOXCARS WITH SHACKLES designed to transport unfortunates arrested under martial law by train transport to the many FEMA/HOMELAND SECURITY detention camps designed to deal with all future NWO resistance. This is identical to how the world's globalist communists dealt with Christian and political resistance to their agenda in Russia. They arrested and sent religious/political resisters to the many gulags scattered throughout Russia and the former Soviet Union, transported by train. Hitler also used trains to transport religious and political opponents to the camps under a Nazi dictatorship. Mass prisoner transportation by rail is cost-effective. These sturdy metal prisoner boxcars can be hosed out after each transport and used over and over again. They can last for decades. Prisoners can even be terminated (gassed, etc.) while still chained inside the boxcars. Tragically, history does repeat itself... IF the citizens of any nation will sit back passively and allow their leadership to make it happen again unchallenged. I have personally interviewed Christians who have experienced VISIONS FROM GOD of the coming AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. One woman attending a prophecy conference I spent time at, admitted when I told her about my investigating, “THIS explains the visions I have been having. I saw Christians arrested for their faith and placed onto BOXCARS and sent to concentration camps to be killed for their faith.”.... This woman I interviewed was from MONTANA. My years of research in MONTANA have uncovered the reality of many sightings of prisoner boxcars with shackles prepositioned throughout the state for the hour of arrest under martial law. Reliable eyewitnesses have reported seeing even MODERN GUILLOTINES bolted into each boxcar in one case, along with the shackles installed as well. My research has uncovered the presence of millions of modern guillotines in America (and I am convinced worldwide) to fulfill a future agenda tied in with the Jewish NOAHIDE LAWS legislation. They are also tied in with Bible prophecy regarding “...the souls BEHEADED for the witness of Jesus Christ and the Word of God” .... (Revelation 20:4) who essentially will not go along with the coming antichrist NWO agenda, who will not deny Jesus Christ, and are slain as a result by BEHEADING. “...AND HE SHALL SHOW YOU THINGS TO COME”. Holy Spirit VISIONS of PERSECUTION COME TO AMERICA- When I first began to receive information from quality sources regarding the presence of modern guillotines in America and lectured on them, I was amazed to hear people coming forward after the lectures to share their GUILLOTINE VISIONS. Christians from around the world that I encountered in Jerusalem while lecturing, lined up to tell me of their visions of being BEHEADED FOR THEIR FAITH. Brian with YWAM from the Bahamas...Christina Mitchell from New Zealand...and many more. All told me of poignant, detailed visions of the foreign troops involved and the modern guillotines and being beheaded for their faith. One pastor's wife in Long Island, NY, told me with tears of her vision of being beheaded for her faith, while in military surroundings. Another youth pastor, Pastor Richards in Bakersfield, CA, told me of his graphic vision of martial law being declared in California, and the guillotines being brought out, and himself being dragged to one of them, and was told, “Well, Pastor, what shall it be? Will you DENY JESUS and join our NEW WORLD ORDER agenda, or will you DIE?” In his vision, he remained faithful to Jesus and was beheaded. Becky, a powerful Christian witness in the Washington DC area working at the Department of Agriculture, told me of her many graphic GUILLOTINE VISIONS she is convinced God also gave her: “I saw how the NWO was going to use these guillotines to tempt the Christians to deny their faith. I watched as children were snatched away from their parents and taken to the guillotines. The parents were then tempted to deny Jesus, or the children would be beheaded. And the parents were taken away from the children, and the children were tempted to deny Jesus, or their parents would be beheaded. In my visions, I even SAW THE GUILLOTINES SET UP ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN!” In fact, the first time I ever became aware of these guillotines was when I was involved in Christian outreach in Tulsa, OK, in 1976. It was an evident time of revival, and the power of God was moving in many ways. I was participating in street outreach to youth then. While praying with another Christian, God's Holy Spirit interrupted. He spoke prophetically and said, “I am pouring out MY SPIRIT upon my Church in America today, because without His power, you will not make it with what is coming to your nation” ... Stunned, I prayed, “Oh, God, WHAT IS COMING to our nation?” The reply: “My child, if I were to SHOW you what is coming to YOUR nation, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BEAR what I would show you!” I was only a young Christian at that time. Still, we prayed that night for God to show us what was coming. And that very night, the person I prayed with had a graphic vision of Christians lined up in front of modern guillotines to be beheaded for their faith. In fact, many Christians were receiving disturbing dreams and visions of things to come at that time period. I recall attending one prayer meeting, in which one Christian stood up to recount how God had shown her Christians being held in concentration camp-type surroundings, filthy and unkempt, their Bibles having been taken away. She stated how God had shown her that many Christians faced persecution in the future, and therefore, to memorize their Bible passages since evidently their Bibles would also be taken away under this future persecution. Yet another stood up to recount how God showed him that famine was coming to this nation on a major scale, and yet how, when Christians stood around a table to pray, miraculously their table was filled with food in response during this coming time of famine. In this vision, the person was shown that there was no food in the home, no heat or electricity, and a bleak time of depression in America. My years of investigative journalism have uncovered that all of the above are coming BY DELIBERATE PLAN to this nation someday. Revelation 13 makes it clear that these forces of antichrist world globalism will have the power to put the Christians and all other resisters to death under their regime. And my many years of research have confirmed that this is their intent exactly. My question, therefore, to the Christians of America today is, “WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?” WILL YOU take the time to fast and pray and to allow GOD TO PREPARE YOUR HEART to stand fast in your faith when this all comes down? WILL YOU purpose to GROW IN TRUE DISCIPLESHIP/CROSS-EMBRACING FAITH, so that when the coming winds of adversity blow against the Church in America, you will not be swept away in its dark wake? “Faith WITHOUT WORKS is dead,” declares God's word. “But be ye DOERS OF THE WORD, and not HEARERS ONLY, deceiving yourself”. The Holy Spirit is truly showing His people THINGS TO COME. He is giving us a sneak preview with a purpose. IT IS NOT GOD'S WILL THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH, (none of God's elect will perish), and that includes perishing by FALLING AWAY and denying our faith as well. We as Christians are called to be FAITHFUL UNTO DEATH. True discipleship understands that we may be called upon to SUFFER for our faith, to lose everything for our faith, and ultimately to DIE for our faith and confession of Jesus Christ as well. And we are NEVER permitted to DENY JESUS BEFORE MEN. Not even to save our lives or the lives of those we love. Jesus declared that whoever would deny Him before men, the same will be denied before the Father in Heaven. “IF ANY MAN WOULD COME AFTER ME, let him DENY himself, take up his cross and follow ME”, said Jesus. “Whoever seeks to SAVE his life, the same shall lose it, and whosoever shall seek to LOSE HIS LIFE for MY SAKE and the sake of the Gospel, the SAME SHALL FIND IT. For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and LOSE HIS SOUL?” Tragically, few pastors are truly preaching a CROSS EMBRACING DISCIPLESHIP Christianity in America today. It is not popular to human flesh! Carnal Christianity is preaching a false prosperity message, equating the faith with money and material possessions, and “easy street Christianity” of the flesh. And few pastors in America are preparing God's people to realistically face the COMING PERSECUTION. I personally believe that the wrath of God is upon those pastors who KNOW all that I have warned about, and yet refuse for carnal reasons to WARN GOD'S PEOPLE. And I am convinced that the end result of this shall be that MANY SHALL FALL AWAY AND DENY HIM, even as Jesus warned His disciples in Matthew 24. If God's people are not being prepared and built up in their faith and Biblical discipleship principles to withstand the coming times of testing, how then shall they be prepared? How then shall they stand? If much of what they are hearing are false prophesies uttered by false shepherds of “good things to come”, as is the case in many churches, will they not be devastated when reality hits them unexpectedly someday? The obvious answer is YES. And such Christians, unprepared also, have the potential to FALL AWAY out of fear and threat of persecution. THEY WERE NOT PREPARED! THIS IS WHY I HAVE LABORED FOR YEARS NOW to forewarn my endangered fellow Christians and Americans. The greatest tragedy is for A SOUL TO BE LOST. Christians who lose faith under persecution and are moved to DENY JESUS CHRIST will, in fact, lose their salvation, and the Bible makes this very clear. Both the clear words of Jesus Christ and those of His Apostles confirm the fact that we are required to remain FAITHFUL UNTO DEATH. We cannot deny Him for ANY reason! (This will cleanse Christianity of the lukewarm hidden tares and their subtle leaven.) I am therefore determined that NO MAN'S BLOOD will be on my hands. I am TELLING AMERICA THE TRUTH. I will do everything I can to forewarn God's people in this nation of what is to come against Christians in this final hour of America's destiny. I will do the job that many pastors refuse to do from their pulpits, and that is to forewarn and prepare God's people for the Biblically prophesied COMING PERSECUTION. This is, in fact, what a faithful “watchman on the wall” is required by God to do. And I have done this now faithfully for 13 years. Please, won't you receive a word of warning from the Word of God and His Holy Spirit? Will you not take the time to prepare your heart from God's word, prayer, and fasting, so that having done ALL, you may then stand triumphantly in Jesus Christ to face the coming times in VICTORY? “And THIS is the VICTORY that overcomes the world, EVEN OUR FAITH!” “And they overcame him [satan] by the BLOOD OF THE LAMB, and by the WORD OF THEIR TESTIMONY, and because they LOVED NOT THEIR LIVES UNTO THE DEATH”. (Revelation 12:11) The call to FAITHFULNESS UNTO DEATH is clear. I therefore testify that your eternal soul and eternal destiny are at stake. Where shall YOU spend eternity someday? (The fear is what hurts. The beheading is painless -- a gift to those who serve the Lord of rest from tribulation and to enter into His presence. 1Co.15:55 O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law: Rev. 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints, they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. 13 And I heard the voice from heaven saying, Write, Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; for their works follow with them.   Fearful of Beheading?  Deborah Horton - 10/25/2010 For those who are fearful of being beheaded, I'd like to share this testimony. When I was a child, I was hit by a fire engine and killed. My first thought was, “Why do they say it's dark? It's not dark”. I was in a soft, white light. My next thought was, “Why do they say it hurts? It doesn't hurt”. And, praise the Lord, it truly doesn't hurt. When the fire engine hit me, I was “thrown” out of my body so quickly that the nerve impulses of pain, which started across the synapses toward the next nerve, didn't complete the jump before I was gone. I felt myself rising up and toward my right. I was moving more and more quickly through what felt like onion layer after onion layer of tissue, with the light becoming progressively brighter, and I knew that I was going home. Then, suddenly, I was a fish caught on a line, being pulled back into my body as the medics worked to revive me, but I didn't want to come back. However, as you can see from this testimony, I did come back because the Lord had other plans. :)   Judases Persecute the Innocent  Brent Gearhart - 10/25/2009 (R.M. & David notes in red) Note: This is not a revelation that reflects badly on Brent. He is merely being used to act out the work of Judas, persecuting the true brethren in the coming tribulation. When I went to bed, I heard people in visions or dreams cursing and swearing. (The time when Peter cursed and betrayed Jesus came to mind.) Women were trying to greet me, but I would greet them in the name of Jesus. (The women represent false sects of Christianity. Greeting them in Jesus' name means representing Him to them.) I remember falling asleep during all of this. I saw a man arrested for nothing, really and he was beaten really badly. (Persecution of the innocent.) A voice said, “Take that stick and hit him with it”. So I took something and hit him in the face and eye with it. Then I started running away from this place. (Don't be tempted to take part in this.) Then I was in a place in a forest where I was hiding. I met a woman who was acting like a friend to the people in the woods (the persecuted) and trying to get me to go submit myself to the cities. (Meaning, submit to the “cities” of churches in Babylon: The sects, denominations, ministries, and organizations of the harlot.) She said that no soul can live after the 14th of the month. (Here are some major clues: (Exo.12:5) Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: (6) And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. ... (12:18) In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. ... (Lev.23:5) In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover. There was also a Passover in the Book of Esther. Notice that the woman, or false sects of Christianity, threaten death to the remnant of spiritual Israel on the 13th. After the 14th the harlot was to have killed the remnant in a repeat of history in the Book of Esther, chapter 9. Instead, they were spared as in a spiritual Passover because of the Lamb of God.) If you were caught in the woods, you would automatically be put to death and your soul wouldn't be able to live. I saw myself in the shadows of the woods, trying to follow the cars. This particular car was a mustang, which I was trying to stay hidden from in a ditch and trying to stay out of its sight. (Many will dwell in the shadow of those who are “trees” and pillars in God's temple. They will listen to the truth, but when persecution comes, they will flee. The “mustang” has an untamed, unsubmitted nature that is not saddled and is wild. (Mat.13:21) Yet hath he not root in himself, but endureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.) I saw a man running into the woods. I think he was white. He appeared naked and hiding. (The righteous running from persecution but needing to be dressed up with Christ. (Mar.14:51) And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: 52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked...meaning, refusing his cross.) Then I saw myself with this naked woman. We were up on a perch, and she said she wanted her naked body to be pleasing to me. (The Revelation 18 / Proverbs 7 harlot that offers deceptive seduction through church membership. She wants the righteous to be satisfied and lured by the sinful life. (Mat.7:17) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.) She said to go take her rocker, which was a Moped scooter, and submit to the city. (Take her weak and slow ways and obey the city of Babylon, the government and Babylonish apostate religion. The churches of Babylon that will ride the beast and refuse their cross.) I remember doing it, I think! Right after, I remember seeing the woods being chopped down in large sections, revealing multiple people in the woods. She said, “Farmers' markets are cheap”. (God's people betrayed for reward. The “husbandmen” that sell God's people for their own gain and will betray them to the beast, as Judas did to the body of Christ.) Brent's notes: This was truly the false church or religion talking to me, enticing me to turn in my fellow brethren. (Mat.10:21) And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death) As I submitted to the cities, the others in the wilderness got caught. After much thought on this, I concluded I was fearful of being captured as a Christian when the voice told me to take up the stick and hit the person who was a Christian. Once I did that, because of my fear of my own cross, and I then became a member of the beast kingdom, or false religion. (Luk.12:45) But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens...) After thinking on these thoughts, I asked God to give me a random scripture on what to think about this first dream. Twice, I came to the exact same scripture. I repeat twice I got: (1Jn.3:11-12) For this is the message which ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another: not as Cain was of the evil one, and slew his brother. I was lying there trying to sleep, but actually just having my eyes closed... I saw my ex-wife, who is pregnant and almost due, being chased by a tall, skinny black man. (Her pastor, who walks in darkness and is spiritually underfed, but is over them: clergy over laity, a Nicolaitan.) He wanted to hurt her baby. (The dragon of Revelation 12 is ready to devour the man-child Jesus, Who is about to come forth from His people.) We seemed to be in a shopping center but there were no store officials. (In the Nicolaitan church world, where the gospel is bought and sold, there is no true ministry of overseers.) After I saw this, I heard a very audible voice say, “Where are the store officials or security?” There were none. (No elders or true ministry abiding in the Word.) Someone offered to sell me something for just $10.99, but I said, “No thanks”. (A temptation right before 2011, a sign of a falling away of the factious Judas', as a short-term offer from those who buy and sell in the church marketplace.) I felt something pulling me from behind (religious past) and felt the Spirit of God in the front. I kept pressing forward toward God. (Pressing toward the mark of the high calling of God in Christ, as you overcome the lure of the Nicolaitan church.) I remember seeing my boss, Bobby, at work, and seeing a woman who was part animal. (A leader of false faith leading an apostate Church that manifests the beast nature.) She wanted me to come to her but I didn't want to go. (The temptation from the harlot seducing God's people with false peace and safety.) I knew that was a demon. I heard my boss, Bobby, say, “I submit to her”. (Bobby is a double-minded person who represents indecision regarding the world, fellowship, and money.) I said I would pray to have his eyes opened. (Bobby is spiritually blind and does not listen to the prophetic scriptures.) A man holding a child came up to me and asked me to pray for his child. I briefly did. (Pray for the growth and preservation of the Man-child among us.) Then a little girl came up to me, crying with a note. (The little girl represents the young woman-bride espoused to Christ, in persecution.) It read something like this: “Please pray for us in Oklahoma. We are having bad storms there”. (Persecutions and troubles for the remnant in the U.S. in Oklahoma. According to statesymbolsusa.org, “Oklahoma” means “people-red”. Another site renders it, “red-person”. Thus, we have storms of trouble for the remnant in the midst of the U.S. by the red-people. The red person represents those who walk as Esau, who was red and sold his birthright and persecuted his brother Israel as a type of the Church.) I had a lot of activity last night in my spirit. I think I was led astray in the first dream. This is a picture of a temptation to join back up with the apostate Judas' that many will be offered in exchange for false safety. Jesus said in Matthew 24:10: And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. “Many” means the majority. It is amazing to think the majority of Christianity will turn against other Christians because they are following in the steps of scripture as they “come out from among them”. When Jesus said, “brother shall betray brother”, it referred to the brotherly persecution of professed Christendom. The Lord was showing Brent an image of temptation for those who “go underground” as the Christians flee to escape the beast/martial law and persecution. Historically, the mountains and forests were places of refuge in troubled times. But as Judas led the persecutors and the government law enforcement agents to find Jesus in His day of trial, so will the Judas' in our day do likewise. Brent: Afterward, the Lord gave me this utterance: “Be available for work. The man-child is coming. I want you to write this down. I need teachers, I need visionaries, I need more Daniels, I need more Jobs. Are you able? Are you willing? Do you want to sacrifice your life for the sake of the body? Are you willing to die daily for me? Do you love me? Do you keep my commandments? I love you, Brent. I love your wife, Jessica. I love your son, Joshua, and I am going to help them. I need people to suffer for the kingdom. Remember the sermon Jeff Timmerman preached?” (Jeff Timmerman is a UPC preacher. This message God is speaking about was a very good message, as he spoke of God calling some to suffer for the sake of the kingdom.) “It is true some have been called to suffer, some to shame, some to reproach. I want you to know I will always be there with you. I suffered shame, I suffered beatings, I died on a cross for you and others. I love you. I will always love you. Are you able? Will you pay the price? I will always be with you. In times of suffering and reproach, be not afraid. I will deliver thee out of their hands; I will bring you to a place of refuge. Do not deny your cross. Walk in it daily.” After receiving this prophecy, I read in my Zondervan Bible Dictionary about crucifixion, and the following is a short quote from that. “Nero crucified many Christians, blaming them for the burning of the imperial city”. Then Ecclesiastes 1:9 popped into my head: That which hath been is that which shall be; and that which hath been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.   Persecution from Brethren Sean Lynch - 12/19/2009 (David's notes in red) I had a dream that my fraternity brothers were persecuting me. (A fraternity is a Babylonish organization. When I was in college, I was in a fraternity that was founded upon Christian principles, but, as with the church that has fallen away to Babylon's lusts, so has this fraternity. These represent apostate Christians who persecute their brothers and sisters during the tribulation.) (They will be taken down in the great and terrible day of the Lord.) Mat.24:10 And then many shall stumble and shall deliver up one another and shall hate one another. Luk.21:16 But ye shall be delivered up even by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends, and some of you shall they shall cause to be put to death. And you shall be hated of all men for my names sake. During this trial, I saw many on each side of me who were persecuting me. Act.4:25-28 Who by the Holy Spirit by the mouth of our father David thy servant didst say: why do the gentiles rage and peoples imagine vain things? The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his anointed: for of a truth in this city against thy holy servant Jesus whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and peoples of Israel were gathered together to do whatsoever thy hand and counsel foreordained to come to pass. I knew in the spirit that this was a crucifixion that I had to endure. (As Jesus knew in the spirit that His hour had come, so will the people of God know when their cross is upon them.) I felt an overwhelming grace rise up within me to resist the temptations to come down from off the cross. (The anointing of the latter rain will empower us to endure our trials.) I then heard a brother from the fraternity tell me he felt sorry for me and then I felt him embrace me, and I him. (As it was in the days of Jesus when our Lord was dying on the cross, there will be brothers who will see Jesus in us by our sacrifice and will embrace their own cross to the death.) (Note from Rex: As I read this, I felt in my spirit that this is just as Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss, which was a “brotherly” greeting, even admonished by Paul to greet the brethren with a holy kiss. Remember it was “for the “JOY” set before Him, He endured the cross. May this further add to your understanding.) 1Jn.3:16 Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us: And we ought to lay our life down for the brethren. Luk.23:42,43 And he said Jesus remember me when thou comest in the kingdom, and he said unto him verily I say unto thee, today thou shall be with me in paradise. Jon.15:13 Greater love has no man that this that a man lay his life down for his friends.   Exhortations from the Father Glenn Jackson - 05/14/2006 Prophecy: “This is the aforementioned time of “a series of final judgments”! A series of final judgments that will expose the “true” condition of one's heart, as I send My “vessels” of My consuming fire throughout the congregations of My people. Up until now, the vast majority of My children have come to “accept” a “mediocre Christian life”. At a time when the deepest desire of My heart is to reveal Myself in My “absoluteness” - in every aspect of My children's lives - many are “content” with a continued mixture of My Word and the “world”. But truly I say to you, this shall end “abruptly”! And all those who continue to “dishonor” My Word shall be “cut off”, and they shall move further and further out into darkness. They pridefully proclaim that they are still in the “Way”, but truly I say to you, “their Way” is not of Me! And thus they shall “allow” themselves to be used as vessels of persecution against their very own brothers and sisters, who are walking in the faith and obedience that pleases Me so. And though they are “family,” there shall result a “clear separation” between those of My children who love (obey) Me and those who do not, and it is certain that “all” those who seek Me shall know which group of My children is truly of Me and which group is not. And so shall each man be presented with a clear option. On the one hand, My spotless and unblemished Church - an ever-expanding “vessel” of My Glory and Light and Truth - and on the other hand, the dead and lifeless form of “religion” that acknowledges Me with their lips, but whose hearts are far from the place that they should be, considering their “relationship” with Me. But even in their folly I shall not forget them, and I shall send forth My holy apostles and prophets and they shall “devastate” the “strongholds” of the doctrines and traditions which have been a product of the “mental ascension” of those ones who have not drawn near to Me - a mental ascent made continually stronger by their “fellowship” with the world and its ways - a fellowship which gives Satan a continual “inroad” into their lives. Fear not! All those of you who are concerned for those “caught” in this position, for truly I say to you, whatever happens in the midst of My people from here on shall be for the “greatest eternal benefit” of “all” - both individually and corporately!” WARNING!!! Here Is What I Heard About Making America Great Again! Elizabeth Marie 7/24/24 On 7/20/24, I heard the LORD speak to me just before going to bed. I heard: “CAN AMERICA BE MADE GREAT AGAIN??” The answer is that NOT one person, nor any political solution, or policies will ever bring America back from the PRECIPICE that she is now on. There is now, and always has been, ONLY ONE solution…… 2 Chronicles 7:13-15: “When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. Now My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to prayer made in this place.” This solution of REPENTANCE is the ONE THING that will turn a country around. However, even the Church, in this late hour, is looking for a ‘physical solution for a spiritual problem.' Not only will this not work, but this will compound the ‘already grave' problem that is upon the land. The majority of the church has gone ‘down to Egypt' (representing, the world), for their help, instead of heeding the call from the LORD to HUMBLE THEMSELVES, PRAY, REPENT, and SEEK HIS FACE. Again, this, ALONE, is the only solution! “People will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the LORD, the God of their ancestors, who brought them out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why he brought all this disaster on them.' 2 Chronicles 7:22 A SIGN: On 7/21/24, a couple of us were seeking the LORD, on behalf of the Church…. sensing, once again, a GREAT DECEPTION that is lurking. It grieved us, as we don't want to see our brothers and sisters being misled down a dangerous path. We saw a TRAP that was being set…. both physically, and in the spirit realm as well. We saw a spirit of Babylon that had come upon the church to blind, misguide, and deceive many. It is a spirit that has infested many, many churches, as the leaders lead their flock into the clutches of the enemy. While we were crying out to GOD, the LORD sent out A SIGN! From a peaceful night sky, there came 3 LOUD THUNDERBOLTS that shook my house… one at a time! It shook us to the core, and we knew that the LORD had heard our cries and had responded! It was a very CLEAR SIGN that HE is DISPLEASED with HIS church at this hour, as HE sees the WEB OF DECEPTION that is now surrounding her! I believe that the message is CLEAR: The CHURCH is in ERROR, and needs to REPENT! Instead of FIXING AMERICA, it is time to FIX THE CHURCH FIRST!!! For America cannot be FIXED, without the Blessings of GOD to come upon it. The blessings of God cannot come without true REPENTANCE, and that comes only through a humble and a contrite heart. All other remedies will and are failing! The Church has forgotten that the TRUE WAR is in the spiritual realm, not in this physical kingdom called America! The BATTLE is in the SPIRIT! Oh, how the Christian leaders and shepherds have missed the mark! As Secular America chooses to worship at the feet of Baal, and the Christians choose to seek solutions from others, instead of at the feet of the ALMIGHTY GOD. History is now repeating itself… however, the consequences will be FAR WORSE! This is why I am in despair, and anguishing for my deceived brothers and sisters, for the IMPACT that is coming will be deadly, and many will lose their faith in the LORD…. for, make no mistake about it, PERSECUTION IS COMING…. and many will fall away! It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of an angry GOD! America has not learned her lesson; therefore, the judgments will fall now and even greater! MESSAGE the day after the THUNDERBOLTS: (7/22/24) ‘Have you forgotten from where you were hewn? Have you strayed so far from ME that I am no longer the answer?? DO you trust in man so much?? Have I not said to trust in NO MAN, but to trust in ME? Once again, MY people have fallen into the snare, and the trap that has been set by My adversary. They have looked for a political solution to solve a spiritual problem! And, once again, their endeavors and desires will be dashed upon the ROCK, and broken up into many pieces. The damage that was once done will now become even greater… all because there was no CRY among my people for REPENTANCE, and a humbling of themselves before ME! In your pride and arrogance, I will shower MY discipline upon you. For MY people are a STIFF-NECKED, STUBBORN, and commit adultery in the SPIRIT. Many are now joining forces with the CHURCH OF BABYLON, which aligns them with the universal religion that states that all paths lead to GOD. For MY people, this is prostituting, as there is only ONE WAY to GOD, through MY sacrifice on the cross. Mystery Babylon once held a golden cup in her hand of blessings, but now, they share that once full cup with those who do not believe in MY NAME alone. Babylon, oh Babylon, you will fall, and many in MY church will fall with you. You have deceived the masses, and I see all your ways! I see your TENTACLE ARMS reaching deep inside MY CHURCH, pulling out those who are weak in faith, and spiritually blinded. However, I will raise up many that will come out of BABYLON, and they will proclaim MY truth, and give clarity to MY true ways. Soon there will be voices rising up, that are even greater than Babylon…. these will be MY WATCHMEN, MY PROPHETS, and MY SERVANTS, who will drown out all the voices of Mystery Babylon. WOE TO ALL THE FALSE PROPHETS…. WOE TO THE FALSE TEACHERS…. that proclaim a thing that is not from ME: Repent…. or you will be stripped of your mantle! The MANIFESTING of the SONS of GOD will commence, as I put MY true anointing and mantle upon them to preach for such a time as this! In MY church, all that is not for ME will now burn with double fire! The impurities will be removed, and MY CHOSEN ones will then SHINE like the noonday sun!” I waited, then heard this: “DO NOT FOLLOW MAN! REPENT FOR NOT MAKING ME YOUR SUFFICIENCY HUMBLE YOURSELF!  PRAY!”   A Stronger America  Glynda Lomax 9/27/25 Oh My children, enjoy the peace around you, for soon it leaves. Persecution shall arise to a mighty pitch in this time. As leaders are removed and replaced with the enemy's people, persecution will be encouraged, and the goal will be to remove all of you for “A Stronger America.” In this time, martyrdom will become a common thing, and you must prepare your hearts for this [do this now]. Know that I am with you every step of the way. Know that I will strengthen you for the task at hand. Simply continue to walk as you are, staying close to Me and leaning heavily into My Word. Follow in My ways, and all will be well. Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.  Acts 22:20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. Revelation 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast [some] of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. Revelation 6:9-11 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.  Matthew 24:9-14 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.    Prepare For Persecution! Elizabeth, 4/1/2023 On 3/30/23, a heavy blanket of sorrow came over me... and I knew that it was the LORD wanting me to seek HIM about why. I then received one of the most sobering messages I have ever received.... so much so, that I will only share portions of it, for now.  After receiving it, I asked the LORD why I was so sorrowful; it felt like someone had died! Immediately, I heard, in my spirit, that I was feeling the Sorrow of the Father, who was grieving for the loss of so many of HIS children to the enemy.  Whoa! I was overwhelmed when I heard this! That really hit home for me as a parent! The grief and sorrow that a parent must feel when they have either lost a child to death, or through rejection or abandonment, is overwhelming!  I then received the message below, which is about the persecutions that are coming to those who walk in truth and righteousness. (Remember this condition as we go on.) It is coming fast and swiftly. As Christians, we are called to suffer, as Jesus suffered; however, in the Western world, we have seen very little of this.  As things change, and captivity comes to America for many, we must always remember that Jesus comes to SET US FREE (Gal.5.1)! This is not only a physical freedom that comes, but a freedom of our souls from the clutches of satan and sin.  Let us also always remember that there is NO ONE or THING that can come between us and the LORD JESUS! Though the enemy might try to get us to turn away.... we will never give in or give up following our LORD!! JESUS IS IN OUR HEARTS BOTH NOW AND FOREVER!! “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered. No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.”  Romans 8:35-37 1ST MESSAGE: Here are a few excerpts from the message I received: “The FLOODGATE has been opened for persecution. The shepherds have gone astray. They have led the people astray. No one will stand up for righteousness, therefore judgment comes. This is the ‘final rodeo.' The final ‘match.' The final 'kahuna.' (final 'thing')  No more chances to get it right... the world has used up all its chances.... none are left! JUDGMENT....PERSECUTION, then FINAL REDEMPTION OR DAMNATION COMES! Very souls hang in the balance! With little time left, pray for these souls, for there will still be a few that return to ME. There is only one HOPE left in the world, and that is MY SALVATION. Grab a hold of it, and do not let it go! There is a light shining in the darkness.... a light set upon a hill that no one can extinguish. (In the spirit, I saw a huge mountain, which I had a knowing that it was the MOUNTAIN OF GOD). It is the eternal light of GOD. Though many are now attempting to extinguish the LIGHT, they cannot, for it is beyond their reach, and beyond their control. When this LIGHT shines (upon the wicked and unsaved), they will SHRIEK in PAIN, because their deeds of evil will have been exposed.” “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” John 3:19-21  2ND MESSAGE: On March 22, 2023, I received this message while praying. Before I heard the message, I saw, in the spirit, something horrifying:  First, I saw someone hanging on a rope from a tree. Then, the scene changed, and I saw a street that was lined with people hanging from ropes on both sides of the road.  I was then reminded of a dream I had received, years ago, about driving on a road and going under an overpass. Hanging from the overpass were a few people who had just been hanged. There was a girl in the backseat of our car (who was supposed to be my daughter), who jumped out of the car.... and with SUPERNATURAL strength, climbed up the overpass, cut the rope around each person's neck, and helped them escape! I believe this dream prophetically refers to the supernatural acts that we will be seeing during the time of persecutions that is coming on the Christians.  This also goes along with a word that I received in 2018 called:    “Persecution Brings The Latter Rain“ MESSAGE: “The persecutions are coming....and, for many, they are already here!  From the 4 corners of the earth rises up the Beast who rages against MY own! There will be nowhere to hide, except under the shadow of MY WINGS. For many, they will rise up like eagles.... on eagles' wings they shall find a place of safety, where the serpent will not be able to go. (Revelation 12:14) This is coming, and it is coming quickly! Get yourself in position with ME, so you can hear MY instructions! Listen for MY voice, it is the still, small voice (1 Kings 19:11-12) that comes. Train yourself to hear it! Seek it, for it will help and guide you! It is the voice of the HOLY SPIRIT, which I give to MY people.... to those who have been BORN AGAIN into MY KINGDOM through faith. (John 3) These persecutions are a testing for MY church. They are the fire that removes the dross. Many will succumb because they love their lives more than ME. They will surrender to the Beast and will receive his mark. Many already have.  These persecutions will be like nothing that has been before, but, for MY elect's sake, I will cut the days short. (Matthew 24:21-22)  Don't underestimate the power of the BEAST, for he comes with BRUTE FORCE against many. It will be like no other time in history, as he is unleashed for a time.  He is the ancient serpent of the garden that deceives unto death. He will swallow up as many as he can, for his appetite has no limits. HIS greatest foes are those who are MINE... those who confess ME as LORD of LORDS! He has infiltrated the churches from the inside out and now, through deception, leads many astray. There is no more time for playing around, but instead to see how GRAVE the times are! No longer keep your head in the sand, and do not deal with the reality that you are now in. Instead, take the time to prepare with provisions. Spend more time listening to MY voice and hearing MY guidance. Hide the WORD in your heart every day through reading and memorizing.... for this will be your strength! The days are only going to get darker, but MY light will shine forth. Stay in that light.... for it is the path that leads to MY KINGDOM.  Dwell on whatever is good, true, lovely, and pure.... NOT on the darkness that surrounds you. CHOOSE ME CHOOSE life CHOOSE righteousness CHOOSE justice Be ready for what is coming.... be prepared physically, spiritually, and mentally, so you will not be caught unaware and unprepared. Ask ME how, and I will show you!  Many are already in position and in place.... STAND FIRM. (James 5:8) (Matthew 10:28) Most importantly, KNOW WHO YOU BELIEVE IN, and STAND!  Fear not death of the body, but that of the soul! (Matthew 10:28)  BUCKLE UP.... things are going to get very bumpy soon!  JESUS CHRIST, LORD OF LORDS KING OF KINGS” “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me.” 2John 15:20-21  “Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:12-15 “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?” Romans 8:12 I received a message about the extreme persecution that is coming (which is below), along with a rhema word and 2 dreams:  WORD RECEIVED (9/21/20) Burning Oil!  I heard: “I have been boiled in the fires and oils of affliction.” INTERPRETATION: I had to do some research to understand exactly what this phrase meant, though I knew it was about persecution. What I found was something wonderful amidst what is coming. According to extra-biblical sources, it is documented that the Apostle John was boiled in oil at the hand of Nero, HOWEVER HE EMERGED UNHARMED!!! [1] It is recorded that there was a crowd watching as John was put into a vat of burning oil. However, instead of his flesh burning and the crowd watching him die, a miracle took place! John preached to the crowd about JESUS CHRIST while he was in the oil.... he was not burned at all!! As a result, many people became Christians that day from witnessing this miracle!!! (This is in Foxes Book of Martyrs)  How wonderful that the LORD was showing me that during persecution, HE will perform many miracles among HIS people, and this will be a great witness to all, and will help bring in the end-time harvest!!!    Persecution Will Bring In Salvation!!!  DREAM VISION: Beheaded! In this dream vision, I saw a piece of paper that had rows of people drawn on it. Each line had about 7 to 10 people in it. I had a knowing that each person represented a different occupation, like farmers, teachers, engineers, etc. The one right in the middle, which I saw clearly, was a medical doctor or nurse wearing a stethoscope. The horrifying thing about these rows of people was that they were headless.... their heads were not drawn on the paper, just their bodies!! The people were headless!!  I knew, upon awakening, that this was a Warning of the Persecution that is coming to all members of society who proclaim that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD OF LORDS and KING OF KINGS! And the Bible says that in the last days, those who do not get the Mark of the Beast will be beheaded: “And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been BEHEADED for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” Revelation 20:4   DREAM: Never Been Seen Before! (10/22/20) In this dream, I was outside working in a garden with other people. I suddenly noticed these strange-looking animals that were flying. They were not birds, though they had wings and long beak-type noses. They were silvery gray in color and were about as big as hummingbirds. They definitely were not 'of this world,' and almost resembled a pterodactyl dinosaur. I started swatting at them, fearful that one would land on me... and it did! I then felt it bite my arm, and I saw my flesh ripped open. I then struck it HARD, and it fell to the ground dead. I called those around me to show them this strange creature that was now lying at my feet and how it had bitten me. End of dream. INTERPRETATION: I believe what I saw was a small, flying dinosaur, similar to a pterodactyl, but not exactly. I believe that the LORD was trying to show me that things are coming that we 'have never seen before,' which is in the message below. Whether this ‘creature' was from the pits of hell or man-made, I do not know. In the upcoming last days, we are going to see things that our eyes have never seen, and even things that we never thought possible. We must not fear, though, because we know that the LORD is greater and stronger than anything that the enemy can bring. There is POWER in the NAME OF JESUS and through HIS BLOOD. As Christians, we must proclaim and declare this boldly, no matter what comes our way! “Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” Luke 10:19  MESSAGE received while praying: (October 2020)  “Hold on to ME tightly to ME. Do not look to the right or left, but straight ahead at ME. Keep your eyes focused at all times on ME. Hold every thought captive to ME and do not wander!!! You are going to see things you have never seen before! Wickedness at a new level. Do not let your hearts fear, but be rooted in ME. I come now to warn MY people of the great dangers that lurk behind the corners. An assignment has come to take many out... those who are called by MY NAME. It will be a slaughter that is accepted by many. It will begin slowly and then pick up speed like a snowball that starts small on top of a mountain, and then becomes like an avalanche.  During this time, many will fall away... but many will, also, come into MY fold. For some, the pressure will be too great, and they will slip away from ME, though I try to hold them closely! They will let go of MY hand, and thus fall away! Their foundations were shaky, and their roots were shallow. Those who have been tested already by the fires and still remain in ME will be found secure during this intense persecution. They shall rise up and proclaim MY NAME till their last dying breath. I will reserve for MYSELF a group of remnant that will escape what is coming. I always keep for MYSELF a remnant! This message needs to go out because I don't want MY people to be caught unaware of what is coming. They already sense the ‘handwriting on the wall.” Their eyes have been opened to the TRUTH and they are not deceived.  Though your time here on earth is shortened, your destiny with ME is eternal. Let go of the things of this world, and open up yourself completely to ME now. I will cherish those who do so!  You must be diligent! You must be diligent! You must be diligent! Have I not called you for such a time as this? Do not let ME down! (Father, please work in us to will and to do of your good pleasure.) Do not fear, because I come soon!  Your SAVIOR and FRIEND, JESUS I waited and asked the LORD JESUS if there was more... and I heard: Stay true to ME, and I will stay true to you.  A bloodbath is coming. Help others during this time – save many out of the pits of fire.  Walk softly amidst the mines that have been set all around you.  Dear Brothers and Sisters, Let's be diligent in our relationship and walk with the LORD. Let's be diligent in serving HIM.... and let's be diligent in bringing others into a closer walk with HIM! (I would add, let's be diligent in our intercessory prayers for His elect to spend time seeking the Lord.)

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 174 of our podcast IP Fridays! In today's interview, Ken Suzan interviews Brian McGinnis, partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice, about why companies need to stop treating data privacy as a compliance burden and start treating it as a core business asset. McGinnis argues that data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability, with no middle ground. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! The EPO saw a Record Year with 200,000+ Patent Applications in 2025: German filings dropped 2.2% while China grew 9.7%, overtaking Japan for the first time. Germany remains Europe’s top patent nation but loses ground globally. SMEs and universities now account for nearly half of all Unitary Patents granted to European innovators. News from the UPC Court of Appeal: Non-Technical Features Count for Inventive Step. An April 17 ruling clarifies that all claim features must be evaluated in their combined effect, including non-technical ones. Companies with software-related or mixed-technology inventions pending at the EPO or UPC should reassess recent inventive step objections at the UPC in light of this decision. Nokia Withdraws UPC and Munich Suits After Global FRAND Settlement; Following a global FRAND rate-setting decision by the UK High Court, Nokia withdrew parallel suits against Warner Bros. and Paramount at the UPC and in Munich. One UK ruling resolved litigation spanning Germany, the UPC, the US, and Brazil simultaneously. China Abandons Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Disputes: After a WTO arbitration ruling from July 2025, China withdrew its practice of blocking SEP holders from filing suits abroad. The EU Commission continues monitoring compliance, since the former policy was largely informal rather than codified in statute. The Trump Administration has put 100% Tariffs on Imported Patented Pharmaceuticals: Based on Section 232, the Trump administration imposed 100% tariffs on patented drugs and biologics effective April 2, 2026, with a 120-day transition period until July 31. EU member states face a reduced rate of 15%. Generics and biosimilars are explicitly excluded. China Rejects 1.27 Million Trademark Applications in Three-Year Crackdown: China’s CNIPA rejected over 1.27 million trademark applications and invalidated more than 3,300 marks, targeting so-called edge-ball marks designed to mislead consumers about product quality or origin. The announcement was made at an official press conference on April 23, 2026. Now let's jump into the interview with Brian McGinnis! Brian McGinnis is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice. In this episode of IP Fridays, he argues that companies treating data privacy as a compliance burden are missing the point entirely and leaving significant value on the table. Data Is Either an Asset or a Liability Most companies still treat their data as invisible and costless. They do not manage it the way they would manage a patent portfolio or a trademark. That, McGinnis argues, is a fundamental strategic error. Data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability. There is no middle ground. When companies invest in understanding what data they collect, how it is used, and who has access to it, they unlock opportunities to drive real revenue and growth. Done right, a data governance program is not a cost center. It is a foundation for trust, operational efficiency, and competitive advantage. One Program, Not Twenty With more than 20 US state privacy laws now in effect, and major economies worldwide introducing their own frameworks, building separate compliance programs for each jurisdiction is neither practical nor smart. McGinnis recommends a single, comprehensive governance framework designed around the core purpose and intent of privacy law, flexible enough to absorb new requirements as they emerge. Companies that threw together a quick program when California’s CCPA came into force in 2020 are now overdue for an upgrade. The goal is to move from reactive compliance to a mature, proactive program that positions the company ahead of the regulatory curve rather than perpetually catching up. Website Tracking Tools: An Underestimated Risk One of the fastest-growing areas of privacy litigation involves tracking technologies built into company websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, and chat widgets. Legal teams are often entirely unaware of what IT or marketing has deployed. That gap is expensive. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are applying 1970s-era telephone wiretapping statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, to argue that collecting any personal information, including IP addresses, before a user has consented constitutes illegal interception. Demand letters are being sent at industrial scale, with settlements typically running between $10,000 and $20,000 per case. What makes this particularly difficult is that a company can be fully compliant with statutory privacy law and still face these wiretapping claims, because the legal theory turns on the timing of data collection rather than the existence of a privacy notice. Vendor Contracts: The Hidden Exposure Marketing and technology agreements are another major source of unmanaged data risk. When a company deploys a third-party tool that handles personal data, the underlying contract needs to define precisely who owns that data, what the vendor is permitted to do with it, and what obligations flow down to any sub-processors involved. McGinnis draws a direct parallel to IP licensing: owning valuable data and then handing it to a vendor under a poorly drafted agreement is the equivalent of signing a bad IP license. Data processing agreements need to cover ownership, use restrictions, sub-processor obligations, breach notification timelines, audit rights, and deletion obligations. Many companies simply do not have these terms in place. Without them, a vendor who suffers a breach of non-personal business information has no contractual obligation to disclose it. Consumer Rights Requests: Process Matters Privacy laws give individuals the right to access, correct, delete, and opt out of the use of their personal data. Responding to these requests effectively requires pre-built processes, trained staff, and the technical ability to locate and act on individual data across all systems and sub-processors. Most companies, before engaging in formal data mapping, are not in a position to do this reliably. Staff failing to recognize a deletion request as a legal data subject request and routing it through a standard customer service queue instead is one of the most common failures McGinnis sees. The consequences can include regulatory complaints and class action lawsuits, particularly when a company continues to send emails to someone who has already requested deletion of their data. A newer risk involves Global Privacy Controls: browser-level opt-out signals that regulators and courts are now treating as legally binding deletion and non-collection requests. Companies receiving these signals daily without acting on them face growing exposure under several state laws. AI Governance: Policy Before Tools Generative AI tools are now embedded across business functions, from contract review and customer service to content creation and internal search. McGinnis is direct: every company needs an AI acceptable-use policy, and the absence of one is not a neutral position. Without clear rules, employees will use unapproved or publicly available tools regardless, feeding proprietary and sensitive information into open models with no control over how that data is used or retained. He draws a precise parallel to patent law. Posting proprietary information into an open AI system carries the same risk as publishing it publicly, potentially destroying patentability. The distinction between closed, organization-specific AI systems and open, publicly accessible ones is something employees need to understand explicitly. Making compliance easier than non-compliance is the practical goal. The Regulatory Outlook: More Laws, More Enforcement McGinnis expects the regulatory landscape to continue expanding. The EU AI Act is already setting the direction, and several US states have introduced or are developing AI-specific legislation. The pattern mirrors what happened with data privacy: Europe leads, US states follow in a patchwork, and federal legislation remains uncertain. Enforcement of existing privacy laws is also intensifying. GDPR has been in force since 2018, CCPA since 2020, and regulators are now past the period of extended tolerance for companies that are still catching up. Companies with immature compliance programs should expect less patience from regulators going forward. McGinnis closes with a clear point of view: if you have to comply anyway, get credit for it. A well-built governance program is a trust signal to customers, a sales asset, and a foundation for responsible AI use. Compliance done right is not a tax. It is a differentiator. The Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Our guest today on the IP Fridays podcast is Brian McGinnis. Brian is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg and a founding member and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy law practice group. Brian serves as a member of the intellectual property department and the internet and technology practice. Brian is a Chambers Global and national ranked privacy and data security attorney, a certified information privacy professional, and the firm’s chief privacy officer. Brian brings nearly two decades of experience at the intersection of law and technology. Brian advises on a wide range of technology-driven legal matters, including privacy and data security, intellectual property, artificial intelligence, corporate transactions, software, and internet law. His deep understanding of privacy and technology law enables him to guide clients through rapidly evolving regulatory and operational challenges. Welcome Brian to the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Hey, thanks Ken. I appreciate it. Great to be here and thanks for having me. Ken Suzan: Excellent. Brian, the C-suite tends to treat data privacy as a compliance tax, something to hand off to legal and forget about. But when you see how companies actually get into serious trouble, what’s really going on? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, well, it’s a great place to start Ken and looking forward to the conversation today covering some of these privacy issues and AI issues, which I found in my own practice is really bled into the straight privacy stuff. Companies can’t really handle these things in a silo anymore. It’s really about managing and coming together as a coherent program for governance for the organization. I think if you do that right, the good news is we can become revenue generators and show growth for the company and not just compliance centers and a compliance tax. But I think the core problem that we face in working with most companies is that a lot of companies still treat their data as invisible, costless. They don’t treat it, in other words, like they would a patent portfolio or trademark or other IP portfolio. It’s just not managed as an asset in the ways that we’ve seen more sophistication around IP. And it really should be. Data is either a managed asset for the company or it’s an unmanaged liability. There’s really not an in between. And so for those companies that haven’t gotten their arms around all this data and what can be done with it, I think they’re really missing an opportunity. Having an understanding of what data the organization is collecting, how it’s being used, and having the proper governance around it really unlocks a lot of opportunity for use of that data in new ways — ways that can drive revenue and growth for the company. So I approach privacy not just about compliance, not just about avoiding penalties or doing it because some law out there says that we have to do it. It’s really about knowing and controlling one of the company’s core assets. And if you’re not doing that, you’ve got unmanaged data that you’re not getting value out of and that potentially could be a huge liability for the company. Managed well, it really supports trust, efficiency, and growth of the organization. Otherwise, I think it’s a missed opportunity. Ken Suzan: Yes, well said. Now let’s talk about state laws. With 20-plus state privacy laws now in effect, how should companies build a program that actually works across the board without starting over every time a new state law kicks in? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so the first answer is don’t build 20 separate programs. This really goes back to having a comprehensive, sophisticated, well thought out program that really takes into account not only the 20 state laws, but obviously we’ve got international exposure with laws like GDPR and upcoming privacy laws internationally. Most of the larger economies in the world have some form of laws around privacy and AI. So you can’t really anymore build programs that account for the one, two, three, four, five different laws that in the past we had experience with — where you could just treat California as its own thing, treat New York as something else, and treat Europe as something else. The laws and the pace of these have really forced companies into having comprehensive programs. I don’t expect to see fewer laws. You’re only looking at potentially additional state laws, additional federal laws here in the US, and then certainly additional laws throughout the world. So a lot of the strategy these days is not only where are we today with these laws, but how do we set up our governance program in a way that really cuts to the core of the purpose and intent behind these laws so that we can be better prepared when new laws come about in the future. Historically, at least in the US, most companies just haven’t had laws that force them into compliance postures. As these laws have started to come along, a lot of companies have been playing from behind and saying, oh, the California Consumer Privacy Act, I just read about it and it goes into effect next week — let’s throw something together and call that our compliance program. We’ve now got years of these laws being in place, CCPA came into effect in 2020, and what we’re seeing much more of are companies looking to get more sophisticated in their programs and stop feeling like they’re always rushing to catch up. The goal is to level up their program, going from level one — constantly playing from behind — to level two and then level three, so that they really feel like they’re on top of it and have a sophisticated program that not only accounts for all the various privacy requirements that come at them, but also positions them to take advantage of the data and all the things that come along with having a good governance program. Ken Suzan: Brian, there’s an explosion of litigation targeting something most companies barely think about — the tracking tools baked into their own websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, chat widgets, the list goes on and on. What’s happening, Brian, and what should companies do? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, and I think a lot of companies — the executives, the business teams — don’t even realize a lot of these tools are on their sites. IT deployed them years ago, the web team deployed them, marketing teams are constantly using them and certainly have a good understanding of it. But in a lot of cases, legal has never touched them and has no idea what’s happening on the website. We also see a lot of cases of companies who, even if they’re generally aware these tools are in use, aren’t aware what other teams are putting on the site or what those pieces of technology are tracking. And that gap can be really expensive. What we’re seeing right now — and this has been a trend for a number of months now and is really continuing to pick up steam — is a series of what I call gotcha lawsuits, where you have some enterprising plaintiffs’ counsel who have taken a look at some 1970s-era telephone wiretapping laws, including a law called CIPA, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, passed in the 70s with the idea that you shouldn’t be able to wiretap people’s telephone conversations. They’ve taken that and applied that theory to the internet. The way it works is: if a website has some sort of cookie, pixel, or other tracking technology on it that collects personal information about an individual — and that can be as simple as an IP address and device ID — and if that collection occurs as soon as the individual shows up at the website, prior to them being able to have notice provided to them or opt in and consent to that collection, then the theory under these lawsuits is that it constitutes wiretapping. We see a lot of this with the Meta pixel, with LinkedIn pixels, and the like. What they’re doing is effectively showing up and suing, threatening to sue, trying to take you to arbitration, depending upon what’s included in the company’s existing privacy notice. If you don’t have a cookie banner, if you don’t have a cookie notice, if you’re not getting opt-in on these things, they’re leaning on those failures and effectively trying to force you into a position where you are forced to make a settlement. Because the cost to litigate one of these to their conclusion would be expensive, whereas a lot of these cases will settle for $10,000 to $15,000 somewhere in that range. They’ve got technology crawling the internet looking for websites that don’t have these risks covered, sending demand letters and then collecting settlements, $10,000 to $20,000 at a time. It’s been very profitable for them and a very dangerous thing for our clients. And it’s a bit unusual because you can be fully compliant with the statutory privacy laws that require notification of the use of tracking technologies and cookies and banners — and still be subject to these lawsuits because of the wiretapping arguments being made. The timing wherein the data is collected from the individual could still subject you to these lawsuits. So it’s a tricky problem, one that I hate seeing companies get hit with and one that we spend a lot of time helping companies avoid. Ken Suzan: Yes, let’s talk about contracts, Brian, because I know you work with contracts probably on a daily basis. A lot of data risk lives inside vendor and technology agreements — the contracts companies sign with marketing platforms, analytics providers, cloud infrastructure, and SaaS tools. What should those agreements actually contain? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so there’s quite a lot of things. You’ve got a world where marketing is constantly under pressure to learn more about their customers. The way they can do that is through any number of different tools and data gathering techniques, and we have all this technology available to help marketing and sales do better at their jobs. But we, at least in this country, got to a position where people really felt like they lost control of their information and their data. And so these privacy laws came along and really started to provide more rights to individuals — to have an understanding of what data exists within various companies that they do business with, who they’re sharing it with, trading it with, selling it to for advertising purposes; to have the right to opt out; the right to delete their information. Not checking through the agreements by which these teams are implementing these tools is a huge issue for companies. As part of an overall compliance program, having some kind of process where people who are aware of the growing numbers of privacy laws are reviewing these marketing contracts to make sure they are aligned with that program and aligned with those laws is absolutely critical. To talk about IP, given the IP Fridays audience: it’s kind of the equivalent of having really bad IP licenses. In other words, you own and control this information and data, and you need to control what the other side can do with one of your most valuable assets — or you’ve effectively given it away. So thinking about it in that way could be useful. In terms of more specifics: a big one is ownership of the data. The agreement itself may or may not have anything that addresses data. If there’s personal information involved, you probably need what we call a data processing agreement or addendum — a DPA — that specifically controls what that third party is able to do with that data, how they’re able to use it, whether they’re able to share it, whether they’re able to get value out of it on their own, or if they’re only allowed to be what we call a service provider, just providing services to the business that hired them. There needs to be explicit prohibition on retaining, using, and disclosing personal information for any purpose other than performing the exact services in the contract. Whether or not they’re permitted to sell or share data under CCPA terms is another key point. Certification that the provider will comply with any restrictions and security requirements you have on your data, and making sure those obligations flow down to any sub-processors they might use. You hire Company A, but Company A works with Company B and C to provide parts of their service. You’re effectively responsible for the protection of personal information throughout its lifecycle. A couple of other key provisions: breach notification triggers and timeline. It’s very possible under a lot of agreements that one of your vendors can suffer the world’s worst hacker breach and have no legal obligation to tell the company that hired them about it — unless there’s personal information involved. State data breach laws apply to personal information, not to other types of sensitive business information. Unless you have a contract that explicitly requires notification, there’s a good chance that vendor may not want to disclose it. And then other things like audit rights and deletion obligations go in there as well. Ken Suzan: Certainly a lot to cover. Let’s talk about privacy laws and consumer rights. Privacy laws give consumers real rights — to access their data, correct it, delete it, and opt out of how it’s being used. Most companies have a process for this on paper. What does it actually take to get it right, and what happens when it breaks down? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, it takes pre-planning. It takes a process. Some companies receive many more of these requests than others — some B2B companies receive none or a couple per year, while companies heavily involved in marketing to consumers might receive tens or hundreds a day. To be able to respond to these effectively and efficiently requires some forethought. It requires policy and procedure internally to be set up, and it requires the education of the team. Some of the common ways we see this go wrong: staff isn’t trained to know the difference between what we call a DSR — data subject request — versus a regular customer service inquiry. Maybe somebody submits what would be construed by law to be a deletion request and you just put it into your normal customer service response flow — and then you’re potentially missing timelines and the like. There also need to be systems in place to respond in accordance with the individual’s rights. Somebody submits a request saying, you have my information — what information do you have about me? Can your company determine that right now? Can you look through all your systems and down the line to all the processors and sub-processors you’ve worked with and hired, and identify what information you have about that individual? Most companies, until they engage in a governance program and data mapping, are at a real disadvantage to be able to do that. Why is that a problem? Because two weeks from now your company could be sending emails to the individual who just told you to delete their data, and they get really upset. That’s when they go and complain to regulators or start class action lawsuits. The lack of planning can be really, really expensive for a lot of companies. Making sure you’ve got some kind of process to understand what’s coming in, that the people receiving those requests know the difference between a regular customer service request and a data subject request, and that it gets to the appropriate parties for action — all of that is really, really key. Another one that we’re seeing pop up is what we call GPC, or Global Privacy Controls. It used to be that people would say “do not track” in their browser and most companies would ignore those signals. Now we’ve got advancements in law and browser technology where the browser you’re using to visit a company’s website sends a signal saying, opt me out of this. Regulators and courts are construing those as deletion requests, as opt-out requests that companies are now required to respond to. If your company hasn’t gone through an exercise to understand that, and is probably receiving GPC opt-out requests on a daily basis without acting on them, there’s some exposure there. At the end of the day, a lot of this really is about getting the appropriate people from across the organization — really each department — around a table, figuring out what data you collect, how you use it, who you share it with, where it comes from. That starts the process of your data map. Then you set about mapping that to the various legal requirements and figuring out how to respond, how to make it easy for people to exercise their rights so they’re not complaining, not suing, not going to regulators. Letting these squeaky wheels out of the process — the ones who don’t want you to be processing their information any longer — is really key. Ken Suzan: Let’s switch gears a bit and talk about AI. I know we’re hearing about it every day. Generative AI tools are now embedded in how companies work — contract review, customer service, content creation, internal search. Before employees start using these tools with customer data, confidential business information, or proprietary content, what has to be in place first? Brian McGinnis: Yeah. I think we’re long past the days when companies provided individuals access to corporate technology — computers, devices, and the like — without having some kind of acceptable use policy that governs that. We don’t want you downloading stuff that could harm our network or create security issues. We don’t want you using our technology in certain ways, whether that’s a BYOD policy or just general use of company internet or company devices. An AI acceptable use policy is really a continuation of those. Every company needs to have an AI acceptable use policy. Period. In my opinion, things like that are as important as the fire escape policy out in the hallways for these companies. I can tell you with absolute certainty: if your organization has not provided rules to your employees and personnel about the use of AI, what they can and can’t use — or if you’ve said you can’t use any AI — the personnel is still using AI. They’re just not using any approved tools. They’re probably using their own private tools that they subscribe to, or even worse, tools they don’t pay for, in which case they’re putting company information into a wide open public model. The more companies can do to think through this ahead of time, reduce it to policy, and then train and educate people on that company’s particular policy, the better. You need to make it easier for people to comply than not comply. An acceptable use policy should talk about: here’s how we can and can’t use it, here’s the data that should and should not go into the system, here’s some proper uses of AI, here’s some data that’s on the fringe that we need to keep out — more sensitive information, proprietary information, etc. Making sure you’re funneling and educating people about the difference between closed systems and open systems. In other words, this is a tool that only looks at our organization, only uses the data within a certain box, and is not publicly available — the AI system is not training on our data. You have more leeway to put more sensitive information into those types of systems than you do with open systems which potentially lose control of your data. It’s almost like a patent consideration in terms of keeping information secret. If something potentially has some patentability that you want to seek to file in the future, you can’t just go out and post it publicly and use public search engines and all this other stuff at the risk of exposing it. Similar concepts here — really getting a handle and control over what tools people can use and providing some education to them about how the company wants to think about what’s acceptable and what’s not in those uses is really the key starting point. Ken Suzan: Very useful information. Indeed, we’re coming towards the end of today’s episode. One final question for you, Brian. Where do you think we’ll be two years from now in this developing field, and how best for companies to stay ahead of the curve? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, this kind of takes us full circle, Ken. I think it’s kind of back to the beginning comments about the privacy space — and we’ve only got more of these laws coming. It’s still a developing field. We’re still really in the early days of enforcement. I mean, GDPR has been around since 2018, CCPA in the US really kicked us off in about 2020, and so there’s been a settling-in period as companies adjust and get used to having these laws and get compliance programs in place at various levels — from not at all prepared to highly sophisticated. We’re still pretty early on in terms of enforcement of these things. We’re already starting to see enforcement of more egregious violations of these various laws, and we’ll only continue to see more enforcement as the laws exist currently and as they continue to come along. The days of not having to pay attention to this are kind of over. And I always tell clients: if you’re going to have to do these things, you’re going to have to be compliant — you might as well get credit for it. By which I mean, let’s put all the policies in place, let’s do all the compliance activities, let’s have a sophisticated governance program, but then let’s also use that as a sales tool, as a way to help grow the company, as a way to sell new products and gain trust and earn trust with our customers — so that they know when they’re doing business with us, or when they’re giving us information, or when they’re using our AI tool, that we respect that and are going to take care of their information and have the structure in place internally to be able to do that. With respect to AI, what I’m seeing is very similar to what we have seen with the growth of privacy law — again led by Europe, with the EU AI Act in this case. Now you’ve got a handful of states in the US that already have AI laws, and others that are interested in continuing to roll those out. There’s friction with the federal government around whether there’s going to be a comprehensive law there. Like the privacy space, you’ve got varying factions — some of which want to develop really quickly with very little guardrails, others which say we’re threatening the future of humanity if we don’t get those guardrails in place. I think ultimately, at least in the US, we’re going to end up with another patchwork of AI laws for the foreseeable future that we’ll have to navigate. So really having a company position, a company philosophy of how do we handle all these various laws, how do we treat people’s data, how do we get our arms around it, how do we respond to whatever legal rights they currently have, and what principles do we put in place so that we can adapt for the future — and then, once we’ve done those things, how do we actually get value out of this and move the business forward. So it’s not a compliance tax, but a benefit to the business. That’s the end goal here, and I think the North Star for us. Ken Suzan: Fantastic, Brian. This has certainly been a very comprehensive interview. Really appreciate you taking the time to talk about it with us here on the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Happy to do it, Ken. Thanks for asking me and good to see you. Thank you.

https://m.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?sid=tindogpodcast&_pgn=1&isRefine=true&_trksid=p4429486.m3561.l49496 Atlantis: The Lost Empire is a 2001 American animated science fiction adventure film directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, produced by Don Hahn, and written by Tab Murphy. Produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation, it stars Michael J. Fox, James Garner, Cree Summer, Don Novello, Phil Morris, Claudia Christian, Jacqueline Obradors, Florence Stanley, David Ogden Stiers, John Mahoney, Jim Varney, Corey Burton and Leonard Nimoy. Set in 1914, the film follows young linguist Milo Thatch, who gains possession of a sacred book, which he believes will guide him and a crew of mercenaries to the lost city of Atlantis. Development of the film began after production had finished on The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996). Instead of another musical, directors Trousdale and Wise, producer Hahn, and screenwriter Murphy decided to do an adventure film inspired by the works of Jules Verne. Atlantis: The Lost Empire was notable for adopting the distinctive visual style of comic book artist Mike Mignola, one of the film's production designers. The film made greater use of computer-generated imagery (CGI) than any of Disney's previous traditionally animated features and remains one of the few to have been shot in anamorphic format. Linguist Marc Okrand constructed an Atlantean language specifically for use in the film. James Newton Howard provided the film's musical score. The film was released at a time when audience interest in animated films was shifting away from traditional animation toward films with full CGI. Atlantis: The Lost Empire premiered at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood, Los Angeles, on June 3, 2001, and went into its general release on June 15. The film received mixed reviews from critics. Budgeted at around $90–120 million, Atlantis grossed over $186 million worldwide, $84 million of which was earned in North America; its lackluster box office response was identified as a result of being released in competition with Shrek, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, The Fast and the Furious and Dr. Dolittle 2. As a result of the film's box office failure, Disney cancelled a planned spin-off animated television series, Team Atlantis; an underwater Disneyland attraction; and a volcanic Magic Kingdom attraction based on it. Atlantis was nominated for several awards, including seven Annie Awards, and won Best Sound Editing at the 2002 Golden Reel Awards. The film was released on VHS and DVD on January 29, 2002, and on Blu-ray on June 11, 2013. Despite its initial reception, reception in later years became favorable and has given Atlantis a cult following[5] and reappraisal from critics as a mistreated classic, due in part to Mignola's unique artistic influence.[6][7] A direct-to-video sequel, Atlantis: Milo's Return, was released in 2003. Plot In 1914 Washington, D.C., archaeo-linguist Milo Thatch obsesses over finding the legendary lost city of Atlantis, believed to have sunk thousands of years ago. His employers ridicule his theories, but he gains an unexpected ally in eccentric millionaire Preston B. Whitmore, a friend of Milo's deceased adventurer grandfather who also sought the city. Determined to honor his old friend's quest, Whitmore recruits Milo for an expedition to Atlantis, having recently uncovered the Shepherd's Journal, an ancient Atlantean manuscript that contains directions to the lost city. Aboard the submarine Ulysses, Milo meets his teammates: Commander Lyle Tiberius Rourke, Lieutenant Helga Sinclair, demolitions expert Vincenzo Santorini, geologist Gaetan "Mole" Molière, medical officer Joshua Sweet, mechanic Audrey Ramirez, radio operator Wilhelmina Packard, mess cook Jebidiah "Cookie" Farnsworth, and a platoon of mercenaries. Upon reaching a cave entrance leading to the lost city, the submarine is destroyed by a massive mechanical leviathan, killing most of the crew. Milo and the survivors escape in smaller craft, navigating through the cave to emerge among ancient ruins. Milo translates the journal, guiding the team through caves beneath a dormant volcano until they reach the worn remains of Atlantis. There, they are greeted by Princess Kidagakash "Kida" Nedakh, who, despite being around 8,500 years old, has the appearance of a young woman. She leads them to her father, King Kashekim, who orders them to leave. Learning that Milo can read their language—a skill lost to the Atlanteans over millennia—Kida asks for his help in uncovering their forgotten history and highly-advanced technology, without which the city has declined and resources have dwindled. Milo learns that Atlantis is powered by the Heart of Atlantis, a massive crystal that grants longevity and health to its citizens through the smaller crystals they carry. Rourke betrays Milo and the Atlanteans, revealing his true intention to steal the Heart for profit, despite knowing the Atlanteans will perish without it. He mortally wounds the King while seizing control and uncovers the crystal's hidden location beneath the city. Sensing the danger, the crystal merges with Kida, who is then captured by Rourke. He departs with the crystallized Kida and his mercenaries, except for Vincenzo, Molière, Sweet, Audrey, Packard, and Cookie, who refuse to take part in the Atlanteans' destruction. Before dying, the King reveals that Atlantis was devastated by a megatsunami after he attempted to weaponize the crystal's vast power. To protect the city, the crystal merged with a royal family member, Kida's mother. This created a protective dome over the city's inner district, shielding it from total destruction as Atlantis sank beneath the waves, but Kida's mother never returned. To prevent the crystal from ever merging with Kida, the King hid it, inadvertently accelerating Atlantis' decline. He warns Milo that Kida will be lost forever if she is not soon separated from the crystal and pleads with him to save her. Alongside his allies, Milo rallies the Atlanteans to reactivate their long-dormant flying machines. Together, they eliminate Rourke and his mercenaries in the volcano. Milo and the others fly the crystallized Kida back to Atlantis as the volcano erupts. Kida ascends into the air and awakens Stone Guardians, who erect a barrier that shields the city from the lava flow. With Atlantis saved, the crystal separates from Kida and remains suspended in the sky. Milo chooses to stay in Atlantis with Kida, having fallen in love with her. Before returning to the surface, Vincenzo, Molière, Sweet, Audrey, Packard, and Cookie each receive a small crystal and a share of treasure. The six reunite with Preston on the surface and agree to keep their adventure a secret to protect Atlantis. Preston opens a package from Milo containing his own crystal and a note thanking him. The newly crowned Queen Kida and Milo carve a stone effigy of her father to join those of past rulers floating beside the Heart of Atlantis, as the city stands restored to its former glory. Voice cast Production layout sketch of Milo and Kida. Milo's character design was based in part on sketches of the film's language consultant, Marc Okrand. Michael J. Fox as Milo James Thatch, a linguist and cartographer at the Smithsonian who was recruited to decipher The Shepherd's Journal while directing an expedition to Atlantis. James Garner as Commander Lyle Tiberius Rourke, the leader of the band of mercenaries for the Atlantean expedition. Cree Summer as Kidagakash "Kida" Nedakh, the Princess of Atlantis and Milo's love interest. Natalie Strom provided dialogue for Kida as a young child. Summer also voiced the unnamed Queen of Atlantis, Kida's mother and Kashekim's wife who was "chosen" by the Crystal during the sinking of the city. John Mahoney as Preston B. Whitmore, an eccentric millionaire who funds the expedition to Atlantis. Lloyd Bridges was originally cast and recorded as Whitmore, but he died before completing the film. Mahoney's zest and vigor led to Whitmore's personality being reworked for the film.[8] Claudia Christian as Lieutenant Helga Katrina Sinclair, Rourke's German-born second-in-command. Don Novello as Vincenzo "Vinny" Santorini, an Italian demolitions expert. Phil Morris as Dr. Joshua Strongbear Sweet, a medic of African-American and Arapaho descent. Jacqueline Obradors as Audrey Rocio Ramirez, a Puerto Rican mechanic and the youngest member of the expedition. Corey Burton as Gaetan "Mole" Molière, a French geologist who acts like a mole. Jim Varney as Jebidiah Allardyce "Cookie" Farnsworth, a Western-style chuckwagon chef. Varney died in February 2000, before the production ended, and the film was dedicated to his memory. Steven Barr recorded supplemental dialogue for Cookie. Florence Stanley as Wilhelmina Bertha Packard: an elderly, sarcastic, chain-smoking radio operator who is also the expedition's photographer. Leonard Nimoy as Kashekim Nedakh, the King of Atlantis and Kida's father. David Ogden Stiers as Fenton Q. Harcourt, a board member of the Smithsonian Institution who dismisses Milo's belief in the existence of Atlantis. Production Development The production team visited New Mexico's Carlsbad Caverns to get a sense of the underground spaces depicted in the film. The idea for Atlantis: The Lost Empire was conceived in October 1996 when Don Hahn, Gary Trousdale, Kirk Wise, and Tab Murphy lunched at a Mexican restaurant in Burbank, California. Having recently completed The Hunchback of Notre Dame,[9] the producer, directors and screenwriter wanted to keep the Hunchback crew together for another film with an "Adventureland" setting rather than a "Fantasyland" setting.[10] Drawing inspiration from Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth (1864) and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas (1870), they set out to make a film which would fully explore Atlantis (compared to the brief visit depicted in Verne's novel).[11] While primarily utilizing the Internet to research the mythology of Atlantis,[12] the filmmakers became interested in the clairvoyant readings of Edgar Cayce and decided to incorporate some of his ideas—notably that of a mother-crystal which provides power, healing, and longevity to the Atlanteans—into the story.[13] They also visited museums and old army installations to study the technology of the early 20th century (the film's time period), and traveled underground in New Mexico's Carlsbad Caverns to view the subterranean trails which would serve as a model for the approach to Atlantis in the film.[14] The filmmakers wanted to avoid the common depiction of Atlantis as "crumbled Greek columns underwater", said Wise.[15] "From the get-go, we were committed to designing it top to bottom. Let's get the architectural style, clothing, heritage, customs, how they would sleep, and how they would speak. So we brought people on board who would help us develop those ideas."[16] Art director David Goetz stated, "We looked at Mayan architecture, styles of ancient, unusual architecture from around the world, and the directors really liked the look of Southeast Asian architecture."[17] The team later took ideas from other architectural forms, including Cambodian, Indian, and Tibetan works.[18] Hahn added, "If you take and deconstruct architecture from around the world into one architectural vocabulary, that's what our Atlantis looks like."[19] The overall design and circular layout of Atlantis were also based on the writings of Plato,[18] and his quote "in a single day and night of misfortune, the island of Atlantis disappeared into the depths of the sea"[20] was influential from the beginning of production.[9] The crew wore T-shirts which read "ATLANTIS—Fewer songs, more explosions" due to the film's plan as an action-adventure (unlike previous Disney animated features, which were musicals).[21] Language The Atlantean letter A, created by artist John Emerson. Kirk Wise noted that its design was a treasure map showing the path to the crystal, "The Heart of Atlantis". Main article: Atlantean language Marc Okrand, who developed the Klingon language for the Star Trek television and theatrical productions, was hired to devise the Atlantean language for Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Guided by the directors' initial concept for it to be a "mother-language", Okrand employed an Indo-European word stock with its own grammatical structure. He would change the words if they began to sound too much like an actual, spoken language.[16] John Emerson designed the written component, making hundreds of random sketches of individual letters from among which the directors chose the best to represent the Atlantean alphabet.[22][23] The written language was boustrophedon: designed to be read left-to-right on the first line, then right-to-left on the second, continuing in a zigzag pattern to simulate the flow of water.[24] The Atlantean [A] is a shape developed by John Emerson. It is a miniature map of the city of Atlantis (i.e., the outside of the swirl is the cave, the inside shape is the silhouette of the city, and the dot is the location of the crystal). It's a treasure map. — Kirk Wise, director[25] Writing Joss Whedon was the first writer to be involved with the film but soon left to work on other Disney projects. According to him, he "had not a shred" in the movie.[26] Tab Murphy completed the screenplay, stating that the time from initially discussing the story to producing a script that satisfied the film crew was "about three to four months".[27] The initial draft was 155 pages, much longer than a typical Disney film script (which usually runs 90 pages). When the first two acts were timed at 120 minutes, the directors cut characters and sequences and focused more on Milo. Murphy said that he created the centuries-old Shepherd's Journal because he needed a map for the characters to follow throughout their journey.[28] A revised version of the script eliminated the trials encountered by the explorers as they navigated the caves to Atlantis. This gave the film a faster pace because Atlantis is discovered earlier in the story.[29] The directors often described the Atlanteans using Egypt as an example. When Napoleon wandered into Egypt, the people had lost track of their once-great civilization. They were surrounded by artifacts of their former greatness but somehow unaware of what they meant. — Don Hahn, producer[30] The character of Milo J. Thatch was originally supposed to be a descendant of Edward Teach, otherwise known as Blackbeard the pirate. The directors later related him to an explorer so he would discover his inner talent for exploration.[31] The character of Molière was originally intended to be "professorial" but Chris Ure, a story artist, changed the concept to that of a "horrible little burrowing creature with a wacky coat and strange headgear with extending eyeballs", said Wise.[32][33] Don Hahn pointed out that the absence of songs presented a challenge for a team accustomed to animating musicals, as action scenes alone would have to carry the film. Kirk Wise said it gave the team an opportunity for more on-screen character development: "We had more screen time available to do a scene like where Milo and the explorers are camping out and learning about one another's histories. An entire sequence is devoted to having dinner and going to bed. That is not typically something we would have the luxury of doing."[16] Hahn stated that the first animated sequence completed during production was the film's prologue. The original version featured a Viking war party using The Shepherd's Journal to find Atlantis and being swiftly dispatched by the Leviathan. Near the end of production, story supervisor John Sanford told the directors that he felt this prologue did not give viewers enough emotional involvement with the Atlanteans. Despite knowing that the Viking prologue was finished and it would cost additional time and money to alter the scene, the directors agreed with Sanford. Trousdale went home and completed the storyboards later that evening after visiting a strip club where he boarded the new sequence on a napkin.[34] The opening was replaced by a sequence depicting the destruction of Atlantis, which introduced the film from the perspective of the Atlanteans and Princess Kida.[35] The Viking prologue is included as an extra feature on the DVD release.[36] Casting Kirk Wise, one of the directors, said that they chose Michael J. Fox for the role of Milo because they felt he gave his characters his own personality and made them more believable on screen. Fox said that voice acting was much easier than his past experience with live action because he did not have to worry about what he looked like in front of a camera while delivering his lines.[37] The directors mentioned that Fox was also offered a role for Titan A.E.; he allowed his son to choose which film he would work on, and he chose Atlantis.[38] Viewers have noted similarities between Milo and the film's language consultant, Marc Okrand, who developed the Atlantean language used in the film. Okrand stated that Milo's supervising animator, John Pomeroy, sketched him, claiming not to know how a linguist looked or acted.[24] Kida's supervising animator, Randy Haycock, stated that her actress, Cree Summer, was very "intimidating" when he first met her; this influenced how he wanted Kida to look and act on screen when she meets Milo.[39] Wise chose James Garner for the role of Commander Lyle Tiberius Rourke because of his previous experience with action films, especially war and Western films, and said the role "fits him like a glove". When asked if he would be interested in the role, Garner replied: "I'd do it in a heartbeat."[40] Producer Don Hahn was saddened that Jim Varney, the voice of Jebidiah Allardyce "Cookie" Farnsworth, never saw the finished film before he died of lung cancer in February 2000, but mentioned that he was shown clips of his character's performance during his site sessions and said, "He loved it." Shawn Keller, supervising animator for Cookie, stated, "It was kind of a sad fact that [Varney] knew that he was not going to be able to see this film before he passed away. He did a bang-up job doing the voice work, knowing the fact that he was never gonna see his last performance." Steven Barr recorded supplemental dialogue for Cookie.[41] John Mahoney, who voiced Preston Whitmore, stated that doing voice work was "freeing" and allowed him to be "big" and "outrageous" with his character.[42] Dr. Joshua Sweet's supervising animator, Ron Husband, indicated that one of the challenges was animating Sweet in sync with Phil Morris' rapid line delivery while keeping him believable. Morris stated that this character was extreme, with "no middle ground"; he mentioned, "When he was happy, he was really happy, and when he's solemn, he's real solemn."[43] Claudia Christian described her character, Lieutenant Helga Katrina Sinclair, as "sensual" and "striking", and was relieved when she finally saw what her character looked like, joking, "I'd hate to, you know, go through all this and find out my character is a toad."[44] Jacqueline Obradors said her character, Audrey Rocio Ramirez, made her "feel like a little kid again" and she always hoped her sessions would last longer.[45] Florence Stanley felt that her character, Wilhelmina Bertha Packard, was very "cynical" and "secure": "She does her job, and when she is not busy, she does anything she wants."[46] Corey Burton mentioned that finding his performance as Gaetan "Mole" Molière was by allowing the character to "leap out" of him while making funny voices. To get into character during his recording sessions, he stated that he would "throw myself into the scene and feel like I'm in this make-believe world".[47] Kirk Wise and Russ Edmonds, supervising animator for Vincenzo "Vinny" Santorini, noted Vinny's actor Don Novello's unique ability to improvise dialogue while voicing the role. Edmonds recalled, "[Novello] would look at the sheet, and he would read the line that was written once, and he would never read it again! And we never used a written line, it was improvs, the whole movie."[48] Michael Cedeno, supervising animator for King Kashekim Nedakh, was astounded at Leonard Nimoy's voice talent in the role, stating that he had "so much rich character" in his performance. As he spoke his lines, Cedeno said the crew would sit there and watch Nimoy in astonishment.[49] Animation For comparison, the top image (panoramic view of Atlantis) is cropped to Disney's standard aspect ratio (1.66:1); the bottom image was seen in the film (2.35:1). At the peak of its production, 350 animators, artists and technicians were working on Atlantis[50] at all three Disney animation studios: Walt Disney Feature Animation (Burbank, California), Walt Disney Feature Animation Florida (Orlando), and Disney Animation France (Paris).[51] The film was one of the few Disney animated features produced and shot in 35mm anamorphic format. The directors felt that a widescreen image was crucial, as a nostalgic reference to old action-adventure films presented in the CinemaScope format (2.35:1), noting Raiders of the Lost Ark as an inspiration.[52] Because switching to the format would require animation desks and equipment designed for widescreen to be purchased, Disney executives were at first reluctant about the idea.[16] The production team found a simple solution by drawing within a smaller frame on the same paper and equipment used for standard aspect ratio (1.66:1) Disney-animated films.[52] Layout supervisor Ed Ghertner wrote a guide to the widescreen format for use by the layout artists and mentioned that one advantage of widescreen was that he could keep characters in scenes longer because of additional space to walk within the frame.[53] Wise drew further inspiration for the format from filmmakers David Lean and Akira Kurosawa.[16] The film's visual style was strongly based upon that of Mike Mignola, the comic book artist behind Hellboy. Mignola was one of four production designers (along with Matt Codd, Jim Martin, and Ricardo Delgado) hired by the Disney studio for the film. Accordingly, he provided style guides, preliminary character, and background designs, and story ideas.[54] "Mignola's graphic, the angular style was a key influence on the 'look' of the characters," stated Wise.[55] Mignola was surprised when first contacted by the studio to work on Atlantis.[56] His artistic influence on the film would later contribute to a cult following.[57] I remember watching a rough cut of the film and these characters have these big, square, weird hands. I said to the guy next to me, "Those are cool hands." And he says to me, "Yeah, they're your hands. We had a whole meeting about how to do your hands." It was so weird I couldn't wrap my brain around it. — Mike Mignola[56] The final pull-out shot of the movie, immediately before the end-title card, was described by the directors as the most difficult shot in the history of Disney animation. They said that the pull-out attempt on their prior film, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, "struggled" and "lacked depth"; however, after making advances in the process of multiplaning, they tried the technique again in Atlantis. The shot begins with one 16-inch (40.6 cm) piece of paper showing a close-up of Milo and Kida. As the camera pulls away from them to reveal the newly restored Atlantis, it reaches the equivalent of an 18,000-inch (46,000 cm) piece of paper composed of many individual pieces of paper (24 inches [61 cm] or smaller). Each piece was carefully drawn and combined with animated vehicles simultaneously flying across the scene to make the viewer see a complete, integrated image.[58] Scale model of Ulysses submarine by Greg Aronowitz, used by digital animators as reference during production.[59] At the time of its release, Atlantis: The Lost Empire was notable for using more computer-generated imagery (CGI) than any other Disney traditionally animated feature. To increase productivity, the directors had the digital artists work with the traditional animators throughout the production. Several important scenes required heavy use of digital animation: the Leviathan, the Ulysses submarine and sub-pods, the Heart of Atlantis, and the Stone Giants.[60] During production, after Matt Codd and Jim Martin designed the Ulysses on paper, Greg Aronowitz was hired to build a scale model of the submarine, to be used as a reference for drawing the 3D Ulysses.[59] The final film included 362 digital-effects shots, and computer programs were used to seamlessly join the 2D and 3D artwork.[61] One scene that took advantage of this was the "sub-drop" scene, where the 3D Ulysses was dropped from its docking bay into the water. As the camera floated toward it, a 2D Milo was drawn to appear inside, tracking the camera. The crew noted that it was challenging to keep the audience from noticing the difference between the 2D and 3D drawings when they were merged.[62] The digital production also gave the directors a unique "virtual camera" for complicated shots within the film. With the ability to operate in the z-plane, this camera moved through a digital wire-frame set; the background and details were later hand-drawn over the wireframes. This was used in the opening flight scene through Atlantis and the submarine chase through the undersea cavern with the Leviathan in pursuit.[63] Music and sound Since the film would not feature any songs, the directors hired James Newton Howard to compose the score after they heard his music on Dinosaur. Approaching it as a live-action film, Howard decided to have different musical themes for the cultures of the surface world and Atlantis. In the case of Atlantis, Howard chose an Indonesian orchestral sound incorporating chimes, bells, and gongs. The directors told Howard that the film would have a number of key scenes without dialogue; the score would need to convey emotionally what the viewer was seeing on screen.[64] Gary Rydstrom and his team at Skywalker Sound were hired for the film's sound production.[65] Like Howard, Rydstrom employed different sounds for the two cultures. Focusing on the machine and mechanical sounds of the early industrial era for the explorers, he felt that the Atlanteans should have a "more organic" sound utilizing ceramics and pottery. The sound made by the Atlantean flying-fish vehicles posed a particular challenge. Rydstrom revealed that he was sitting at the side of a highway recording one day when a semi-truck drove by at high speed. When the recording was sped up on his computer, he felt it sounded very organic, and decided to use it in the film. Rydstrom created the harmonic chiming of the Heart of Atlantis by rubbing his finger along the edge of a champagne flute, the sound of sub-pods moving through the water with a water pick, while a ceramic pot from a garden store was used for the sounds of the movement of the Giant stone guardians.[66] Release Atlantis: The Lost Empire had its world premiere at Disney's El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood, Los Angeles, on June 3, 2001[67] and a limited release in New York City and Los Angeles on June 8; a wider release followed on June 15.[4][61] At the premiere, Destination: Atlantis was on display, featuring behind-the-scenes props from the film and information on the legend of Atlantis with video games, displays, laser tag, and other attractions. The Aquarium of the Pacific also loaned a variety of fish for display within the attraction.[68] Promotion Atlantis was among Disney's first major attempts to utilize internet marketing. The film was promoted through Kellogg's, which created a website with mini-games and a movie-based video game give-away for UPC labels from specially marked packages of Atlantis breakfast cereal.[50] The film was one of Disney's first marketing attempts through mobile network operators, and allowed users to download games based on the film.[69] McDonald's (which had an exclusive licensing agreement on all Disney releases) promoted the film with Happy Meal toys, food packaging and in-store decor. The McDonald's advertising campaign involved television, radio, and print advertisements beginning on the film's release date.[70] Frito-Lay offered free admission tickets for the film on specially marked snack packages.[71] Home media Atlantis: The Lost Empire was released on VHS and DVD on January 29, 2002.[72] During the first month of its home release, the film led in VHS sales and was third in VHS and DVD sales combined.[73] Sales and rentals of the VHS and DVD combined would eventually accumulate $157 million in revenue by mid-2003.[74] Both a single-disc DVD edition and a two-disc collector's edition (with bonus features) were released. The single-disc DVD gave the viewer the option of viewing the film either in its original theatrical 2.39:1 aspect ratio or a modified 1.33:1 ratio (utilizing pan and scan). Bonus features available on the DVD version included audio and visual commentary from the film team, a virtual tour of the CGI models, an Atlantean-language tutorial, an encyclopedia on the myth of Atlantis, and the deleted Viking prologue scene.[72] The two-disc collector's edition DVD contained all the single-disc features and a disc with supplemental material detailing all aspects of the film's production. The collector's-edition film could only be viewed in its original theatrical ratio, and also featured an optional DTS 5.1 track. Both DVD versions, however, contained a Dolby Digital 5.1 track and were THX certified.[72][75] Disney digitally remastered and released Atlantis on Blu-ray on June 11, 2013, bundled with its sequel Atlantis: Milo's Return.[76] Reception Box office Before the film's release, reporters speculated that it would have a difficult run due to competition from Shrek and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. Regarding the market's shift from traditional animation and competition with CG-animated films, Kirk Wise said, "Any traditional animator, including myself, can't help but feel a twinge. I think it always comes down to story and character, and one form won't replace the other. Just like photography didn't replace painting. But maybe I'm blind to it."[61] Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly noted that CGI films (such as Shrek) were more likely to attract the teenage demographic typically not interested in animation, and called Atlantis a "marketing and creative gamble".[77] With a budget of $100 million,[3] the film opened at #2 on its debut weekend, behind Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, earning $20.3 million in 3,011 theaters.[78] During its second weekend, it would drop into fourth place behind the latter film, Dr. Dolittle 2 and The Fast and the Furious, making $13.2 million.[79] The film's international release began September 20 in Australia and other markets followed suit.[80] During its 25-week theatrical run, Atlantis: The Lost Empire grossed over $186 million worldwide ($84 million from the United States and Canada).[4] Responding to its disappointing box-office performance, Thomas Schumacher, then-president of Walt Disney Feature Animation, said, "It seemed like a good idea at the time to not do a sweet fairy tale, but we missed."[81] Critical response Atlantis: The Lost Empire received mixed reviews from critics,[82][83][84] many of whom criticized its story.[85] The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reports that 48% of 144 professional critics have given Atlantis: The Lost Empire a positive review; the average rating is 5.5/10. The site's consensus is: "Atlantis provides a fast-paced spectacle, but stints on such things as character development and a coherent plot".[86] Metacritic assigned the film a weighted average score of 52 out of 100 based on 29 reviews from critics, indicating "mixed or average" reviews.[87] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale.[88] While critics had mixed reactions to the film in general, some praised it for its visuals, action-adventure elements, and attempt to appeal to an older audience. Roger Ebert gave Atlantis three-and-a-half stars out of four. He praised the animation's "clean bright visual look" and the "classic energy of the comic book style", crediting this to the work of Mike Mignola. Ebert gave particular praise to the story and the final battle scene and wrote, "The story of Atlantis is rousing in an old pulp science fiction sort of way, but the climactic scene transcends the rest, and stands by itself as one of the great animated action sequences."[89] In The New York Times, Elvis Mitchell gave high praise to the film, calling it "a monumental treat", and stated, "Atlantis is also one of the most eye-catching Disney cartoons since Uncle Walt institutionalized the four-fingered glove."[90] Internet film critic James Berardinelli wrote a positive review of the film, giving it three out of four stars. He wrote, "On the whole, Atlantis offers 90 minutes of solid entertainment, once again proving that while Disney may be clueless when it comes to producing good live-action movies, they are exactly the opposite when it comes to their animated division."[91] Wesley Morris of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote positively of the film's approach for an older audience: "But just beneath the surface, Atlantis brims with adult possibility."[92] Other critics felt that the film was mediocre in regards to its story and characters, and that it failed to deliver as a non-musical to Disney's traditional audience. Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a C+ rating, writing that the film had "gee-whiz formulaic character" and was "the essence of craft without dream".[93] Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times said the storyline and characterizations were "old-fashioned" and the film had the retrograde look of a Saturday-morning cartoon, but these deficiencies were offset by its "brisk action" and frantic pace.[94] Todd McCarthy of Variety wrote, "Disney pushes into all-talking, no-singing, no-dancing and, in the end, no-fun animated territory."[95] Stephanie Zacharek of Salon wrote of Disney's attempt to make the film for an adult audience, "The big problem with Disney's latest animated feature, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, is that it doesn't seem geared to kids at all: It's so adult that it's massively boring."[96] Rita Kempley of The Washington Post panned the film, calling it a "new-fashioned but old-fangled hash" and wrote, "Ironically Disney had hoped to update its image with this mildly diverting adventure, yet the picture hasn't really broken away from the tried-and-true format spoofed in the far superior Shrek."[97] In 2015, Katharine Trendacosta at io9 reviewed the film and called it a "Beautiful Gem of a Movie That Deserved Better Than It Got" and said that the film deserves more love than it ended up getting.[6] Lindsay Teal considers "Atlantis" to be "a lost Disney classic". Describing the film as highly entertaining, she praises the writing and characterisation – in particular, Sweet, Helga and Kida.[7] In particular, much praise has been given to the character of Kida.[98] Summer has regarded the character of Kida as one of her favourite roles and even considers the character among the official Disney Princess line-up. Themes and interpretations Several critics and scholars have noted that Atlantis plays strongly on themes of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism. M. Keith Booker, academic and author of studies about the implicit messages conveyed by media, views the character of Rourke as being motivated by "capitalist greed" when he pursues "his own financial gain" in spite of the knowledge that "his theft [of the crystal] will lead to the destruction of [Atlantis]".[99] Religion journalist Mark Pinsky, in his exploration of moral and spiritual themes in popular Disney films, says that "it is impossible to read the movie ... any other way" than as "a devastating, unrelenting attack on capitalism and American imperialism".[100] Max Messier of FilmCritic.com observes, "Disney even manages to lambast the capitalist lifestyle of the adventurers intent on uncovering the lost city. Damn the imperialists!"[101] According to Booker, the film also "delivers a rather segregationist moral" by concluding with the discovery of the Atlanteans kept secret from other surface-dwellers in order to maintain a separation between the two highly divergent cultures.[102] Others saw Atlantis as an interesting look at utopian philosophy of the sort found in classic works of science fiction by H. G. Wells and Jules Verne.[103] Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water controversy When the film was released, some viewers noticed that Atlantis: The Lost Empire was similar to the 1990-91 anime Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water, particularly in its character design, setting, and story.[104] The similarities, as noted by viewers in both Japan and America, were strong enough for its production company Gainax to be called to sue for plagiarism. According to Gainax member Yasuhiro Takeda, they only refrained from doing so because the decision belonged to parent companies NHK and Toho.[105] Another Gainax worker, Hiroyuki Yamaga, was quoted in an interview in 2000 as saying: "We actually tried to get NHK to pick a fight with Disney, but even the National Television Network of Japan didn't dare to mess with Disney and their lawyers. [...] We actually did say that but we wouldn't actually take them to court. We would be so terrified about what they would do to them in return that we wouldn't dare."[105] Although Disney never responded formally to those claims, co-director Kirk Wise posted on a Disney animation newsgroup in May 2001, "Never heard of Nadia till it was mentioned in this [newsgroup]. Long after we'd finished production, I might add." He claimed both Atlantis and Nadia were inspired, in part, by the 1870 Jules Verne novel Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas.[106] However, speaking about the clarification, Lee Zion from Anime News Network wrote, "There are too many similarities not connected with 20,000 Leagues for the whole thing to be coincidence."[107] As such, the whole affair ultimately entered popular culture as a convincing case of plagiarism.[108][109][110] In 2018, Reuben Baron from Comic Book Resources added to Zion's comment stating, "Verne didn't specifically imagine magic crystal-based technology, something featured in both the Disney movie and the too similar anime. The Verne inspiration also doesn't explain the designs being suspiciously similar to Nadia's."[110] Critics also saw parallels with the 1986 film Laputa: Castle in the Sky from Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli (which also featured magic crystals, and Atlantis directors Trousdale and Wise both acknowledged Miyazaki's works as a major influence on their own work)[104] and with the 1994 film Stargate as Milo's characteristics were said to resemble those of Daniel Jackson, the protagonist of Stargate and its spinoff television series Stargate SG-1 — which coincidentally launched its own spinoff, titled Stargate Atlantis; the plot of the 1994 film is also paralleled involving a group visiting an unknown world, a fictional language made for the other world's people, the main protagonist having apparent knowledge of the people's culture, falling in love with one of the female locals and electing to stay behind when the others return home.[111] Accolades Award Category Name Result 29th Annie Awards[112] Individual Achievement in Directing Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise Nominated Individual Achievement in Storyboarding Chris Ure Nominated Individual Achievement in Production Design David Goetz Nominated Individual Achievement in Effects Animation Marlon West Nominated Individual Achievement in Voice Acting – Female Florence Stanley Nominated Individual Achievement in Voice Acting – Male Leonard Nimoy Nominated Individual Achievement for Music Score James Newton Howard Nominated 2002 DVD Exclusive Awards[113] Original Retrospective Documentary Michael Pellerin Nominated 2002 Golden Reel Award[114] Best Sound Editing – Animated Feature Film Gary Rydstrom, Michael Silvers, Mary Helen Leasman, John K. Carr, Shannon Mills, Ken Fischer, David C. Hughes, and Susan Sanford Won Online Film Critics Society Awards 2001[115] Best Animated Feature Nominated 2002 Political Film Society[116] Democracy Nominated Human Rights Nominated Peace Nominated World Soundtrack Awards[117] Best Original Song for Film Diane Warren and James Newton Howard Nominated Young Artist Awards[118] Best Feature Family Film – Drama Walt Disney Feature Animation Nominated Related works Main article: Atlantis (franchise) Atlantis: The Lost Empire was meant to inspire an animated television series entitled Team Atlantis, which would have presented the further adventures of its characters. The series would have been akin to an animated steampunk version of The X-Files and feature a crossover with Gargoyles. However, because of the film's underperformance at the box office, the series was not produced.[119] On May 20, 2003, Disney released a direct-to-video sequel titled Atlantis: Milo's Return, consisting of three episodes planned for the aborted series.[120] Disneyland planned to revive its Submarine Voyage ride with an Atlantis: The Lost Empire theme with elements from the movie. These plans were canceled and the attraction was re-opened in 2007 as the Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage, its theme based on the 2003 Pixar film Finding Nemo, which was far more successful commercially and critically.[121] In addition, after the Submarine Voyage's Magic Kingdom counterpart, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Submarine Voyage, closed down in 1994, four years before Disneyland's, there were proposals of a new attraction that would take its place, with one of them a volcano attraction inspired by that film's Vulcania location, being approved for the Magic Kingdom's Adventureland area. Around 1999, during development of Atlantis: The Lost Empire, it was decided that it would be themed to the movie, with it taking place in 1916, two years after the film's events. The ride would have focused on Preston Whitmore, a character from the film, seeking to make Atlantis existence public and offer expeditions to visitors in newly developed vehicles. However, due to mishaps, the vehicles would be forced to make a detour through the lava-filled caverns of the volcano. The attraction would have used a unique hybrid ride system, in which it would start as a standard coaster before the trains hook up to a suspended track midway through to fly through the caverns. The attraction would have been accessed by a new canyon path in between Pirates of the Caribbean and a re-routed Jungle Cruise that would have led to a Whitmore Enterprises base camp at the edge of the Walt Disney World Railroad path, with the mountain itself being built outside the berm. However, like the previous Submarine Voyage retheme, the ride was cancelled due to the film's disappointment in the box office.[122]

Register for the 2016 INTA Annual Meeting at https://inta.org !! In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, I spoke with Deborah Hampton, President of the International Trademark Association (INTA) and Global Brand Enforcement and Trademark Team Leader at the Chemours Company. I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 173 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Deborah Hampton. She is the Global Brand Enforcement & Trademark Team Leader at The Chemours Company and is currently serving as the president of the International Trademarks Association. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you: The US Department of Justice and the USPTO filed a joint statement supporting the right of Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) to seek injunctions against patent infringers. This position challenges established post-eBay case law, which has made it difficult for NPEs to obtain injunctive relief. The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that security for costs can be provided through specialized insurance policies. This significantly lowers the financial barriers to bringing patent actions at the UPC, as companies no longer need to deposit large amounts of liquid capital as security. Huawei has filed a new lawsuit at UPC Mannheim against twelve Walt Disney Group companies (Ref. UPC-CFL-0000352/2026), asserting EP 3 211 897 relating to transform coefficient coding under the HEVC standard used by Disney+. Two additional suits were filed at Munich Regional Court I. In a parallel action, Huawei is suing Meta and Facebook at the UPC over EP 3 471 419, covering video compression in end devices. This continues Huawei’s strategy of pressuring streaming and platform providers into licensing its SEP portfolios. In a landmark first, the UPC Court of Appeal has referred a legal question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ): whether the UPC has jurisdiction over defendants without a seat in a UPC member state, provided a co-defendant is domiciled within the UPC territory (“long-arm jurisdiction”). The case arose from a dispute between Dyson and Chinese competitor Dreame; the first-instance injunction was simultaneously extended to cover newer Dreame hair dryers. For German companies, this signals a gradual expansion of UPC jurisdiction beyond its territorial borders, with significant implications for cross-border patent strategy. And now let's jump into the interview with Deborah Hampton: Our conversation covered one central question:How must intellectual property enforcement evolve in a world that is more global, digital, and complex than ever before? A Career Built on Intellectual Property Deborah Hampton has spent more than four decades in the field of intellectual property. She began her career as a paralegal in a small IP firm in New York and quickly discovered her passion for the subject. Over the years, IP has taken her around the world. She has worked with leading professionals, governments, and institutions. Her experience reflects a key truth: IP is not a narrow legal discipline. It is a global ecosystem that connects law, business, innovation, and policy. Counterfeiting: A Much Bigger Problem Than Many Think One of the key topics in our discussion was counterfeiting. Many people still see counterfeit goods as a minor issue—cheap handbags or fake T-shirts bought on holiday. But the reality is far more serious. Counterfeiting creates real risks for consumers because products often bypass safety and quality standards. It damages trust in brands and undermines legitimate marketplaces, especially online. The economic impact is also significant. Companies lose revenue, innovation slows down, and jobs are affected. Smaller businesses suffer the most because they often lack the resources to fight counterfeiting effectively. Perhaps most concerning is the link to organized crime. Counterfeiting is not an isolated activity. It is often part of larger illegal networks. From Deborah Hampton's perspective, effective enforcement must address both supply and demand. That includes stronger border measures, better online enforcement, and, importantly, consumer education. The Core Problem: Fragmentation in IP Enforcement A central theme of the interview was fragmentation. Many companies approach IP protection in silos. Legal teams, cybersecurity experts, business units, and external advisors often work separately. Even when they pursue the same goal, their efforts are not aligned. This leads to inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and unnecessary risks. To address this, Deborah Hampton has launched a Presidential Task Force at INTA. The goal is to create a unified approach to IP protection and enforcement. The idea is simple but powerful:Bring all stakeholders together and align strategy, enforcement, and measurement. This includes not only companies and their advisors but also regulators, courts, customs authorities, and IP offices. Only a coordinated approach can effectively address global challenges like counterfeiting. The Changing Role of IP Professionals Another important insight is how the role of IP professionals is changing. In the past, IP work was often reactive and focused on legal protection. Today, expectations are much higher. IP professionals are now expected to: Act as strategic advisors to the business Align IP with commercial goals Manage global and digital portfolios Use data to make better decisions At the same time, new technologies such as artificial intelligence are transforming how IP is managed and enforced. These tools create efficiencies but also raise new legal and strategic questions. Budget constraints add another layer of complexity. Teams must achieve more with fewer resources. In short, IP professionals must become more strategic, more integrated, and more business-focused. Why the INTA Annual Meeting Matters We also discussed the upcoming INTA Annual Meeting in London. For many in the field, this event is the most important gathering of the year. It brings together more than 10,000 professionals from around 140 jurisdictions. According to Deborah Hampton, the value lies in three areas: First, the return on investment is exceptionally high. The combination of education, networking, and business development is difficult to replicate elsewhere. Second, the educational program is extensive. It covers law, policy, technology, and the business of intangible assets. Third, the networking opportunities are unmatched. The meeting creates a unique environment where a year's worth of work can be done in a single week. At the same time, Hampton addressed a sensitive issue: attending without registering. She made it clear that this practice undermines the entire system. Without proper support from participants, events like this would not be possible. A Clear Message for the Future If there is one key takeaway from the conversation, it is this: Intellectual property protection must become more coordinated, more strategic, and more closely aligned with business objectives. The challenges are growing. Counterfeiting is more sophisticated. Markets are more global. Technology is changing rapidly. But the opportunity is also clear. By breaking down silos and working together across functions and borders, companies can protect their IP more effectively and create real value. For IP professionals, this means stepping into a broader role. Not just as legal experts, but as strategic partners in the business. Rolf Claessen: Today’s guest on the IP Fridays podcast is Deborah Hampton. If you don’t know Deborah, she’s the global brand and enforcement and trademark team leader at the Chemours company and is currently serving as the president of the International Trademark Association. Thank you for being on our podcast IP Fridays, Deborah. Deborah A. Hampton: Thank you. Thank you for having me. Rolf Claessen: So you have been in the field of IP for more than 25 years now. How did you get there and where did it lead to you? Deborah A. Hampton: I’ve actually been an IP practitioner for 43 years. I started at a small IP firm in New York; it was my first paralegal position, and I fell in love with IP from the very beginning. This field has allowed me to travel the world meeting some amazing and brilliant colleagues as well as high-ranking government, judicial, and IPO officials. I’ve also worked extremely hard to stay abreast of trends, statutes, precedent cases, and practices that enhance the way we do our jobs. Rolf Claessen: Wow. That sounds really exciting. I didn’t know you’ve been in the field so long. Great to hear that. So I’m personally very interested in the fight against counterfeit goods. Why, in your personal opinion, is it so important to fight counterfeit goods? Maybe you can share your thoughts on why it is important and a little bit about how you do it. Deborah A. Hampton: There are a number of factors that I always take into consideration when it comes to counterfeit goods. Starting with consumer safety, counterfeits often bypass safety and quality standards, putting consumers at real risk. Then there’s consumer trust; fake goods undermine confidence in brands and legitimate marketplaces, especially online. Economic harm is another factor; counterfeiting drains revenue from lawful businesses, weakens innovation, and ultimately costs jobs. Smaller businesses (SMEs) are hit the hardest because they lack resources to combat fakes at scale. The factor that scares me the most is organized crime, as counterfeiting fuels criminal networks and is linked to broader illicit activity. There is also the issue of fair competition, where fake goods distort markets by undercutting compliant, responsible producers. Finally, strong enforcement protects the integrity of the IP system and the trademarks that drive investment, innovation, and growth. It is important to combat the production, sale, and demand for counterfeit goods. At INTA, our anti-counterfeiting priorities focus on customs and border measures, criminal enforcement, online counterfeiting, and consumer education. Our Anti-Counterfeiting Committee leads initiatives to address the production and sale of fakes by monitoring worldwide developments in treaties and legislation and proposing policy recommendations to the board. We also partner with stakeholders to promote cooperation across agencies and borders. Additionally, the Unreal Campaign Committee addresses the demand for counterfeit goods by educating young consumers ages 14 to 23 about the importance of brands and the dangers of fakes. I remember being that age and wanting low-priced goods that looked good, but now I realize I probably wasn’t always getting genuine products. Rolf Claessen: Yes, that helps me explain to friends who buy fake clothes on holiday in Turkey and don’t realize the harm they are doing. You’re also on the presidential task force for unifying IP protection and enforcement strategy. Can you tell us more about who is part of this task force and what the agenda is? Deborah A. Hampton: When I was nominated to become an officer, I immediately wondered what my presidential task force topic would be and what I would wear for the opening ceremonies. The 2026 task force is titled “Unifying Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Strategy”. The goal is to eliminate value leakage and risk caused by fragmented approaches to IP protection. We want to deliver a unified global operating model that aligns strategy and enforcement, allowing organizations to work smarter and quantify their impact across all jurisdictions. Many organizations, including my own, currently operate in disconnected silos that sometimes work at cross purposes. The challenge is to maintain internal coordination across all intangible-related aspects. We have many stakeholders—business, security, cybersecurity, outside counsel, customers, the judiciary, and IPOs—all striving for the same goal, but the road we take is not always unified. I hope to build a strong cross-functional partnership focused on protecting all forms of IP, including patents and designs, not just brands. Rolf Claessen: Right, IP includes patents and designs and everything. Most importantly, you are this year's INTA president. What is your agenda for the year and what do you want people in the field to realize? Deborah A. Hampton: As president, I chair the board and steward our strategy and governance. I am also an ambassador, representing INTA globally to IPOs and government officials. My agenda has three pillars. First is the 2026–2029 Strategic Plan, which is the roadmap for our future. Second is my Presidential Task Force on unifying IP strategies. Third is volunteer mobilization; with a new committee structure in 2026, I want to energize our volunteers and recognize their contributions. I want people in the field to prioritize mentorship and professional development for the next generation. We need to ensure young practitioners are prepared to lead. I also want them to embrace the unified approach to IP protection we are advocating. Rolf Claessen: That's a powerful vision. Thank you so much for sharing your insights and for the work you’re doing with INTA. Deborah A. Hampton: Thank you again for the opportunity. I really enjoyed the interview

Send us Fan MailAmazon FBA stranded inventory issue where listings stay live but show backend errors affecting catalog and sales tracking. Learn how sellers are fixing stranded inventory using flat file updates, resolving listing errors, and checking UPC data issues. Step by step process to handle Amazon inventory glitches, seller support tickets, and restore proper FBA inventory status fast.Stop letting hidden Amazon errors drain your sales, get a real fix from experts who deal with this daily: https://bit.ly/4jMZtxu#AmazonFBA #AmazonSeller #InventoryManagement #EcommerceTips #Amazonfbanews--------------------------------------------------------------------------Want free resources? Dowload our Free Amazon guides here:Growth Email Marketing Strategies: https://hubs.ly/Q04457QF0Amazon Proft Margin Defense 2026: https://hubs.ly/Q042trRH0Amazon SEO Toolkit 2026: https://bit.ly/4oC2ClTAmazon Seller Strategy Report 2026: https://bit.ly/3YN1RME2026 Ecommerce Website & SEO Readiness Checklist: https://hubs.ly/Q040Jg0M0Amazon Crisis Kit: https://bit.ly/4maWHn0Timestamps00:00 - Amazon stranded inventory issue overview00:18 - Inventory marked stranded across multiple brands00:34 - Listings still live and selling under FBA00:46 - Why this is likely a backend catalog issue01:00 - Common listing error and false flag problem01:11 - Fix using full flat file update01:27 - Check UPC and listing data accuracy01:45 - Why sales are not affected (yet)--------------------------------------------------------------------------Follow us:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28605816/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/stevenpopemag/Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/myamazonguys/Twitter: https://twitter.com/myamazonguySubscribe to the My Amazon Guy podcast:My Amazon Guy podcast: https://podcast.myamazonguy.comApple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-amazon-guy/id1501974229Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4A5ASHGGfr6s4wWNQIqyVwSupport the show

Un nuevo episodio del podcast de Penalty Stroke con Arnau De Bruijn (Barcelona, 1997). Arnau inició su andadura en el mundo del hockey hierba en el Atlètic de Terrassa . También ha jugado en la Complutense y en el Hockey Junior. Actualmente juega en el Real Club de Polo de Barcelona.En paralelo a su trayectoria deportiva ha estudiado el Grado en Ingeniería Electrónica Industrial y Automática por la UPC de Barcelona y actualmente trabaja en Minsait.¡Gracias Arnau!

El proper 16 de març començaran unes obres de reparació i protecció de la infraestructura en un túnel i dos viaductes en el tram ferroviari entre Sitges i Garraf per tal de preservar la línia. El projecte s'allargarà tres mesos i tenen un pressupost de 3milions d'euros i obligarà a que tots els trens en el tram Sitges-Garraf passin només per una sola via fet que reduirà, inevitablement, el servei actual de trens. Aquesta però no serà l'única obra, es preveu a curt termini una actuació més gran que s'allargarà anys que construirà una nova infraestructura i que inicialment preveu ampliar el túnel de muntanya per fer-hi circular les dues vies i deixar el del mar com a galeria o via verda. A l'espera que es concreti l'actuació però sabent què és necessària per tal d'adaptar la infraestructura a la normativa europea n'hem parlat amb el coordinador del Grau en Enginyeria Elèctrica i Sistemes Ferroviaris de l'UPC de Vilanova, Lluís Monjo, que ha assegurat que tenim una correcta xarxa ferroviària, eficaç i segura tot i que el futur immediat requerirà de la paciència dels usuaris degut a les obres. Parlem de trens, de xarxa ferroviària i del futur laboral pròsper que els espera als estudiants del grau. L'entrada Lluís Monjo, coordinador del Grau d’Enginyeria Elèctrica i Sistemes Ferroviaris de l’UPC: “podem anar tranquils al tren” ha aparegut primer a Radio Maricel.

This episode explores the complex world of will construction, focusing on interpreting legal documents, resolving ambiguities, and applying doctrines like lapse, anti-lapse, redemption, and abatement. Perfect for law students and practitioners, it provides a rigorous framework to analyze estate planning disputes.Most estates spiral into chaos not because of poorly drafted wills, but because of interpretative pitfalls lurking in seemingly straightforward language. If you're a law student cramming for the bar or a practitioner navigating estate disputes, mastering will construction is your secret weapon. This episode unveils the rigorous frameworks, nuanced doctrines, and strategic checklists that decode the complex maze of interpreting, applying, and enforcing wills.Imagine a final testament that's perfectly signed and witnessed—yet, despite initial validity, the estate becomes embroiled in controversy because of ambiguities, unexpected deaths, or missing assets. You'll discover how courts decipher the testator's true intent by meticulously analyzing the language of the will, the context, and the surrounding facts. We break down the core principles: the paramount importance of the testator's intent, the plain meaning rule, and how modern courts admit extrinsic evidence through the lens of patent and latent ambiguities. You'll learn the distinctions between these ambiguities and the strategic use of extrinsic evidence—testimony, documents, or even subjective family details—to resolve confusion.Handling unforeseen events like beneficiaries predeceasing or property vanishing from the estate is where doctrines like lapse, anti-lapse, redemption, and abatement come into play. You'll understand the crucial classification of gifts—specific, general, demonstrative, and residuary—and how each category influences the outcome in cases of missing property or insufficient assets. The episode highlights how modern law, especially in UPC jurisdictions, shifts from rigid rules toward flexible doctrines like intent-based reformations and exceptions for conservatorship sales or insurance claims, emphasizing that context and purpose matter.Navigation becomes even more critical with class gifts—the dynamic groups that can change membership over time. Learn the rules for class closure, how lapse and anti-lapse intersect within groups, and the subtle distinctions that determine whether a gift results in a beneficiary windfall or falls to the estate. We provide a step-by-step methodology, a precise checklist to analyze every gift systematically: classify, survive, apply anti-lapse, verify assets, resolve ambiguities, address insolvency, and finally, distribute.The stakes are high—misinterpretations can unravel millions in assets, igniting fragile family relationships. This episode arms you with the analytical rigor and tactical precision to untangle even the most tangled estate puzzles. Perfect for exam prep or real-world application, this deep dive transforms abstract doctrines into a practical decision tree. When the legal code becomes a labyrinth, follow this blueprint, and you'll decode it every time.Whether it's a meticulously drafted will or a family feud in the making, understanding these doctrines ensures you can construct, interpret, and defend testamentary plans with confidence. Legally, wills are more than mere documents—they're complex codes encoded in words, actions, and contexts. Unlock their secrets with this essential guide to will construction mastery.TakeawaysAlways classify each gift before analysis.Survivorship must be at least 120 hours to avoid lapsing.Anti-lapse statutes protect close relatives with surviving issue.Specific gifts are subject to redemption if the asset is missing.Abatement prioritizes intestacy, residuary, then general and specific gifts.Will construction, estate planning, legal interpretation, anti-lapse, lapse, redemption, abatement, trust law, probate, legal analysis

When the State Writes Your WillThis episode explores the complexities of intestate succession, the default legal framework for estate distribution when no will exists. It covers key concepts like spouse rights, representation systems, family structures, and legal nuances that impact inheritance.What happens when the law's idea of family clashes with real-life bonds? If you died without a will, would your assets truly go to who you want— or just who the law presumes?This episode unpacks intestate succession, revealing how the default system can reshape your legacy based on outdated notions of family, bloodlines, and formal marriage. Discover how courts interpret complex relationships— from cohabitation and stepfamilies to non-marital kids and adoption— and the chaos that can ensue when legal assumptions meet modern realities.You'll learn:The surprising truth behind who qualifies as a spouse at death—and why legal separation might keep your ex in the will even after you divorce.How intestacy rules handle children from previous relationships, and why the “non-shared kid” can drastically cut a surviving spouse's inheritance— and how policy choices prioritize blood over bonds.The three methods of distributing property among descendants: strict per stirpes, modern per stirpes, and the more equitable UPC system of per capita at each generation— and why choosing the wrong one on exam could cost you crucial points.The significance of simultaneous death rules— including the 120-hour survival requirement— preventing double probate and ensuring assets flow properly to heirs.Deep dives into representation systems— how the law divides assets among grandchildren, half-siblings, and even “laughing heirs” (those who inherit without a second thought)— and how these rules can create paradoxical outcomes.Critical legal concepts like adoption (full, step, equitable), paternity, non-marital children, and posthumous reproduction— bringing modern family structures into the estate law frame.The deadly impact of the Slayer Rule: killers cannot inherit, and how the law applies standards of proof that are lower in civil probate courts— meaning a criminal acquittal doesn't automatically clear the way for inheritance.The importance of adjustments— advancements, disinheritance, and disclaimers— and how they ensure your estate plan aligns with your actual wishes.Why does all this matter? Because intestate succession operates quietly in the background, ready to implement a version of your estate that may be far from what you intended. If you don't craft your own will, the state's script takes over— a rigid, mechanical plan based on outdated assumptions.Perfect for estate law students, lawyers, or anyone planning for the future— mastering intestacy equips you to navigate complex family realities and protect your legacy. Will your assets go to the right people—or be left behind by default? The choice is yours, but only if you understand how the law works when no one writes the story.Get ready for a deep dive into the silent partner of all estate plans— because knowing these rules is key to ensuring your true intentions survive your passing.Key TopicsIntestate succession processSpouse and family rights under lawRepresentation systems for heirsLegal treatment of non-traditional familiesBars and adjustments to inheritanceIntestate succession, estate planning, inheritance laws, family law, probate, legal estate distribution, UPC, intestacy rules, inheritance traps, estate planning tips

With war raging in the Middle East, it's crucial for Canadians to stay informed about the underlying motives of leaders like Trump and the responses from figures like Prime Minister Mark Carney. Host Laura Babcock takes a moment to shed light on these vital issues that affect our global standing and internal unity. But it doesn't stop there. Laura is joined by Rahki Pancholi, the Deputy NDP Leader in Alberta, to confront the troubling rhetoric coming from Premier Danielle Smith. We must not ignore the blatant racism and anti-immigrant sentiments that are seeping into our political discourse, led by those catering to separatist agendas and endorsing creeping fascism within UPC policies.Now, more than ever, we need to remain vigilant and informed. Share this message widely, subscribe for timely updates, and let's unite in the fight to protect our democracy. Our collective voice can make a difference! Join us in standing against divisive politics and ensuring a fair and just Canada for all, and let's protect our democracy! #alberta #trump #canadanews #canadastrong #carney #ontario #canada #iran #epsteinfiles #EpsteinWar #forevercanadian #fascism #democracy #markcarneyAn independent podcast, the best way to support our work is by subscribing. Let's build our pro democracy community! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I welcome you to Episode 172 of our podcast IP Fridays. Today's interview guests are Co-Founder & CEO of Inception Point AI, Jeanine Whright, and Mark Stignani, who is Partner & Chair of Analytics Practice at Barnes & Thornburg LLP. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeaninepercivalwright https://www.linkedin.com/in/markstignani Inception Point AI But before the interview I have news for you: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled on Feb 19, 2026, that specialized insurance can cover security for legal costs. This is vital for firms, as it eases litigation financing and lowers financial hurdles for patent lawsuits by removing the need for high liquid assets to enforce rights at the UPC. On Feb 12, 2026, the WIPO Coordination Committee nominated Daren Tang for a second six-year term as Director General. Tang continues modernizing the global IP system, focusing on SMEs, women, and digital transformation. His confirmation in April is considered certain. An AAFA study from Feb 4 reveals 41% of tested fakes (clothing/shoes) failed safety standards. Many contained toxic chemicals like phthalates, BPA, or lead. The study highlights that counterfeiters increasingly use Meta platforms to sell unsafe imitations directly to consumers. China's CNIPA 2026 report announced a crackdown on bad-faith patent and trademark filings. Beyond better examination quality, the agency will sanction shady IP firms and stop strategies violating “good faith” to make China’s IP system more ethical and innovation-friendly. Now, let's hear the interview with Jeanine Whright and Mark Stignani! How AI Is Rewiring Media & Entertainment: Key Takeaways from Ken Suzan's Conversation with Jeanine Wright and Mark Stignani In this IP Fridays interview, Ken Suzan speaks with two repeat guests who look at the same phenomenon from two angles: Jeanine Wright, Co-Founder & CEO of Inception Point AI, as a builder of AI-native entertainment, and Mark Stignani, Partner and Chair of the Analytics Practice at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, as a lawyer advising clients who are trying to use AI without stepping into a legal (or ethical) crater. What emerges is a clear picture: generative AI is not just “another tool.” It is rapidly becoming the default infrastructure for creative work—while the rules around ownership, consent, and accountability lag behind. 1) What “AI-generated personalities” really are (and why that matters) Jeanine's company is not primarily “cloning” real people. Instead, Inception Point AI creates original, fictional personalities—characters with backstories, ambitions, and evolving arcs—then deploys them into the world as podcast hosts and content creators (and eventually actors and musicians). Her key point: the creative work still starts with humans. Writers and creators define the concept, tone, audience, and story engine. What AI changes is speed, cost, and iteration—and therefore what is economically feasible to produce. 2) The “generative content pipeline” isn't a magic button A recurring misconception Ken raises is the idea that someone “pushes a button” and content pops out. Jeanine explains that real production looks more like a hybrid studio: A creative team defines character, voice, format, and storyline. A technical team builds what she calls an “AI orchestration layer” that combines multiple models and tools. The “stack” differs by format: the workflow for a long-form audio drama is different from a short-form beauty clip. This matters because it reframes AI content not as a single output, but as a pipeline decision: which tools, which data sources, which QA, and which governance steps are used—and where human review happens. 3) The biggest legal questions: origin, liability, ownership, and contracts Mark doesn't name a single “top issue.” He describes a cluster of problems that repeatedly show up in client conversations: Training data and “origin story” Clients keep asking: Can I legally use AI output if the tool was trained on copyrighted works? Even if the output looks new, the unease is about whether the tool's capabilities are built on unlicensed inputs. Liability for unintended harm Mark flags risk from AI content that inadvertently infringes, defames, or carries bias. The legal exposure may not match the creator's intent. Ownership and protectability He points to a big gap: many jurisdictions are still reluctant to grant classic IP rights (copyright or patent-style protection) to purely AI-generated material. That creates uncertainty around whether businesses can truly “own” what they produce. Old contracts weren't written for AI A final, practical point: many agreements—talent contracts, author clauses, data licenses—predate generative AI and simply don't address it. That leads to disputes about scope, permissions, and—crucially—indemnities. 4) Are we at a tipping point? The “gold rush” vs. “next creative era” views Jeanine frames AI as “the world's most powerful creative tool”—comparable to previous step-changes like animation, special effects, and CGI. For her, the strategic implication is simple: creators who learn to use AI well will expand what they can build and test, faster than ever. Mark's metaphor is more cautionary: he calls the moment a “gold rush” where technology is sprinting ahead of law. Courts are getting flooded with foundational disputes, while legislation is fragmented—he notes that states may move faster than federal frameworks, and that labor agreements (e.g., union protections) will be a key pressure point. 5) Democratization: more creators, more niche content, more experimentation One of the most concrete themes is access. Jeanine argues AI will: Lower production barriers for independent filmmakers and storytellers. Reduce the need for “hit-making only” economics that dominate Hollywood. Make micro-audience content commercially viable. Her example is intentionally niche: highly localized, specialized content (like a “pollen report” for many markets) that would never have made financial sense before can now exist—and thrive—because the production cost drops and personalization scales. 6) Likeness, consent, and “digital performers”: what happens when AI resembles a real actor? Ken pushes into a sensitive area: what if someone generates a performance that closely resembles a living actor without consent? Mark outlines the current (imperfect) toolbox—because, as he emphasizes, most laws weren't built for this scenario. He points to practical claims that may come into play in the U.S., such as rights of publicity and false endorsement-type theories, and notes that whether something is parody or “too close” can become a major fault line. Jeanine explains her company's operational approach: They focus on original personalities, designed “from scratch.” They build internal checks to avoid misappropriating known names, likenesses, or recognizable identities. If they ever work with real people, the model would be licensing their likeness/voice. A subtle but important business point also appears here: Jeanine expects AI-native characters themselves to become licensable assets—meaning the entertainment economy may expand to include “celebrity rights” for fully synthetic personalities. 7) Ethics: the real line is “deception,” not “AI vs. human” The ethical core of the conversation is not “AI is bad” or “AI is good.” It's how AI is used—especially whether audiences are misled. Mark highlights several ethical risks: Misuse of tools to manipulate faces and content (“AI slop” and political misuse). Displacement of creative workers without adequate transition support. A concern that AI often optimizes toward “statistical averages,” potentially flattening originality. Jeanine agrees ethics must be designed into the system. She describes regular discussions with an ethicist and emphasizes a principle: transparency. Her company discloses when content or personalities are AI-generated. She argues that if people understand what they're engaging with and choose it knowingly, the ethical problem shifts from “AI exists” to “Are we tricking people?” Mark adds a real-world warning: deepfakes are now credible enough to enable serious fraud—he references a case-like scenario where a synthetic video meeting deceived an employee into authorizing a payment. The point is clear: authenticity and verification are no longer optional. 8) The “dead actor” hypothetical: legal permission vs. moral intent Ken raises a provocative scenario: an actor's estate authorizes an AI-generated new performance, but the actor opposed such technology while alive. Neither guest offers a simplistic answer. Jeanine suggests that even if the estate holds legal rights, a company might choose to avoid such content out of respect and because the ethical “overhang” could damage the storytelling outcome. She also notes the harder question: people who died before today's capabilities may never have been able to meaningfully consent to what AI can now do—raising questions about how we interpret legacy intent. Mark underscores the practical contract problem: many rights are drafted “in perpetuity,” but that doesn't automatically settle the ethical question. 9) Five-year forecast: “AI everywhere,” but audiences may stratify Ken closes with a prediction question: in five years, how much entertainment content will significantly involve AI—and will audiences care? Jeanine predicts AI becomes the default creative layer for most content creation. Mark is slightly more conservative on the percentage, but adds an important nuance: the market will likely stratify. Low-cost, high-volume content may become saturated with AI, while premium segments may emphasize “human-made” as a differentiator—especially if disclosure norms become standard. Bottom line for business leaders and creators This interview lands on a pragmatic conclusion: AI will change how content is made at scale, and the competitive edge will go to teams that combine creative taste, operational discipline, and legal/ethical governance. If you're building, commissioning, or distributing content, the questions you can't dodge anymore are: What's the provenance of the tools and data you rely on? Who is responsible when output harms, infringes, or misleads? What rights can you actually claim in AI-assisted work? Do your contracts and disclosures match the new reality? Ken Suzan: Thank you, Rolf. We have two returning guests to the IP Friday’s podcast. Joining me today is Janine Wright and Mark Stignani. Our topic for discussion, how is AI transforming the media and entertainment industries today? We look at the issues from differing perspectives. A bit about our guests, Janine Wright is a seasoned board member, CEO, global COO and CFO. She’s led organizations from startup to a $475 million plus revenue subsidiary of a public company. She excels in growth strategy, adopting innovative technologies, scaling operations and financial management. Janine is a media and entertainment attorney and trial litigator turned technologist and qualified financial expert. She is the co-founder and CEO of Inception Point AI, a growing company that is paving new ground with AI-generated personalities and content through developing technology and story. Mark Stignani is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg LLP and is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is the chair of the data analytics department with a particular emphasis on artificial intelligence, machine learning, cryptocurrency and ESG. Mark combines the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning with his skills as a corporate and IP counsel to deliver unparalleled insights and strategies to his clients. Welcome, Janine and Mark to the IP Friday’s podcast. Jeanine Whright: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me and fun to be back. It feels nostalgic to be here. Ken Suzan: That’s right. And you both were on the program. So it’s fantastic that you’re both back again. So our format, I’m going to ask a question to Janine and or Mark and sometimes to both of you. So that’s going to be how we proceed. Let’s jump right in. Janine, your company creates AI-generated actors. For listeners who may not be familiar, can you briefly explain what that means and what’s now possible that wasn’t even two years ago? Jeanine Whright: Sure. Yeah, we are creating AI-generated personalities. So new characters, new personalities from scratch. We design who these personalities are and will be, how they will evolve. So we give them complex backstories. We give them hopes and dreams and aspirations. We every aspect of them, their families, how they’re going to evolve. And in the same way that, say, you know, Disney designs the character for its next animated feature or, you know, an electronic arts designs a character for its next major video game. We are doing that for these personalities and then we are launching them into the world as podcast hosts, content creators on social platforms like YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. And even in the future, you know, actors in feature length films, musicians, etc. Ken Suzan: Very fascinating. Mark, from your practice, what’s the single biggest legal question or dispute you’re seeing clients wrestle with when it comes to AI and media creation? Mark Stignani: Well, I think that, you know, it’s not just one thing, it’s like four things. But most of them tend to be kind of the origin story of AI data or AI tools that they use because, you know, but for the use of AI tools trained on copyrighted materials, the tools wouldn’t really exist in their current form. So a lot of my clients are wondering about, you know, can I legally use this output if it’s built upon somebody else’s IP? The second ask, the second flavor of that is really, is there liability being created if I take AI content that inadvertently infringes or defames or biases there? So there’s the whole notion of training bias from the training materials that comes out. The third phase is really, you know, can I really own this? Because much of the world does not really give IP rights into AI-generated inventions, copyrighted materials. It’s still kind of a big razor. Then at the end of the day, you know, if it’s an existing relationship, does my contract even contemplate this? So everything from authors contracts on up to just use of data rights that predate AI. Ken Suzan: And Janine and Mark, a question to both of you. How would you describe where we are right now in the AI revolution in media and entertainment? Are we approaching a tipping point? And if so, what are the things we need to watch for? Jeanine Whright: Yeah, I definitely think that we’re at a phase where people are starting to come to the realization that AI is the world’s most powerful creative tool. But that, you know, storytelling and point of view is what creates demand and audiences. And AI doesn’t threaten or change that. But it does mean that as people evolve in this medium, they’re very likely going to need to adopt, utilize and figure out how to hone their craft with these AI-generated content and these AI-generated toolings. So this is, you know, something that people have done certainly in the past in all sorts of ways in using new tools. And we’ve seen that make a significant change in the industry. So you look at, you know, the dawn of animation as a medium. You look at use of special effects, computer-generated imagery in the likes of Pixar. And this is certainly the next phase of that evolution. But because of the power of the tool and what will become the ubiquity of the tool, I think that it’s pretty revolutionary and all the more necessary for people to figure out how to embrace this as part of their creative process. Ken Suzan: Thank you, Janine. Mark, your thoughts? Mark Stignani: Yeah, I mean, I liken this to historically to like the California gold rush right now, because, you know, the technology is so far outpaced in any of the legal frameworks that are available. And so we’re just trying to shoehorn things in left and right here. So, I mean, the courts are beginning to start to engage with the foundational questions. I don’t think they’re quite there yet. I just noticed Anthropic got sued again by another group of people, big music group, because of the downloaded works they’ve done. I mean, so the courts are, you know, the courts are certainly inundated with, you know, too many of these foundational questions. Legislatively, hard to tell. I mean, federal law, the federal government is not moving uniformly on this other than to let the gold rush continue without much check and balance to it. Whereas states are now probably moving a lot faster. Colorado, Illinois, even Minnesota is attempting to craft legislation and limitations on what you can do with content and where to go with it. So, I mean, the things we need to watch for any of the fair use decisions coming out here, you know, some of the SAG-AFTRA contract clauses. And, you know, again, the federal government, I just, you know, I got a big shrug going as to what they’re actually going to come up with here in the next 90 to 100 days. So, but, you know, I think they’ll be forced into doing something sooner than later. Ken Suzan: Okay, let’s jump into the topic of the rise of generative content pipelines. My first question to Janine. Studios and production companies are now building what some call generative content pipelines. This is where AI systems produce everything from scripts to visual effects to voice performances. What efficiencies and creative possibilities does this unlock for the industry? Jeanine Whright: Yeah, so this is quite a bit of what we do. And if I could help pull the curtain back and explain a little bit. Ken Suzan: That’d be great. Jeanine Whright: Yeah, there’s this assumption that, you know, somebody is just sitting behind a machine pushing a button and an out pops, you know, what it is that we’re producing. There’s actually quite a bit of humans still in the loop in the process. You know, we have my team as creators. The other half of my team is the technologists. And those creators are working largely at what we describe as the the tip of the sphere. So they’re, of course, coming up with the concepts of who are these personalities? What are these personalities, characters, backgrounds going to be a lot of like rich personality development? And then they’re creating like what are the formats? What are the kind of story arcs? What is the kinds of content that this this character wants to tell? And what are the audiences they’re desiring to reach and what’s most going to resonate with them? And then what we built internally is what we refer to as an AI orchestration layer. So that allows us to pull from basically all of the different models and then all of these different really cool AI tools. And put those together in such a way and combine those in such a way that we can have the kind of output that our creative team envisions for what they want it to be. And at the end of the day, what you what the stack looks like for, say, a long form audio drama, like the combination of LLMs that we’re going to use in different parts of scripting and production and, you know, ideating and all of that. And the kinds of tooling that we use to actually make it and get it to sound good and have the kinds of personality characteristics that we want to be in an authentic voice for a podcast is going to be different than the tech stack and the tool stack that we might use for a short form Instagram beauty tip reel. And so there’s a lot of art in being able to pull all of these tools together to get them to do exactly what you want them to do. But I think the second part of your question is just as interesting as the first. I mean, what is what possibilities is this unlocking? So of course you’re finding efficiencies in the creative production process. You can move faster. You can do things were less expensive, perhaps, and you were able to do it before. But on the creator side, I think one thing that hasn’t been talked about enough is how it is really like blown wide the aperture of what creators can do and can envision. Traditionally, you know, Hollywood podcasting, many of these businesses that become big businesses have become hit making businesses where they need to focus on a very narrow of wide gen pop content that they think is going to get tens of millions, hundreds of millions in, you know, fans and dollars in revenue for every piece of content that they make. So the problem with that is, is that it really narrows the kinds of things that ultimately get made, which is why you see things happening in Hollywood, like the Blacklist, which is, you know, this famous list of really exceptional content that remains unpredited, unproduced, or why you see things like, you know, 70 to 80% of the top 100 movies being based on pre-existing IP, right? Because these are such huge bets that you need to feel very confident that you’re going to be able to get big, big audiences and big, big dollars from it. But with AI, and really lowering the barrier to entry, lowering the costs of production and marketing, the experimentation that you can do is really, really phenomenal. So, you know, my creative team, if they have an idea, they make it, you know, they don’t have to wring their hands through like a green lighting process of, you know, should we, shouldn’t we, like we, we can make an experiment with lots of different things, we can do various different versions of something. We can see what would this look like if I placed it in the 1800s, or what if I gave this character an Australian accent, and it’s just the power of being able to have this creative partner that can ideate with you and experiment with you at rocket speed. With the creators that are embracing it, you can see how it is really fun for them to be able to have this wide of a range of possibility. Ken Suzan: Mark, when you hear about these generative pipelines, what are the immediate red flags or concerns that come to mind from a legal standpoint? How about ethics underlying all of this? Well, Mark Stignani: that was not, that’s the number one red flag because I mean, we are seeing not just that in the entertainment industry, but it literally at political levels, and the kind of the phrase, to turn the phrase AI slop being generated, we’re seeing, you know, people’s facial expressions altered. In some cases, we’re seeing AI tools being misused to exploit various groups of individuals and genders and age groups. So I mean, there’s a whole lot of things ethically that people are using AI for that just don’t quite cover it. Especially in the entertainment industry, I mean, we’re looking at a fair amount of displacement of human workers without adequate transition support, devaluation of the creative labor. I mean, the thing though that I’m always from a technical standpoint is AI is simply a statistical average of most everything. So it kind of devalues the benefit of having a human creator, a human contribution to it. That’s the ethical side. But on the legal side, I see chain of title issues. I mean, because these are built on very questionable IP ownership stages, I mean, in most of these tools, there has been some large copying, training and taking of copyrighted materials. Is it transformational? Maybe. But there’s certainly not a chain of title, nor is there permission granted for that training. I mentioned SAG-AFTRA earlier, I think there’s a potential set of union contract aspects to this that if you know many of these agreements and use sub-licenses for authors and actor agreements, they weren’t written with AI in mind. So that’s another red flag. And also I just think in indemnification. So if we ultimately get to a point where groups are liable for using content without previous license, then who’s liable? Is the tool maker the liable group or the actual end user? So those are probably my top four red flags. But I think ethics is probably my biggest place because just because we can do something from an ethical standpoint doesn’t mean we should. Jeanine Wright: Yeah, if I can respond to both of those points. I mean, one from a legal perspective, just to be very clear, I mean, we are always pulling from multiple different models and always pulling from multiple different sources. And we even have data sources that we license or use for single source of truth on certain pieces of information. So we’re always pulling things together from multiple different sources. We also have built into our process, you know, internal QAing and checking to make sure that we’re not misappropriating the name or likeness of any existing known personality or character. We are creating original personalities there. We design their voice from scratch. We design their look from scratch. So we’re not on our personality side, we’re not pulling or even taking inspiration from existing intellectual property that’s already out there in creating these personalities. On the ethical side, I agree. I mean, when we came out of stealth, we came out of stealth in September. There was certainly quite a bit of backlash from folks in my—I previously co-founded a company in the audio space. I mean, there’s been many rounds of layoffs in audio and in many other parts of the entertainment industry. So I’m very sensitive to the feedback around, like, is this job displacement? I mean, I do think that the CEO of NVIDIA said it right when he said, you’re likely not going to lose your job to AI, but you will lose your job to somebody who knows how to use AI. I think these tools are transforming the way that content is made and that the faster that people can embrace this tooling, the more likely they’re going to be having the kinds of roles that they want in, you know, in content creation and storytelling in the future. And we are hiring. I’m hiring AI video creators, AI audio creators. I’m hiring AI developers. So people who are looking for those roles, I mean, please reach out to me, we would love to work with you and we’d love to grow with you. We also take the ethics very seriously. For the last few months or so, I’ve met regularly with an ethicist, we talk about all sorts of issues around, you know, is designing AI-generated people, you know, good for humanity? And what about authenticity and transparency and deception, and how are we in building in this space going to avoid some of the problems that we’ve seen with things like social media and other forms of technology? So we keep that very top of mind and we try to build on our own internal values-based system and, you know, continue to elevate and include the humanity as part of the conversation. Ken Suzan: Thank you, Janine. Janine, some argue that AI content pipelines will level the field for filmmaking, giving independent creators access to tools that were once available only to major studios. Is that the future you envision? Jeanine Wright: I do think that with AI you will see an incredible democratization of access to technology and access to these capabilities. So I do think, you know, rise of independent filmmakers, you won’t have as many people who are sitting on a brilliant idea for the next fantastic script or movie that just cannot get it made because they will be able to with these tools, get something made and out there, at least to get the attention of somebody who could then decide that they want to invest in it at a studio kind of level in the future. The other thing that I think is really interesting is that I think, you know, AI will empower more niche content and more creators who can thrive in micro-communities. So it used to be because of this hit generation business model, everything needed to be made for the masses and a lot of content for niche audiences and micro-communities was neglected because there was just no way to make that content commercially viable. But now, if you can leverage AI—we make a pollen report podcast in 300 markets, you know, nobody would have ever made that before, but it is very valuable information, a very valuable piece of content for people who really care about the pollen in their local community. So there’s all sorts of ways that being able to leverage AI is making it more accessible both to the creator and to the audience that is looking for content that truly resonates with them. Ken Suzan: Mark, let’s talk about the legal landscape right now. If someone creates an AI-generated performance that closely resembles a living actor without their consent, what legal recourse does that actor have? Mark Stignani: Well, I mean, I think we can go back to the OpenAI Scarlett Johansson thing where, you know, if it’s simply—well, the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck” type of aspect there. You know, I think it’s pretty straightforward that they need to walk it back. I mean, the US doesn’t have moral rights, really, but there’s a public visage right, if you will. And so, one of the things that I find predominantly useful here is that these actors likely have rights of publicity there, we probably have a Lanham Act false endorsement claim, and you know, again, if the performance is not parody, and it’s so close to the original performance, we probably have a copyright discussion. But again, all of these laws predate the use of AI, so we’re going to probably see new sets of law. I mean, we’re probably going to see “resurrection” frameworks, we’ll probably have frameworks for synthetic actors and likenesses, but the rules just aren’t there yet. So, unfortunately, your question is largely predictive versus well-settled at this point. Ken Suzan: Janine, your company works with AI actors. How do you navigate the questions of consent and likeness compensation when creating digital performers? Jeanine Wright: I mean, if we—so first of all, if we were to work with a person who is an existing real-life person or was an existing real-life person, then we would work with them to license their name and likeness or their voice or whatever aspects of it we were going to use in creating content in partnership with them. Not typically our business model; we are, as I said, designing all of our personalities from scratch and making all of our content originally. So, we’ve not had to do that historically. Now, you know, the flip side is: can I license my characters as if they’re similar to living characters? Like will I be able to license the name and likeness and voice of my AI-generated personalities? I think the answer is yes and we’re already starting to do that. Ken Suzan: Let’s just switch gears into ethics and AI because I find this to be a really fascinating issue. I want to look at a hypothetical. And this is to both of you, Janine and Mark: an AI system creates a new performance by a beloved actor who passed away decades ago, and the actor’s estate authorizes it, but the actor was known to have expressed opposition to such technology during their lifetime. Is this ethical? Jeanine Wright: This feels like a Gifts, Wills, and Trusts exam question. Ken Suzan: It sounds like it, that’s right. Jeanine Wright: Throwing me back to my law school days. Exactly. What are your thoughts? It’d be interesting to see like who has the rights there. I mean, I think if you have the legal rights, the question is around, you know, is it ethical to go against what you knew was somebody’s wishes at the time? I guess the honest answer is I don’t know. It would depend a lot on the circumstances of the case. I mean, if we were faced with a situation like that where there was a discrepancy, we would probably move away from doing that content out of respect for the deceased and out of a feeling that, you know, if this person felt strongly against it, then it would be less likely that you could make that storytelling exceptional in some way—it would color it in a way that you wouldn’t want in the outcome. And I feel like there’s—I mean, certainly going forward and it’s already happening—there are plenty of people I think who have name, likeness, and voice rights that they are ready to license that wouldn’t have this overhang. Ken Suzan: Mark, your thoughts? Mark Stignani: Yeah, I mean, again, I have to kind of go back to our property law—the Rule Against Perpetuities. You know, from a property standpoint to AI rights and likenesses—since most of the digital replica contracts that I’ve reviewed generally do talk about things in perpetuity. But if it’s not written down for that actor and the estate is doing this—is it ethical? You know, that is the debate. Jeanine Wright: Well, gold star to you, Mark, for bringing up the Rule Against Perpetuities. There’s another one that I haven’t heard for many years. This is really taking me back to my law school days. Ken Suzan: It’s a throwback. Jeanine Wright: The other thing that’s really interesting is that this technology is really so revolutionary and new that it’s hard to even contemplate now what it is going to be in a decade, much less for people who have passed away to have contemplated what the potential for it could be today. So you could have somebody who is, perhaps, a deceased musician who expressed concerns about digital representations of themselves or digital music while they were alive. But now, the possibility is that you could recreate—certainly I could use my technology to recreate—that musician from scratch in a very detailed way, trained on tons of different available data. Not just like a digital twin or a moving image of them, but to really rebuild their personality from scratch, so that they and their music could be reintroduced to totally new generations in a very respectful and authentic way to them. It’s hard to know, with the understanding that that is possible, whether or not somebody who is deceased today would or would not agree to something like that. I mean, many of them might want, under those circumstances, for their music to live on. These deceased actors and musicians could live forever with the power of AI technology. Mark Stignani: Yeah, I really just kind of go to the whole—is deep-faking a famous actor the best way to preserve them or keep them live? Again, that’s a bit more of an ethical question because the deep fakes are getting good enough right now to create huge problems. Even zoom meetings in Hong Kong where a CFO was on a call with five synthetic actors who all looked like his coworkers and they sent a big check out based upon that. So again, the technology is getting good enough to fool people. Jeanine Wright: I think that’s right, Mark, but I guess I would just highlight the same way that it always has been: the ethical line isn’t AI versus human, the ethical line is about deception. Like, are you deceiving people? And if people know what it is that they’re getting and they’re choosing to engage with it, then I think it isn’t about the power of the technology. In our business, we have elected—not everybody has—but we have elected to be AI transparent. So we tell people when they listen to our show, we include it in our show notes, we include it on our socials. Even when we’re designing our characters to be very photo-realistic, we make an extra point to make sure that people know that this is AI-generated content or an AI personality. Like, our intention is not to deceive and to be candid. From a business model perspective, we don’t need to. I mean, there’s already people who know and understand that it is AI, and AI is different than people. Because it is AI, there’s all sorts of things that you can do with it that you would not be able to do with a real person. You know, we get people who ask us on the podcast side, we get all sorts of crazy funny requests. You know, people who say, “Can I text with this personality? Can I talk to them on the phone? Can they help me cook in the kitchen? Can they sing me Happy Birthday? Can they show up at my Zoom meeting today because I think my boss would love it?” You know, all sorts of different ways that people are wanting to engage with these characters. And now we’re in the process of rolling out real-time personalities so people will be able to engage with our personalities live. It is a totally different way that people are able to engage with content, and people can, as they choose, decide what kind of content they want to engage with. Ken Suzan: Jeanine and Mark, we’re coming to the end of this podcast. I would love to keep talking for hours but we have to stay to our timetable here. Last question: five years from now, what percentage of entertainment content do you predict will involve significant AI generation, and will audiences care about that percentage? Jeanine? Jeanine Wright: I mean, I would say 99.9%. I mean, already you’re seeing—I think YouTube did a survey—that it was like 90% of its top creators said that they’re using AI as material components of their content creation process. So, I think this will be the default way that content is created. And content that is not made with AI, you know, there’ll be special film festivals for non-AI generated content, and that will be a special separate thing than the thing that everybody is doing now. Ken Suzan: Mark, your thoughts? Mark Stignani: Yeah, I go a little lower. I mean, I think Jeanine is right that we’re seeing, especially in the low-quality content creation and like the YouTube shorts and things like that, you know, there’s so much AI being pushed forward that the FTC even acquired an “AI slop” title to it. I do think that disclosure will become normalized, that the industries will be pushed to say when something is AI and what is not. And I think it’s very much like, you know, do you care about quality or not? If you value the human input or the human factor in this, there will be an upper tier where it’s “AI-free” or low AI assistant. I think that it’s going to stratify because the stuff coming through the social media platforms right now—I can’t be on it right now just because there’s so much nonsense. Even my children, who are without much AI training at all, find it just too unbelievable for them. So, I think it will become normalized, but I think that we’re going to see a bunch of tiers. Ken Suzan: Well, Jeanine and Mark, this has been a fantastic discussion of an ever-evolving field in IP law. Thank you to both of you for spending time with us today on the IP Friday’s podcast. Jeanine Wright: Thank you so much for having me. Mark Stignani: Appreciate your time. Thank you again.

The insured lives in a single-family home in Austin, Texas. While hanging a shelf on the wall in one of the bathrooms, the owner drilled right through the metal stud, directly into a plumbing pipe, causing water damage to the wall and to the carpeting on the floor. (Yes, you heard that correctly, carpeting…in the bathroom!) Should there have been some type of pipe protection near the stud? And, does code even allow carpeting in a bathroom?   Notable Timestamps [ 00:08 ] - The scenario involves a homeowner drilling into a metal stud and puncturing a plumbing pipe, causing water damage to the wall and bathroom carpet. [ 01:15 ] - The hosts discuss home "deal breakers" and vintage advertisements. [ 05:39 ] - PLRB's Building Code Address Report confirms Austin enforces the 2021 IRC and 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC). [ 06:09 ] - Under the 2021 UPC, pipes within one inch of a metal stud must be protected by at least 18-gauge steel nail plates extending beyond the pipe's diameter to prevent drill punctures. [ 09:28 ] - The IRC clarifies that permits are not required for finish work such as carpeting. [ 09:56 ] - Code limits absorbent materials only at the actual tub or shower floor surface. In other words, carpet elsewhere in the bathroom is only prohibited by common sense and not by model building codes. [ 11:25 ] - While model codes allow bathroom carpeting, local ordinances may impose stricter sanitary rules, so adjusters should always verify municipal amendments before reaching conclusions. [ 13:52 ] - Ruth summarizes the key points of this episode. Your PLRB Resources Address Report https://members.plrb.org/building-codes What's New on the Building Codes Address Report? https://members.plrb.org/documents/whats-new-on-the-building-codes-address-report?query=address%20report Ask a Code Question https://members.plrb.org/building-codes/ask-building-code-questions Employees of member companies also have access to a searchable legal database, hundreds of hours of video trainings, building code materials, weather data, and even the ability to have your coverage questions answered by our team of attorneys (https://www.plrb.org/ask-plrb/) at no additional charge to you or your company. Subscribe to this Podcast Your Podcast App - Please subscribe and rate us on your favorite podcast app YouTube - Please like and subscribe at @plrb LinkedIN - Please follow at "Property and Liability Resource Bureau" Send us your Scenario! Please reach out to us at 630-509-8704 with your scenario! This could be your "adjuster story" sharing a situation from your claims experience, or a burning question you would like the team to answer. In any case, please omit any personal information as we will anonymize your story before we share. Just reach out to scenario@plrb.org.  Legal Information The views and opinions expressed in this resource are those of the individual speaker and not necessarily those of the Property & Liability Resource Bureau (PLRB), its membership, or any organization with which the presenter is employed or affiliated. The information, ideas, and opinions are presented as information only and not as legal advice or offers of representation. Individual policy language and state laws vary, and listeners should rely on guidance from their companies and counsel as appropriate. Music: "Piece of Future" by Keyframe_Audio. Pixabay. Pixabay License. Font: Metropolis by Chris Simpson. SIL OFL 1.1. Icons: FontAwesome (SIL OFL 1.1) and Noun Project (royalty-free licenses purchased via subscription). Sound Effects: Pixabay (Pixabay License) and Freesound.org (CC0).

Thanks for joining The Conversation! We are thrilled to have our friend and long-time Missionary to the nation of Spain, Bro. Nathan Harrod on the Podcast today. Nathan and his wife, Tanya have been married since 2001, they have two children - Alaina and Lincoln, and they have been involved in missions work for right around 20 years.During their time in Barcelona, the Harrods led a vibrant church, launched numerous daughter works, they eventually served as General Superintendent of the UPC of Spain. In 2023, the Harrods transitioned into the role of Regional Director for Europe, and have been doing wonderful work on behalf of the region.Today, Bro. Harrod talks about divine healing. He talks about the will of God concerning healing, different miracles he has seen, and the important role that demonstration plays in seeing the Church grow.Find us online at:Website: www.capitalcommunity.ca Facebook: www.facebook.com/capitalcommunitychurchInstagram: www.instagram.com/ccc_fredericton YouTube: www.capitalcommunity.tvThe Conversation Podcast: www.anchor.fm/ccc-theconversationSermon Archive Podcast: www.anchor.fm/capitalcommunitychurch

Va rebre el Premi Talent Femení dona enginyera 2025 per la seva tasca destacada com a directora de l'Escola Politècnica Superior d'Enginyeria de Vilanova i la Geltrú des del 2020. El seu vincle però amb la docència és molt anterior i de fet fins i tot vocacional. Marisa Zaragozá defineix l'enginyeria com una manera de millorar el món i treballa fort per augmentar la presència de dones en els estudis que ofereix la universitat que encara tenen una presència minoritària. Parlem de dones i ciència i de lideratge femení amb la directora de l'UPC de Vilanova i amb Montse Balada, vicepresidenta de Talent en femení. L'entrada Talent i més: dones de ciències i directives amb Marisa Zaragozá, directora de l’UPC de Vilanova ha aparegut primer a Radio Maricel.

In this episode, we explore a problem that refuses to go away: the near-impossible task many immigrants in Spain face when trying to secure appointments for their NIE (foreign identity number) or TIE (foreign identity card). Cybersecurity expert René Serral from UPC breaks down what is happening behind the scenes of the 'cita previa' appointment system – and what could be done to fix it. Law professor Natalia Caicedo examines whether the Spanish government is meeting its legal obligations toward newcomers. Honduran-born activist Carmen Juares describes how migrants are "treated as second-class citizens," calling the process of regularising legal status "a continuous obstacle course." We also hear directly from Catalan News readers, many of whom got in touch to share their own experiences navigating the system. With Lorcan Doherty and Oriol Escudé.

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 171 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is the president of the German Patent and Trademark Office Eva Schewior! But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you: The US Supreme Court has taken up an important patent law case concerning so-called “skinny labels” for generic drugs. Specifically, the highest US court is reviewing a case in which Amarin accuses generic drug manufacturer Hikma of inciting doctors to use the cholesterol drug Vascepa in violation of patents by providing a limited package insert. In two landmark decisions, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified the criteria for inventive step and essentially confirmed the EPO’s typical “problem-solution” approach (Amgen v Sanofi and Meril v Edwards). However, experts are not entirely sure whether the Court of Appeal’s decisions, particularly those relating to the determination of the closest prior art, deviate from EPO practice. As a result of Brexit, mutual recognition of trademark use between the EU and the UK will cease to apply from January 1, 2026. Use of a trademark only in the UK will then no longer count as use of an EU trademark for the purpose of maintaining rights – and conversely, EU use will no longer count for British trademarks. Bayer is attacking several mRNA vaccine manufacturers in the US (Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, and J&J separately). The core allegation: patent infringements relating to old (Monsanto) patents on mRNA stabilization; Bayer is seeking damages, not sales bans. DISCO Pharmaceuticals from Cologne signs an exclusive license agreement with Amgen (potentially up to USD 618 million plus royalties) for novel cancer therapies targeting surface structures. Relevant from an IP perspective: license scope, milestones, data/know-how allocation. And now let's jump into the interview with Eva Schewior! The German IP System in Transition: Key Insights from DPMA President Eva Schewior In an in-depth conversation on the IP Fridays podcast, Eva Schewior, President of the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA), outlined how Germany's IP system is responding to rising demand, technological change, and a fundamentally altered European patent landscape. The interview offers valuable insights for innovators, companies, and IP professionals navigating patent, trademark, and design protection in Europe. Sustained Demand and Procedural Efficiency Despite the introduction of the Unitary Patent system, national German IP rights continue to see strong and growing demand. According to Schewior, application numbers at the DPMA have been increasing for years, which she views as a strong vote of confidence in the quality and reliability of German IP rights. At the same time, this success creates pressure on examination capacity. The average duration of patent proceedings at the DPMA is currently around three years and two months from filing to grant, provided applicants request examination early and avoid extensions. Internationally, this timeframe remains competitive. Nevertheless, shortening procedures remains a strategic priority. Search requests alone have risen by almost 50% over the past decade, yet the DPMA still delivers search reports on time in around 90% of cases. To better reflect applicant needs, the DPMA distinguishes between two main user groups: applicants seeking a rapid grant, often as a basis for international filings, and applicants primarily interested in a fast, high-quality initial assessment through search or first examination. Future procedural adjustments are being considered to better serve both groups. The Role of Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence already plays a practical role at the DPMA, particularly in patent search, classification, and the translation of Asian patent literature. Schewior emphasized that the office is closely monitoring rapid developments in AI to assess where these tools can further improve efficiency. However, she made clear that AI will remain a supporting technology. In public administration, and especially in IP examination, final decisions must always be taken and reviewed by humans. AI is seen as a way to relieve examiners of routine tasks so they can focus on substantive examination and quality. Maintaining and Monitoring Examination Quality Quality assurance is a central pillar of the DPMA's work. Schewior reported consistently positive feedback from users, but stressed that maintaining quality is a continuous task. The office applies systematic double checks for grants and refusals and uses internal quality management tools to randomly review searches and first office actions during ongoing proceedings. External feedback is equally important. The DPMA's User Advisory Board, which includes patent attorneys, startups, and patent information centers, plays a key role in identifying issues and suggesting improvements. Several of its recommendations have already been implemented. Trademark Filings and Bad-Faith Applications The trademark side of the DPMA has experienced particularly strong growth. In 2025, the office received around 95,000 trademark applications, an increase of approximately 18% compared to the previous year. Much of this growth came from abroad, especially from China. While new trademark types such as sound marks, multimedia marks, and holograms have so far seen only moderate uptake, word marks and figurative marks remain dominant. A growing challenge, however, is the rise in bad-faith trademark filings. The DPMA has responded by intensively training examiners to identify and handle such cases. Procedural reforms following EU trademark law modernization have also shifted competencies. Applicants can now choose whether to bring revocation and invalidity actions before the courts or directly before the DPMA. While courts may act faster, proceedings before the DPMA involve significantly lower financial risk, as each party generally bears its own costs. Accelerated Examination as a Practical Tool Despite rising filing numbers, the DPMA aims to avoid significant delays in trademark proceedings. Organizational restructuring within the trademark department is intended to balance workloads across teams. Schewior highlighted the option of accelerated trademark examination, available for a relatively modest additional fee. In practice, this can lead to registration within a matter of weeks, without affecting priority, since the filing date remains decisive. New Protection for Geographical Indications A major recent development is the extension of EU-wide protection for geographical indications to craft and industrial products. Since late 2025, the DPMA acts as the national authority for German applications in this area. The first application has already been filed, notably for a traditional German product. Under the new system, applications undergo a national examination phase at the DPMA before being forwarded to the EUIPO for final decision. Products eligible for protection must originate from a specific region and derive their quality or reputation from that origin, with at least one production step taking place there. The EU estimates that around 40 German products may qualify. Outreach, SMEs, and Education Schewior underlined the DPMA's statutory duty to inform the public about IP rights, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises. The office has significantly expanded its presence on platforms such as LinkedIn and YouTube, offering accessible and practical IP content. Studies show that fewer than 10% of European SMEs use IP rights, despite evidence that IP-owning companies generate higher revenues. To address this gap, the DPMA is expanding outreach formats, strengthening cooperation with educational institutions, and publishing new empirical studies, including a forthcoming analysis of patenting behavior among innovative German startups conducted with WIPO. Strategic Challenges Ahead Looking forward, Schewior identified several key challenges: insufficient awareness of IP protection among SMEs and startups, a tendency in some sectors to rely solely on trade secrets, and the growing problem of product and trademark piracy linked to organized crime. From an institutional perspective, the DPMA must remain attractive and competitive in a European system offering multiple routes to protection. This requires legally robust decisions, efficient procedures, qualified staff, and continuous investment in IT and training. Careers at the DPMA Finally, Schewior highlighted recruitment as a strategic priority. The DPMA recently hired around 50 new patent examiners and continues to seek experts in fields such as electrical engineering, e-mobility, IT, and aerospace, as well as IT specialists, lawyers, and staff in many other functions. She emphasized the DPMA's role as Europe's largest national patent office and a globally significant, stable, and family-friendly employer at the forefront of technological development. German and European Patents as Complementary Options In her closing remarks, Schewior addressed the post-UPC patent landscape. Rather than competing, German and European patent systems complement each other. For many SMEs, a German patent alone may be sufficient, particularly where Germany is the core market. At the same time, the possibility of holding both a European patent and a national German patent offers strategic resilience, as national protection can survive even if a European patent is revoked. Her key message was clear: the range of options has never been broader, but making informed strategic choices is more important than ever. If you would like, I can also adapt this article for a specialist legal audience, condense it for a magazine format, or rework it as a thought-leadership piece for LinkedIn or your website. Rolf Claessen: Today's interview guest is Eva Schewior. If you don't know her yet, she is the President of the German Patent and Trademark Office. Thank you very much for being here. Eva Schewior: I'm very happy that you're having me today. Thank you, Mr. Claessen. Rolf Claessen: Shortening the length of procedures has been a stated goal since you took office. What is the current situation, and which measures are in place to achieve this goal? Eva Schewior: First of all, I'm very glad that German IP rights are in high demand. Even though applicants in Europe have multiple options today to obtain protection for their innovations, we have seen increasing application numbers for years at my office, even after the introduction of the Unitary Patent system. I see this as very positive feedback for our work. It is clear, however, that the high number of applications leads to a constantly increasing workload. At the same time, we want to remain attractive for our applicants. This means we must offer not only high-quality IP rights but also reasonable durations of proceedings. Ensuring this remains a central and permanent objective of our strategy. The average duration of proceedings from filing to grant is currently about three years and two months, provided that applicants file an examination request within the first four months after application and do not request extensions of time limits. In other cases, the average duration of proceedings is admittedly longer. With these three years and two months, we do not have to shy away from international comparison. Nonetheless, we strive to get better. In the last few years, we were able to improve the number of concluded proceedings or to keep them at a high level. In some areas, we were even able to shorten durations of proceedings a bit, though not yet to the extent that we would have wished for. Our efforts are often overtaken by the increasing demand for our services. Just to give you an example, in the last ten to fifteen years, search requests increased by nearly fifty percent. Despite this, we managed to deliver search reports in ninety percent of all cases in time, so that customers have enough time left to take a decision on a subsequent application. I have to admit that we are not equally successful with the first official communication containing the first results of our examination. Here, our applicants need a bit more patience due to longer durations of proceedings. But I think I do not have to explain to your expert audience that longer processing times depend on various reasons, which are in no way solely to be found on our side as an examination office. To further reduce the length of proceedings, we need targeted measures. To identify them, we have analyzed the needs of our applicants. It has been shown that there are two main interests in patent procedures. About three quarters of our applicants have a very strong interest in obtaining a patent. They mainly expect us to make fast decisions on their applications. Here we find applicants who want to have their invention protected within Germany but often also wish for subsequent protection outside Germany. The remaining quarter consists of applicants that are solely interested in a fast and high-quality first assessment of the application by means of a search or a first official examination. We observe that these applicants use our services before they subsequently apply outside Germany. This latter group has little interest in continuing the procedure before my office here in Germany. We are currently considering how we can act in the best interest of both groups. What I can certainly say is that we will continue to address this topic. And of course, in general, it can be said that if we want to shorten the duration of proceedings, we need motivated and highly skilled patent examiners. Therefore, we are currently recruiting many young colleagues for our offices in Munich and Jena, and we want to make our procedures more efficient by using new technical options, thus taking workload from patent examiners and enabling them to concentrate on their core tasks and on speedy examination. Rolf Claessen: Thank you very much. I also feel that the German Patent and Trademark Office has become quite popular, especially with the start of the UPC. Some applicants seem to find that it is a very clever option to also file national patents in Germany. Eva Schewior: I think you're perfectly right, and I think we will come to this point later. Rolf Claessen: In 2023, you mentioned artificial intelligence as an important tool for supporting patent examiners. What has happened regarding AI since then? Eva Schewior: Of course, we are already successfully using AI at our office. For instance, in the field of patent search, we use AI-based tools that make our examiners' work easier. We also use AI quite successfully for classification and for the translation of Asian patent literature into English. In the meantime, we have seen a rapid development of AI in the market. I think it is strategically imperative to get an overview and to make realistic assessments of what AI is capable of doing to make our procedures more efficient. Therefore, we are observing the market to find out where AI can perform tasks so that we enable examiners to concentrate on their core business. There are many ideas right now in our office where artificial intelligence can help us tackle challenges, for instance demographic change, which certainly also affects our office, and maintaining our quality standards. We will strategically promote new tools in this field to cope with these challenges. But this much is also clear: humans will always stay in our focus. Especially in public administration, I consider it a fundamental principle that in the end, decisions must be taken and reviewed by humans. AI may help us reach our goals in a more efficient way, but it can never replace patent or trademark examiners. Rolf Claessen: You have made quality improvements in patent examination a priority and have already implemented a number of measures. How would you describe the current situation? Eva Schewior: I often receive positive feedback from different sides that our users are very satisfied with the quality of our examination, and I'm very glad about that. But maintaining this quality standard is a permanent task, and we must not become careless here. For years, for instance, we have established double checks for all grants and rejections. In addition, we have introduced a quality management tool that enables us, even during the examination process, to randomly check the quality of first office communications and searches. This helps us detect critical trends and take appropriate countermeasures at a very early stage. What is also very important when it comes to patent quality is to actively ask our customers for their feedback. We do this in different ways. Just to give you an example, we have a User Advisory Board, which is a panel of external experts implemented a couple of years ago. Discussing questions of quality is regularly on the agenda of this board. We carefully listen to criticism, ideas, and suggestions, and we have already implemented some of them for the benefit of the office and our users. Rolf Claessen: The German Patent and Trademark Office, as the largest patent and trademark office in Europe, records very high numbers of trademark applications. What are you currently especially concerned with in the trademark area? Eva Schewior: In 2025, we saw around ninety-five thousand trademark applications. This is an increase of eighteen percent compared to the previous year, and I have to say that this took us by surprise. Especially applications from outside Germany, and above all from China, have risen significantly. It is of course challenging to cope with such a sudden increase on an organizational level. Another challenge is dealing with trademark applications filed in bad faith, which we are currently seeing more and more of. We have thoroughly trained our trademark examiners on how to identify and handle such applications. As regards the new types of trademarks, the rush has been moderate so far. Sound marks, multimedia marks, or holograms are apparently not yet common solutions for the majority of applicants. The key focus remains on word marks and combined word and figurative marks. Nevertheless, I believe that the new trademark types are a meaningful supplement and may play a greater role as digitization advances. The most significant changes, however, concern procedures. Applicants can now choose whether to file revocation or invalidity actions with the courts or with our office. While courts may proceed somewhat faster, the financial risk is higher. Before the DPMA, each party generally bears its own costs, apart from exceptional cases. Rolf Claessen: How does this dynamic filing development impact the duration of trademark proceedings? Eva Schewior: This is indeed a major organizational challenge. For a long time, our trademark department managed to keep durations of proceedings very short, especially with regard to registration. Despite the recent increases in applications, especially in 2025, we hope to avoid a significant extension of processing times. We have restructured the organization of the trademark department to distribute applications more equally among teams. Applicants should also be aware that it is possible to request accelerated examination for a relatively moderate fee of two hundred euros. This often leads to registration within a very short time. The filing date, of course, always determines priority. Rolf Claessen: Since December 2025, the EU grants protection not only for agricultural products but also for craft and industrial products through geographical indications. Has your office already received applications? Eva Schewior: Yes, we have received our first application, and interestingly it concerns garden gnomes. Protected geographical indications are an important topic because they help maintain traditional know-how in regions and secure local jobs. The DPMA is the competent authority for Germany. Applications go through a national examination phase at our office before being forwarded to the EUIPO, which takes the final decision on EU-wide registration. Eligible products must originate from a specific region and derive their quality, reputation, or characteristics from that origin, with at least one production step taking place there. Rolf Claessen: The DPMA has expanded its outreach activities, including social media. What else is planned? Eva Schewior: Raising awareness of IP rights, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises, is part of our statutory duty. We currently use LinkedIn and YouTube to communicate IP topics in an understandable and engaging way. We also plan dedicated LinkedIn channels, for example for SMEs. Studies show that fewer than ten percent of European SMEs use IP rights, even though those that do earn significantly more on average. In 2026, we will further expand outreach activities, cooperate more closely with universities and educational institutions, and publish new studies, including one on the patenting behavior of innovative German start-ups conducted together with WIPO. Rolf Claessen: Where do you see the biggest future challenges in IP? Eva Schewior: Germany depends on innovation, but awareness of IP protection is still insufficient, particularly among SMEs and start-ups. Some companies deliberately avoid IP rights and rely on trade secrets, which I consider risky. Another growing concern is the increase in product and trademark piracy, often linked to organized crime. For our office, remaining attractive and competitive is crucial. Applicants have many options in Europe, so we need fast procedures, legally robust decisions, qualified staff, and modern IT systems. Rolf Claessen: The DPMA is currently recruiting. Which areas are you focusing on? Eva Schewior: Our focus is on patent examination and IT. We recently hired fifty new patent examiners and are particularly looking for experts in fields such as electrical engineering, e-mobility, IT, and aerospace. We are Europe's largest national patent office and offer meaningful, secure jobs with fair compensation and strong development opportunities. Rolf Claessen: Is there a final message you would like to share with our listeners? Eva Schewior: The Unitary Patent system has created many new options. German and European patent systems do not compete; they complement each other. For many SMEs, a German patent may already be sufficient, especially where Germany is the core market. Holding both European and national patents can also be a strategic advantage. My key message is: be aware of the options, stay informed, and choose your IP strategy deliberately. Rolf Claessen: Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Eva Schewior: Thank you for having me. It was a pleasure.

Send us a textHappy New Year! DJ Paulie and Brother Lou are back to kick off the year with a bang. In this jam-packed episode, the brothers debut brand-new segments, dive into some wild true-crime stories, and hand the reins to Britt for a countdown that explores the sparks that ignited musical revolutions. Whether you are looking for nostalgia, laughs, or deep dives into pop culture history, this episode has it all.In This Episode:• The Countdown: The Music That Started the Party Britt takes us through a chronological journey of songs that didn't just top the charts—they shifted the culture. This list features the tracks that lit the fuse for entire genres, including George McCrae's disco-igniting "Rock Your Baby," Blondie's genre-bending "Rapture," and the grunge explosion of Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit." The set also covers game-changers from Donna Summer, Michael Jackson, Run DMC, Dr. Dre, and Britney Spears.• New Segment: Stay or Skip? The brothers introduce a new movie review game. When you stumble across a classic film while channel surfing, do you stay and watch it, or skip it? Paulie and Lou debate 80s cinema staples like Flashdance, Top Gun, Cocktail, Footloose, Dirty Dancing, and Prince's Purple Rain.• Busted (formerly Stupid Criminals) The guys share a fresh batch of criminal mishaps, including a car thief who blamed aliens for teleporting him into a BMW, a driver who tried to use a UPC label from a package of chicken wings as a license plate, and a holiday family argument that ended with a thrown Christmas ham. Plus, an international story involving the theft—and swallowing—of a Fabergé egg.• Rock Talk with Todd Snyder Todd returns with a deep dive titled "Selling the Party." He explores the business of rebellion and how underground movements like Punk, New Wave, Hair Metal, and Grunge eventually get packaged, polished, and sold to the masses.• TV Time: One and Done A look back at cult classic TV shows that were cancelled after just one season. The brothers discuss whether shows like Freaks and Geeks, My So-Called Life, Firefly, and Almost Human are worth the watch today.• Random Facts Did you know Australia is wider than the moon? Or that Psycho was the first American film to show a toilet flushing? The brothers wrap up with a collection of bizarre trivia to start your week.Tune in for the laughs, the stories, and the tunes that changed history!Support the showThanks for listening. Join us each Monday at 1pm Central at www.urlradio.net and follow us on Facebook!

La presidenta de ACEMI habló en 6AM sobre el aumento de la UPC que anunció el ministerio de Salud.

Navigating the Complex World of Trusts and EstatesThis conversation delves into the complexities of trusts and estates, focusing on key concepts such as testamentary intent, the plain meaning rule, ambiguity in wills, mandatory statutory protections for families, elective shares, distribution mechanics in intestacy, and the challenges posed by blended families and non-marital partners. It emphasizes the importance of understanding these principles for effective estate planning and the evolving nature of succession law.In the intricate realm of Trusts and Estates, understanding the balance between honoring a decedent's intent and adhering to statutory requirements is crucial. This blog post delves into the key concepts and challenges faced in this field, providing insights for both law students and practitioners.The Plain Meaning Rule and Its ExceptionsA foundational principle in testamentary documents is the Plain Meaning Rule, which dictates that if the language of a will is clear, extrinsic evidence is generally inadmissible. However, this rule is not absolute and has exceptions, particularly when dealing with inter vivos trusts, where courts are more lenient in considering external evidence to determine intent.Ambiguity in Wills: Latent vs. PatentAmbiguity in wills can be classified as latent or patent, with significant implications for the admissibility of evidence. Latent ambiguities arise when clear language becomes ambiguous due to external facts, allowing for extrinsic evidence. In contrast, patent ambiguities are apparent contradictions within the document itself, traditionally precluding external evidence.Mandatory Statutory ProtectionsThe law imposes mandatory protections to safeguard the immediate family, such as family allowances and elective shares. These provisions ensure that a surviving spouse and minor children receive support, often prioritizing their claims over the decedent's explicit wishes.Blended Families and Estate PlanningBlended families present unique challenges in estate planning, requiring sophisticated tools like QTIP trusts to balance the needs of a surviving spouse with the inheritance rights of children from previous marriages. These trusts provide income to the spouse while preserving the principal for the decedent's children.The Role of Non-Probate TransfersNon-probate transfers, such as life insurance and IRAs, can override a will's provisions, highlighting the importance of keeping beneficiary designations up to date. This aspect is critical in avoiding unintended disinheritance and ensuring that assets are distributed according to the decedent's wishes.Trusts and Estates law is a dynamic field that requires a deep understanding of both legal principles and practical considerations. By mastering these concepts, practitioners can effectively navigate the complexities of estate planning and ensure that their clients' intentions are honored.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest insights in Trusts and Estates law.TakeawaysSuccession Law balances honoring the deceased's wishes with statutory protections.The Plain Meaning Rule restricts the use of extrinsic evidence in wills.Latent ambiguity allows for external evidence, while patent ambiguity does not.Mandatory protections prioritize the surviving spouse and minor children.The elective share ensures a minimum inheritance for spouses.Distribution methods in intestacy reflect the decedent's presumed intent.Blended families complicate estate planning due to conflicting interests.Non-probate transfers can override a will's provisions.Incorporation by reference allows external documents to be part of a will.The UPC's exclusion of non-marital partners raises questions about modern family dynamicsTrusts, Estates, Testamentary Intent, Plain Meaning Rule, Ambiguity, Statutory Protections, Elective Share, Distribution Mechanics, Blended Families, Non-Marital Partners

Sprouts Farmers Market has issued a recall for its Sprouts Organic Gluten-Free Four Cheese Lasagna after the product “tested positive for gluten above the acceptable limits for Gluten-Free certification.” The recall, dated December 16, 2025, underscores the serious risks mislabeling can pose for people with celiac disease or gluten allergies, for whom even small amounts of gluten can trigger significant—and sometimes “life-threatening”—reactions, as noted in the Sprouts notice.The recall affects shoppers across a wide geographic footprint. According to its website, Sprouts Farmers Market operates in approximately 24 states, with its highest concentration of stores in California, followed by Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Colorado. The chain also has stores in states such as Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, among others.The product is packaged in a 9-ounce brown and yellow box bearing a picture of the lasagna, and can be identified by the UPC code 6-46670-51140. I would love to hear from you! Leave your messages for Andrea at contact@baltimoreglutenfree.com and check out www.baltimoreglutenfree.comInstagramFacebookGluten Free College 101Website: www.glutenfreecollege.comFacebook: http://www.Facebook.com/Glutenfreecollege Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Bogotá completa más de seis horas de afectaciones por el Plan Tortuga de recicladores, mientras el Distrito descarta negociar la aplicación del decreto que regula el manejo de residuos. En paralelo, la Corte Constitucional exige al Gobierno cumplir de inmediato las órdenes sobre el reajuste de la UPC, en medio de una creciente crisis del sistema de salud. En política, el Pacto Histórico oficializó su consulta del 8 de marzo y dejó abierta la puerta a nuevas adhesiones, mientras la ONU alerta por el recrudecimiento de la violencia en Arauca y Casanare.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I l'acció de l'home va des de la construcció d'embassaments, ports esportius, espigons, o les intervencions en la llera de rieres, -que han impossibilitat l'arribada de sediments al litoral, i que aquests sediments puguin traslladar-se sense obstacles per la pròpia dinàmica marina- fins a la urbanització de la costa o la construcció de passejos marítims -que han impossibilitat que les platges tinguin espai per a mantenir la seva dinàmica de manera natural- tot passant per la progressiva destrucció de les fràgils praderes de posidònia, que són bàsiques per a la vida marina i també exerceixen de barrera cohesionadora dels bancs de sorra. Tot això s'ha anat fent amb els anys, i la reversió de les seves conseqüències, agreujades per els efectes d'un escenari de canvi climàtic, no és ni serà tasca fàcil. El Grup d'Estudis Sitgetans va acollir ahir una xerrada amb tres experts: Daniel González Marco, del centre de recerca del laboratori d'enginyeria marítima de la UPC, Pere Andreu Ubach, doctor en enginyeria de la UPC, i Àlex Noheda, biòleg marí i regidor de medi ambient de l'Ajuntament de Cubelles. Jesus Coines, de biodiversitat Sitges, moderà el debat que us oferim integrament. Per cert, des del punt de vista tècnic Sitges és un exemple de tot allò que s'ha fet i no s'hagués hagut de fer per a mantenir les platges. L'entrada El canvi climàtic no ha fet més que agreujar les conseqüències que ha tingut per al litoral l’impacte de l’acció humana al territori. El GES acull un col·loqui sobre l’estat de la qüestió ha aparegut primer a Radio Maricel.

ptl ea listeners!! this weeks features the superintendent of UPCNZ, Rev Billy Lemon! was an absolute sound of joy having the superintendent on the podcast, sharing his story and journey from painting banners for general conferences to now becoming the top individual in charge of the overseeing the UPC churches in the land of the long white cloud.. hope you listen and enjoy!!

Torna la mascareta obligat

When Beav Brodie was handed his wife's purple diaper bag to carry around town, he knew something had to change. As a tattooed, custom car-building dad, that bag just didn't fit. So he did what any problem-solver would do—he grabbed his sewing machine and made his own. That side project turned into Tactical Baby Gear, a thriving eCommerce brand that's become the go-to for dads who want gear that's as functional as it is badass. In this episode, Beav shares his journey from knowing absolutely nothing about eCommerce (including what a UPC code was) to building a product line that customers trust and keep coming back for. He also pulls back the curtain on navigating the chaos of 2025—from Meta auction issues to tariff headwinds—and why he's betting big on Amazon and YouTube as his growth channels for the year ahead.—Sponsored by OMG Commerce - go to (https://www.omgcommerce.com/contact) and request your FREE strategy session today!—Chapters: (00:00) Opening & Introducing Beav Brodie(04:45) 2025 Headwinds, Tariffs & Personal Life Challenges(08:45) Becoming a Real Operator: Systems, SOPs & Founder Mindset Shifts(12:00) Origin Story: From Custom Cars to Tactical Baby Gear(17:00) Manufacturing Realities: COVID, Price Creep & Moving Abroad(24:38) Recover hidden Amazon revenue with Threecolts(25:33) Meta Constraints & The Founder Bottleneck in Content(29:30) UGC, Influencers & Why Authenticity Beats “Pretty” Content(36:25) Offers, Acquisition & The Realities of Low-Repeat Categories(42:10) Brand vs Discounts: Community, Trust & True LTV(47:00) Channel Expansion & Product Philosophy(50:19) PostPilot: Direct mail that prints money.—Connect With Brett: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thebrettcurry/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@omgcommerce Website: https://www.omgcommerce.com/ Request a Free Strategy Session: https://www.omgcommerce.com/contact Relevant Links:Tactical Baby Gear: https://tacticalbabygear.comSponsor Offer | Threecolts: http://threecolts.comSponsor Offer | PostPilot: http://postpilot.com/Past guests on eCommerce Evolution include Ezra Firestone, Steve Chou, Drew Sanocki, Jacques Spitzer, Jeremy Horowitz, Ryan Moran, Sean Frank, Andrew Youderian, Ryan McKenzie, Joseph Wilkins, Cody Wittick, Miki Agrawal, Justin Brooke, Nish Samantray, Kurt Elster, John Parkes, Chris Mercer, Rabah Rahil, Bear Handlon, JC Hite, Frederick Vallaeys, Preston Rutherford, Anthony Mink, Bill D'Allessandro, Stephane Colleu, Jeff Oxford, Bryan Porter and more

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.

¿Hasta dónde puedes llegar cuando ves oportunidades donde otros ven crisis? En este episodio converso con Mariana Rodríguez, fundadora de UPC, UPN y Cibertec, una emprendedora que dejó una carrera estable para revolucionar la educación en el Perú. Hablamos de cómo creó Cibertec en plena época de terrorismo, cómo nació la UPC y la UPN, y qué se necesita para escalar un negocio educativo desde cero. También exploramos su visión del futuro de las universidades en la era de la IA, los desafíos de la regulación y por qué aprender nunca termina. Además, Mariana nos explica cómo el Balance Scorecard se volvió clave para crecer y diferenciarse. ____Distribuido por Genuina Media Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Notre invité Afrique ce lundi matin est le président centrafricain Faustin-Archange Touadéra. Le 28 décembre prochain, il briguera un troisième mandat à la tête du pays, face à six autres candidats. Organisation des élections, validation des opposants par le Conseil constitutionnel, accord avec les groupes armés, situation socio-économique, relations avec les Émirats arabes unis et la Russie… Il a abordé tous ses sujets avec François Mazet à Bangui. RFI : Monsieur le président, le 28 décembre, vous allez briguer un nouveau mandat à la tête de la République centrafricaine. Pour vous, cette candidature, c'était une évidence ? Faustin-Archange Touadéra : Effectivement, j'ai fait acte de candidature à cette élection. Le peuple centrafricain et ses communautés ont organisé des marches pour solliciter le fait que je puisse faire acte de candidature. Mais voyez-vous, cela fait suite à toutes les actions que nous avons menées pendant les deux derniers mandats, durant lesquels le pays était dans une très grande difficulté. Nous avons pu avoir des accords de paix avec les 14 groupes armés. Évidemment, en face de tout ça, le peuple centrafricain pense qu'aujourd'hui, il y a la paix qui est revenue. Il y a le déploiement de l'autorité de l'État à l'intérieur du pays, des avancées notables dans le sens du bien-être du Centrafricain. Je ne dis pas que tout est parfait, mais nous avons fait un grand pas, nous relevons la tête. Alors, on va revenir sur certains points de votre bilan. Mais d'abord, c'est fort de ce bilan que vous êtes convaincu, comme le dit la chanson qui tourne déjà, que ça sera le coup KO au premier tour ? (Il rit) Ben évidemment ! Pour nos compatriotes, beaucoup pensent que ce sera au premier tour. Nous sommes conscients, évidemment, que c'est un acte, une action démocratique ! Eh bien, le jeu est ouvert et chaque camp essaie de convaincre le plus de Centrafricains à voter pour lui. Vous aurez six adversaires. Évidemment, deux noms ressortent ceux de messieurs Henri-Marie Dondra et Anicet-Georges Dologuélé qui, après des mois de conjectures, ont finalement été validés par le Conseil constitutionnel. Est-ce que c'est une bonne chose que cette élection réunisse quand même des personnalités d'importance qui peuvent venir remettre en cause votre leadership ? Je ne peux pas, en tant que candidat, émettre des avis sur la décision du Conseil constitutionnel. Je prends acte. Nous allons competir et on va demander aux Centrafricains de faire leur choix. Évidemment, les personnalités dont vous parlez ici ne sont pas inconnues. On verra bien le 28 décembre. En tout cas, messieurs Dondra et Dologuélé disent que jusqu'au bout, vous avez fait le maximum pour qu'ils ne puissent pas s'opposer à vous. Qu'est-ce que vous leur répondez ? Mais en faisant quoi ? Qu'est-ce que j'ai fait pour m'opposer à leur candidature ? Nous avons des lois, chaque individu doit se conformer à nos lois, à nos textes. Et pour ça, il y a des juridictions. Donc, en quoi puis-je interférer ou faire quoi que ce soit pour empêcher qui que ce soit de se présenter ? La preuve, c'est qu'aujourd'hui, le Conseil constitutionnel a donné un avis. Je prends acte. Alors, justement, le 28 décembre, il y aura un quadruple scrutin. C'est historique en Centrafrique. Est-ce que vous êtes confiant dans la capacité des institutions d'organiser ces élections dans les meilleures conditions possibles ? C'est un grand challenge pour le pays et c'est important. Normalement, les élections locales devaient être organisées bien avant. Malheureusement, il y a eu des difficultés techniques quant à la disponibilité du fichier électoral, puisque c'est la base même d'une élection. C'est vrai, c'est un grand défi. C'est une première, mais nous faisons confiance aux hommes et aux femmes qui travaillent dans ces institutions pour que la République centrafricaine sorte de cela vraiment grandie. Je ne dis pas que tout est rose, qu'il n'y a pas de problème, il y a des difficultés. Nous avons par exemple des difficultés financières pour soutenir un certain nombre d'actions. On a eu des promesses qui n'ont pas été tenues dans le cadre de la mobilisation des ressources. Mais l'État fait face à ça, parce que c'est un enjeu important pour la démocratie. Pour vous, la date du 28 décembre, est-elle gravée dans le marbre ? Nous avons la Constitution. La date du 28 est constitutionnelle. Au-delà, il n'y aura que du désordre. Dès qu'on va dépasser cette date, ils vont commencer par parler de transition, ils vont parler de venir partager le gâteau... Nous ne pouvons pas prendre le risque. Notre pays a connu des moments très difficiles et il nous faut tenir ce délai pour renforcer notre démocratie, respecter nos textes. Sur la question de la sécurité, vous avez commencé à l'aborder. Vous avez signé ces derniers temps des accords avec plusieurs groupes rebelles, encore cette semaine avec le MPC. Est-ce que vous êtes confiant quant au fait que, cette fois, ces accords seront respectés par toutes les parties, pas comme en 2019, 2020 ? Nous allons tout faire pour tenir nos engagements. C'est moi qui leur ai tendu la main, ce sont des fils du pays et je leur ai dit : "Votre lutte, là, je ne comprends pas les objectifs." Eh bien, ils sont d'accord. Je pense que cette fois-ci, chacun des leaders a compris que ce n'est pas la peine de continuer la guerre, la violence inutile. Qu'est-ce qu'ils y gagnent ? Et je pense que, de leur côté, ils font des efforts. Et d'ailleurs, le processus de désarmement pour les groupes UPC et 3R se déroule normalement. Il y a quelques défis, comme la prise en charge d'un certain nombre de gens désarmés. Donc, j'ai donné les instructions pour qu'on les règle. Du point de vue économique et social, la population continue de souffrir du coût de la vie. Concrètement, qu'est-ce que vous proposez pour changer la donne après déjà deux mandats ? Vous utilisez des mots, des mots très forts, mais il faut les mettre dans leur contexte. Pour le peuple centrafricain, il y a eu des avancées certaines, indéniables. Ça ne veut pas dire que tout va bien. Je n'ai pas dit que tout est pour le meilleur des mondes, ici. Non. Et c'est pour ça que nous avons proposé un plan national de développement. C'est pour ça qu'aujourd'hui, nous demandons aux Centrafricains de nous donner encore un mandat pour continuer ce que nous avons fait, parce qu'on était vraiment dans le gouffre. Et c'est sur ces progrès que nous allons tabler pour poursuivre. Nous sommes confiants. Un des points principaux pour la population, pour les entreprises, c'est la question des carburants. Les coûts des carburants qui sont extrêmement chers en Centrafrique, le plus cher du continent, la structure des prix a fait l'objet de critiques de la part de la société civile, d'ONG internationales, du FMI. Est-ce qu'il va y avoir une réforme du marché des carburants en Centrafrique ? Nous ne sommes pas un pays producteur de pétrole, nous sommes un pays continental et il nous faut de l'énergie pour faire tourner l'économie. Quand le carburant arrive dans un port, ce n'est pas le même prix que lorsqu'il arrive ici, il faut le transporter. Soit par bateau, par barge. Il y a un coût et même si c'est par la route, il y a un coût. Notre objectif, ce n'est pas d'avoir du carburant cher. Donc, pour vous, il n'y a pas de surcoût inexplicable ? En Centrafrique, ce n'est pas la volonté du gouvernement de faire surenchérir, ce sont les réalités des prix, parce que le gouvernement n'a rien à gagner en augmentant les prix, bien au contraire. Il y a cette guerre civile chez votre voisin, le Soudan. Quelle est la situation exactement dans le nord-est du pays ? Et est-ce que vous craignez qu'avec la poursuite de ce conflit, il y ait un débordement chez vous ? Nous avons connu la guerre ici, nous savons ce que c'est et ça a détruit notre pays. Une partie de notre population dans le nord s'approvisionnait au Soudan. Ça devient difficile économiquement et socialement parlant. Avec ce conflit, il y a des personnes, des Soudanais, des frères Soudanais, hommes et femmes, qui veulent la paix et viennent se réfugier en République centrafricaine, ce qui va encore perturber la situation économique et sociale de cette région. Nous sommes dans toutes les réunions, on participe, nous donnons notre contribution. Dans ce conflit, il y a quand même un acteur extérieur dont tout le monde parle, ce sont les Émirats arabes unis. Et vos adversaires disent que vous vous rapprochez d'eux et se questionnent : est-ce que la Centrafrique va servir de base arrière ? La République centrafricaine est un pays ouvert. On ne va pas dire que nous ne devions pas travailler avec un pays avec un autre. Non, vous voyez, c'est ça ces actes de désinformation. Nous avons une coopération avec les Émirats arabes unis sur des projets précis et nous continuons à travailler dans l'intérêt bien compris des deux parties. Un autre partenariat qui évidemment fait beaucoup parler depuis plusieurs années, c'est celui avec la Russie. Il a été dit et écrit que des membres du groupe Wagner allaient partir et être remplacés par une nouvelle entité, Afrika Corps, qui est directement rattachée au ministère russe de la Défense. Est-ce que vous confirmez des discussions en cours avec Moscou ? Oui, vos confrères m'ont toujours posé ce genre de questions. J'estime que j'ai toujours répondu que ce n'est pas devant votre micro que je vais m'étaler sur toutes les questions, les discussions, que nous avons avec des pays amis. Non. Si nous nous accordons, nos discussions ne vont pas être rendues publiques. Vous disiez que nous sommes en discussion ? Bien sûr, nous sommes en discussion sur beaucoup de sujets, pas seulement sécuritaires ou remplacer telle force par telle autre… Nous avons beaucoup de discussions sur le plan de la défense, sur le plan économique, sur le plan de l'éducation, de la santé. On a beaucoup de programmes ensemble. Alors, les personnes du groupe Wagner n'avaient pas seulement une activité de sécurité, ils avaient d'autres activités. Ils ont une activité économique avec des entreprises. Si les personnes de Wagner en uniforme partent, est-ce que les entreprises liées à Wagner restent ? La République centrafricaine est un pays ouvert. Il y a un code minier qui existe. Une société, n'importe laquelle, qui se constitue en République centrafricaine, qui remplit les conditions et qui fait une requête, pour avoir un permis de recherche, un permis d'exploitation, et qui remplit les conditions, eh bien ce sont des secteurs qui sont libéralisés aujourd'hui, que ce soient les mines, que ce soient les eaux et les forêts. Tout ça, c'est libéralisé. Alors, pourquoi vous voulez indexer certaines normes de sociétés comme étant des sociétés Wagner ou autres ? Ce sont des sociétés pour nous qui sont normalement constituées, légalement je veux dire, et qui exercent sur le territoire centrafricain en respectant nos lois. C'est tout. Et il n'y a pas que les Russes. Donc aucun passe-droit ici pour aucune entreprise, tout le monde est soumis aux mêmes règles. Nos textes sont clairs, il n'y a pas de passe-droit. Vous pouvez demander au ministère des Mines : telle société a rempli les conditions. Voilà, et c'est de la manière la plus transparente. À lire aussiCentrafrique: la mission d'observation électorale tente d'endiguer la désinformation avant la présidentielle

Send us a textWe turn Single Barrel Saturday into a game plan, unpacking how Ohio builds the state's biggest bourbon drop, why the community makes the lines worth it, and which bottles deserve your first pick. Ann shares how barrels are selected, allocated, and revealed while we call out sleepers and strategy.• statewide single barrel release logistics and rules• why Ohio's bourbon IQ and culture raise the bar• store opt‑in process, training, and fairness in lines• using the OHLQ app and understanding UPC quirks• allocation logic and how variety is curated by store• value plays at multiple price points, including Dickel 15• sleeper alerts: Horse Soldier, Larceny, Frey Ranch• finish profiles explained: Mizanara, Calvados, Moscatel, Armagnac• bespoke WhistlePig blends and how picks get bottled• team-based barrel selection and palate diversity• tactics for rare targets like Willet purple tops• why the social hunt matters as much as the bottlesGet the OHLQ mobile app, enable push notifications, and subscribe to email for Saturday morning locationsThe countdown ends and the corks begin to pop. Single Barrel Saturday returns with more than 300 Ohio locations, a curated lineup that refuses to repeat itself, and a community energy that feels like bourbon's version of a block party. We brought Ann on to take us behind the scenes: how stores opt in, why allocation rules exist, what makes Ohio the fourth-largest American whiskey market, and how her team balances profiles so every table finds something to love.We get tactical without losing the fun. You'll learn how the OHLQ locator really works, when a UPC reveals a specific barrel (hello, Willet), and why some bottles land in waves months after the pick. We map price-to-proof-to-flavor value plays, call out sleeper hits—think a high-proof, double-digit Horse Soldier and under-the-radar Larceny—and explain the logic behind broader favorites like Dickel 15 that fly early because of low yields and near-barrel-strength bottling. If finishes are your thing, we dig into the flavor impact of Mizanara oak, Calvados, Moscatel, and Armagnac through the Dark Arts lineup and beyond.We also break down how Ohio builds its pick teams—staff, podcasters, bar owners, and seasoned enthusiasts—to triangulate barrels that are good for different reasons: classic, candy-coated, spice-forward, and curveball. Expect real talk on camping vs. store-hopping, looping etiquette, and the smartest first-pick priorities if you're eyeing Willet purple tops or a lone Heaven Hill Bottled-in-Bond single barrel. It's a field guide for a day that's equal parts hunt and hangout, where people open bottles in line and trade tips like set lists.Ready to plan your route? Follow the show, share this episode with your bourbon crew, and turn on OHLQ app notifications so you're first to see Saturday's locations. If you score a sleeper, tag us—we want to know what you cracked first.If You Have Gohsts voice over Whiskey Thief Add for SOFLSupport the showhttps://www.scotchybourbonboys.com The Scotchy bourbon Boys are #3 in Feedspots Top 60 whiskey podcasts in the world https://podcast.feedspot.com/whiskey_podcasts/

Vidcast:  https://www.instagram.com/p/DQsEHtEF6rl/This product is uneviscerated and that poses a risk of poisoning with botulism. The recalled fish are in 10- to 12-pound clear plastic packages with an expiration date of May 19, 2025, and UPC code 908172635412.These dangerous Dry Ghoinnya Fish were sold nationwide across the US in retail stores.Do not consume this poisonous fish. Return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. If you did eat it and are experiencing the symptoms of botulism immediately contact your medical team. These symptoms are dizziness, blurred or double vision, difficulty speaking, swallowing, or breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension, and/or constipation. For additional information, contact New Hoque & Sons Inc. at 1-718-391-0992.https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/new-hoque-sons-inc-issues-alert-uneviscerated-dry-ghoinnya-fish#hoque #Ghoinnya #fish #uneviscerated #botulism #recall

Vidcast:  https://www.instagram.com/p/DQqo0atiQd0/The green bracelet in the 12-pack leaks chemicals irritating to the skin. The affected product carries the UPC code 9787014483.About 6,600 of these recalled 12-pack bracelet sets were sold at H-E-B stores in Texas from September 2025 through October 2025.You and your children should not wear the green bracelet from this 12-pack. Return the bracelet or the entire pack to any H-E-B store for a full refund. For more information, call 1-855-432-4438 or email through the contact page at heb.com by clicking “Product Recalls.”https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/H-E-B-Recalls-12-Pack-Destination-Holiday-Glow-Light-Stick-Bracelets-Due-to-Skin-Irritation-Hazard#HEB #glowbracelet #irritants #recall

Amy's Kitchen Gluten Free Rice & Bean Burritos are being recalled for possible foreign material contamination. The type of foreign material was not mentioned in the recall notice. Most foreign material in foods pose an injury or choking hazard. Because this recall notice was posted on the FDA's Enforcement Reports Page, and not the regular recall page, there is no mention about whether or not any injuries have been reported to the company to date in connection with the consumption of this item. The recalling firm is Amy's Kitchen of Petaluma, California.This product was sold at the retail level in these states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, and Wisconsin. No picture of the recalled product was provided in the recall notice.The recalled product is Amy's Kitchen Gluten Free Bean & Rice Burritos that are packaged in a 5.5 ounce retail unit. This product is sold frozen. The UPC number that is stamped on the product label is 042272003525. The lot code is 30C1725, and the expiration date is 03/2027.If you bought this product, do not eat it. You can throw it away in a secure garbage can with a tight fitting lid, after first wrapping or double bagging it so others can't access it, or you can take it back to the store where you purchased it for a full refund.I would love to hear from you! Leave your messages for Andrea at contact@baltimoreglutenfree.com and check out www.baltimoreglutenfree.comInstagramFacebookGluten Free College 101Website: www.glutenfreecollege.comFacebook: http://www.Facebook.com/Glutenfreecollege Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we try to demonstrate another step in integrating fire engineering into WUI risk management, and vice versa. These two areas together form some sort of fire engineering method, which I strongly believe will be an important part of our profession in the future. Today I got to sit down with Dr. Pascale Vacca from UPC to unpack a practical, end-to-end framework for wildland–urban interface risk that engineers can use today, which she has shared in her keynote at the ESFSS Conference in Ljubljana earlier this year. From mapping hazard, exposure, and vulnerability across scales to chaining wildfire spread outputs into building-focused simulations, we show how careful modeling turns uncertainty into a plan communities can fund and maintain.We begin with risk assessment that respects terrain, fuels, and construction typologies, then translate FARSITE's rate of spread and fireline intensity into FDS boundary conditions to test real weaknesses—like heat flux and breakage in large glazed facades. The case study in Barcelona grounds it all: what happens when wind pushes a fast front toward a community center, and which retrofits move the needle? Noncombustible shutters, smarter venting, and defensible spacing emerge as high-ROI fixes, while fuel breaks and fuel treatments reduce intensity so crews can act. Along the way, we tackle data resolution, moisture, and weather selection—how to choose between worst case and representative scenarios and why that choice matters for policy and budgets.Preparedness and recovery complete the cycle. Annual maintenance keeps gains from eroding as vegetation regrows; community preparedness days build habits and trust; and a homeowner app scores parcel risk to make decisions concrete. On the response side, precomputed scenarios and quick wildfire modeling inform shelter-in-place versus evacuation, aligning engineering insight with operational realities. We also confront limits: validation gaps, ember exposure, and the fact that risk is never zero. But the path forward is clear—interdisciplinary planning, better data sharing after fires, and education to bring more engineers into WUI work.----The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

Vidcast:  https://www.instagram.com/p/DP1_qo7EUgB/This product violates federal safety standards for multipurpose lighters and poses serious fire and burn hazards. Affected is UPC number 0-70257-52226-6 which appears on the back of the product box.About 175,000 of these torches were sold at Walmart and Home Depot stores and online at Walmart.com and Homedepot.com between November 2024 and August 2025.Stop using these recalled Scripto Premium Torches immediately and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or store credit. Alternatively, contact Calico Brands at 1-800-544-4837 or via the email premiumtorchrecall@calicobrands.com to obtain instructions for returning the torch by mail. The company will send a prepaid shipping label and hazmat-safe packaging for free return and refund.https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Calico-Brands-Recalls-Scripto-Premium-Torches-Due-to-Risk-of-Injury-or-Death-from-Fires-and-Burns-Violates-Mandatory-Standard-for-Multipurpose-Lighters#Calico #torch #burns #recall

La patacada hist

Garage Beer isn't just having a moment — it's on fire. Backed by Travis and Jason Kelce, the brand was just valued at $200 million after its first institutional funding round. It's on track to do $60–70 million in revenue this year, and is rewriting the playbook of what a modern beer brand can be, with its irreverent, lo-fi brand presence. TL;DR — Garage Beer is a rare bright spot in a beer category that's facing headwinds.In this episode, we sit down with Garage Beer's Chief Creative Officer, Corey Smale, the mastermind behind the brand's nostalgic-yet-fresh, tongue-in-cheek approach. Corey shares how the team is blending old-school beer marketing magic with today's hyper-online, community-first culture — and why they'll still hand-mail you a sticker if you send them a UPC code.We discuss how Garage Beer is:Turning a “beer-flavored beer” into a $200M rocket shipUsing cult-like creative activations — from Goosebumps-inspired Halloween art to the production of retro-style, martial arts spoof films — to appeal to broad audiences, from Gen X to Gen Z Balancing celebrity horsepower from the Kelce brothers with a DIY, hyper-authentic brand voiceWinning in social media, outpacing major domestic beer brands on engagement with a lean, five-person marketing teamBuilding lifetime customers through niche communities like pro wrestling and ball hockey, instead of chasing expensive sponsorshipsFor insights on how challenger brands can outmaneuver industry giants with creativity, speed, and authenticity — while having a heck of a lot of fun — this episode delivers.Last Call:Americans are partying less — a lot less. Per a recent analysis in The Atlantic:

In 2026, Austin plumbing follows the 2021 UPC code with local changes. Plumbers must be licensed by the Texas Board, and companies like Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Austin help customers stay updated. Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Austin City: Austin Address: 12201 Roxie Dr Website: https://www.mrrooter.com/austin

Send us a textA shipment was sent using a new UPC, but the listing is still tied to the original code. Using Amazon Warehousing & Distribution (AWD) adds complexity when dealing with mismatched SKUs. This video breaks down how to fix UPC conflicts, relabel inventory, and avoid stranded units.Got a shipment mess? Talk to an expert and fix your Amazon problems before they cost you: https://bit.ly/43N1bZD#AmazonFBA #AWD #UPC #AmazonLogistics #AmazonSellersWatch these videos on YouTube:Improve Search Rank and Drive Growth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyeMk5p-oww&list=PLDkvNlz8yl_b9RMGmU9XeqkI9D7QDOAI8&index=2The Easy Way to Find Amazon Keywords That Rank: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kmBZPid_iA&list=PLDkvNlz8yl_b9RMGmU9XeqkI9D7QDOAI8&index=3-----------------------------------------------Having trouble with SEO, PPC, or listing issues?  Send it to us: https://bit.ly/3Hrwm5fGrab the SEO Toolkit Amazon sellers use to rank faster and find missed keyword gaps: https://bit.ly/457zjSlTimestamps00:00 - UPC issue explained during shipment00:33 - Using AWD as an off-channel warehouse01:19 - Why relabeling matters for inventory tracking02:09 - Parentage problems with mismatched SKUs02:55 - AWD relabeling vs. removing inventory03:30 - Off-Amazon distribution option walkthrough04:15 - Intercepting and relabeling inbound shipments04:49 - Can a carrier reroute to avoid the issue?05:30 - Options recap and final recommendations----------------------------------------------Follow us:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28605816/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/stevenpopemag/Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/myamazonguys/Twitter: https://twitter.com/myamazonguySubscribe to the My Amazon Guy podcast: https://podcast.myamazonguy.comApple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-amazon-guy/id1501974229Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4A5ASHGGfr6s4wWNQIqyVwSupport the show

Send us a textSome sellers own the product, brand, and UPC but still can't list on Amazon. Missing brand registry links, UPC data mismatches, and catalog errors are often the cause. Common fixes include linking the UPC to GTIN fields, doing template uploads, and submitting proper packaging images.Get expert help to fix your Amazon listing issues before they cost you more sales. Book a call with us: https://bit.ly/4jMZtxuGet instant FREE access to 300 proven Amazon tips and start solving problems faster today: https://bit.ly/4ft3s1w#AmazonListingHelp #BrandRegistryFix #AmazonUPC #AmazonSellerTips #FixAmazonListingWatch these videos on YouTube: This Amazon Report Can Save Your Listings! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9WxyAmipCc&list=PLDkvNlz8yl_b5s-jb7KgPe-aPWP47jZILHow to Fix Amazon Error Code 8541 (Simple Guide): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgH2YkD_Dho&list=PLDkvNlz8yl_ZtZAhInHLZiRq2TBiQ2A2i-------------------------------------------------Avoid losing sales. Download the Amazon Crisis Kit and fix your account issues before they get worse: https://bit.ly/4maWHn0Stop wasting ad spend, use the PPC strategies in our guide to keep winning clicks that convert: https://bit.ly/4lF0OYXGet the SEO toolkit that helps you target the right keywords in every phase of your Amazon growth: https://bit.ly/457zjSlTurn your Amazon store into a sales machine, book a DTC strategy session to get your roadmap: https://bit.ly/4kOz6rrTimestamps00:00 - Amazon Blocks You from Selling Your Own Product00:26 - Common Product Listing Errors and Signs to Watch00:50 - Brand Registry Might Not Be Connected to Your ASIN01:22 - Importance of GTIN and UPC in Seller Central02:09 - What to Do If UPC Fix Doesn't Work02:57 - Submitting Cell Phone Images with Branding03:43 - Why Amazon Rejects Sticker Logos04:01 - What Happens If Brand Registry Gets Revoked04:24 - Final Steps and Summary-------------------------------------------------Follow us:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28605816/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/stevenpopemag/Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/myamazonguys/Twitter: https://twitter.com/myamazonguySubscribe to the My Amazon Guy podcast: https://podcast.myamazonguy.comApple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-amazon-guy/id1501974229Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4A5ASHGGfr6s4wWNQIqyVwSupport the show

Tired of watching customers scan your products and find them cheaper online? This episode is your game-changer! We're sharing a special recording from one of our exclusive Pet Boss Nation Lunch & Learn sessions featuring Art Nakagawa from Artvark Pet Products, who's revolutionizing private labeling for independent pet businesses. In this power-packed session, you'll discover:

On this day in 1974, the UPC barcode was scanned at a checkout counter for the first time. It may have seemed small at the time, but it revolutionized product tracking and is still going strong today. Plus, the local news for June 26, 2025 and an excerpt from the final culminating episode of “The Country In Our Hearts” podcast on Nashville's Kurdish community. Credits:  This is a production of Nashville Public Radio Host/producer: Tony Gonzalez Editor: Miriam Kramer Additional support: Mack Linebaugh, Nina Cardona, LaTonya Turner and the staff of WPLN and WNXP 

Back on this day in 1974, a pack of chewing gum became the first item to be scanned by a UPC barcode.

Les journalistes et experts de RFI répondent également à vos questions sur l'accord de paix entre le gouvernement centrafricain et deux groupes armés, les frappes américaines en Iran et les cyberattaques contre des institutions iraniennes. Côte d'Ivoire : ruée vers l'or dans le nord-est   Avec une capacité de production évaluée à 100 tonnes d'or, la mine découverte à Doropo, à la frontière avec le Burkina Faso est qualifiée de classe mondiale. Pourquoi ce gisement suscite-t-il autant d'intérêt ? Quelles sont les retombées attendues ? Avec Benoît Almeras, correspondant de RFI à Abidjan.     Centrafrique : quelles avancées après l'accord de paix signé avec des groupes armés ?   Deux mois après le cessez-le-feu conclu entre le gouvernement centrafricain et les groupes armés 3R et UPC, l'accord commence à être mis en œuvre. Quelle est la différence entre ce nouvel accord et celui conclu en 2019 ?  Pourquoi la question du désarmement n'est-elle pas à l'ordre du jour ? Avec François Mazet, journaliste au service Afrique de RFI.   Iran : les frappes américaines sont-elles anticonstitutionnelles?   Donald Trump a ordonné le bombardement des principaux sites nucléaires iraniens, dans la nuit de samedi à dimanche, sans prévenir le Congrès. Une décision dénoncée par les Démocrates qui l'accusent d'avoir enfreint la Constitution. Que dit la loi fondamentale ? Le vote du Congrès est-il obligatoire avant toute intervention militaire ? Avec Ludivine Gilli, directrice de l'Observatoire de l'Amérique du Nord de la Fondation Jean Jaurès.    Guerre Israël-Iran : cyberattaques contre le régime  La semaine dernière, alors qu'Israël menait des frappes contre l'Iran, la banque Sepah et la plus importante plateforme d'échange de cryptomonnaies du pays, Nobitex, ont été la cible de hackers. Ils se font appeler « Gonjeshke Darange », les « moineaux prédateurs » en français. Qui se cache derrière ce groupe ? Quelles sont ses revendications ?  Avec Maxime Arquillière, analyste en cybermenace pour la société française de cybersécurité Sekoia.io.

Canal UNO en la mira del gobierno Petro La Corte Constitucional rechazó una solicitud de nulidad que interpuso el Ministerio de Salud con la cual buscaba “tumbar” la decisión que ordenó el reajuste de la UPC.El ministro de Defensa Pedro Sánchez se pronunció sobre las amenazas de muerte que recibió el director de la Policía, general Carlos Fernando Triana, afirmando que los altos mandos siempre estarán amenazados e invitando a la ciudadanía a denunciar.Nueva consulta popular se tramitará antes de 20 días El alto patrimonio económico de Carlos Ramón González No soy el candidato de ningún político: excanciller Murillo lanza candidatura presidencialProcurador habla de la decisión que tomará la Corte Constitucional sobre la Reforma Pensional Estos son los contratos del magistrado Carvajal que lo inhabilitarían para debatir la PensionalAdmitida denuncia de la senadora Cabal contra Petro

Send us a textChuck Bowser explores essential cabling concepts from fiber optic compatibility to future-proofing residential installations and proper grounding techniques. He addresses practical concerns for industry professionals while celebrating new RCDD certifications within the Let's Talk Cabling community.• APC fiber patch cords should never be connected to UPC fiber adapter panels due to misaligned end faces and potential permanent damage• Future-proofing residential cabling typically means installing Cat6A despite its higher cost (66% more than Cat6) for its longevity and performance benefits• The average structured cabling plant lifespan is 7-10 years in commercial settings and 10-15 years in residential environments• Primary bonding busbars should be located near entrance facilities with secondary bonding busbars mounted high in telecom rooms• For lightning protection, modern installations should use gas tube protectors backed by solid-state protectors rather than obsolete carbon blocksIf you want to contribute equipment to the podcast studio or help with installations like conduit saddle bends, reach out to Chuck directly. New videos on grounding, J-hooks, and ladder rack installations coming soon.Support the showKnowledge is power! Make sure to stop by the webpage to buy me a cup of coffee or support the show at https://linktr.ee/letstalkcabling . Also if you would like to be a guest on the show or have a topic for discussion send me an email at chuck@letstalkcabling.com Chuck Bowser RCDD TECH#CBRCDD #RCDD

What does it take to grow a brand on Amazon today? The rules have changed, and Amazon is now less of a storefront and more of a dynamic ad and data platform. In this episode, Jayson Boyce, Founder and CEO of Avenue7Media, joins host Reid Jackson to share what he's learned over 22 years in the e-commerce world. From selling as a reseller to building a brand and leading an agency, Jayson explains why success now depends on feeding the algorithm, not pitching to buyers. He breaks down how streaming TV is driving direct Amazon sales, the problem with locked attributes and UPCs, and why attribution is finally catching up to the promise of connected TV. In this episode, you'll learn: Why traditional retail rules don't apply to Amazon How Connected TV can accelerate brand growth What makes Amazon profitable when compared to DTC Jump into the conversation: (00:00) Introducing Next Level Supply Chain (02:53) From failed consulting to full-service agency (06:26) Fixing locked attributes and bad UPC data (09:59) Streaming ads that convert like e-commerce (13:56) Selling to algorithms, not people (16:34) Comparing Amazon to direct-to-consumer (20:44) Why CTV is outperforming display ads (26:48) How AI will change the way we shop   Connect with GS1 US: Our website - www.gs1us.org GS1 US on LinkedIn   Connect with the guest: Jayson Boyce on LinkedInCheck out Avenue7Media

Amazon is raising fees again. The Amazon big spring sale is now live. These buzzing stories and more on today's episode! ► Instagram: instagram.com/serioussellerspodcast ► Free Amazon Seller Chrome Extension: https://h10.me/extension ► Sign Up For Helium 10: https://h10.me/signup  (Use SSP10 To Save 10% For Life) ► Learn How To Sell on Amazon: https://h10.me/ft ► Watch The Podcasts On YouTube: youtube.com/@Helium10/videos We're back with another episode of the Weekly Buzz with Helium 10's VP of Education and Strategy, Bradley Sutton. Every week, we cover the latest breaking news in the Amazon, Walmart, and E-commerce space, talk about Helium 10's newest features, and provide a training tip for the week for serious sellers of any level. Amazon is making it easier to try using deals and coupons to create additional demand for your products https://sellercentral.amazon.com/seller-news/articles/QVRWUERLSUtYMERFUiNHM0EyTUgyRjQ1S1lZRzY2 Amazon's Big Spring Sale 2025 starts March 25 https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/retail/amazon-big-spring-sale-2025 AI startup Perplexity confirms interest to buy TikTok https://techxplore.com/news/2025-03-ai-startup-perplexity-buy-tiktok.html Catch Bradley Sutton at the Prosper Show! https://www.linkedin.com/posts/h10bradley_see-you-guys-at-prosper-this-week-here-activity-7310218411182026752-m4Al? For our new feature alerts, Helium 10 has introduced two highly requested features in Blackbox. The first caters to wholesale and arbitrage sellers, allowing them to search products using UPC, EAN, or GTIN codes, even by uploading bulk lists of 200–300+ identifiers. This streamlines the process of evaluating wholesale opportunities by quickly identifying which products are on Amazon and their estimated sales. The second feature is designed for Amazon influencers, enabling them to find high-ROI products for video content. By switching to “Influencer Mode,” users can filter products by category, price range, reviews, and the number of videos in the carousel, helping them identify listings where they have a strong chance of earning commissions. Lastly, our strategy of the week features Helium 10's Keyword Sales Estimate feature, which goes beyond search volume to show the actual sales estimates a keyword generates. This helps sellers prioritize high-converting keywords instead of just high-traffic ones, ultimately improving ad efficiency and product targeting. For instance, while two keywords may have similar search volumes, one might convert at a much higher rate due to buyer intent. This level of insight, exclusive to Helium 10, ensures sellers focus on terms that drive actual sales. If you're headed to the Prosper Show in Las Vegas, don't miss out on the chance to meet us and share your story—there might even be a spot for you on the Serious Sellers Podcast! In this episode of the Weekly Buzz by Helium 10, Bradley covers: 00:38 - Coupons/Deals Skyrocket? 17:25 - Big Spring Sale 18:31 - TikTok Buyer? 19:31 - Prosper Show 20:22 - Helium 10 New Feature Alerts 24:24 - Strategy of the week: Keyword Sales Estimates

Send us a textStruggling to increase sales on Amazon? Learn how improving your main images and fixing UPC issues can make a big difference. See why focusing on 'show, not tell' in graphics is key to winning customer trust.Get more visibility on Amazon.  Download our free SEO Toolkit: https://bit.ly/4bMrClLWatch these videos on YouTube:Simple Trick to Cut PPC Costs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5CM6XtYo1c&list=PLDkvNlz8yl_YEKE1B5o1uhbBm1QQcPzmY&index=39High Sales, Low Clicks? Here's What You're Missing on Amazon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9JWOfwY_7E&list=PLDkvNlz8yl_bJFHwDexEcnnEZ8f98kdZH&index=2-------------------------------------------------Got questions about your Amazon listing? Ask now and get the answers you need: https://bit.ly/4k0QIRKNeed expert advice on your Amazon business? Book a free coaching call: http://bit.ly/3B3HMJATimestamps00:05 - Struggling to Increase Sales?00:17 - Why Main Image Optimization Matters00:45 - Common Image Mistakes to Avoid01:26 - Improving Graphics for Better Sales01:52 - The UPC Code Problem Explained02:08 - How to Fix UPC Issues on Amazon02:42 - Where to Get Help with UPC Changes02:49 - How My Amazon Guy Can Help-------------------------------------------------Follow us:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28605816/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/stevenpopemag/Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/myamazonguys/Twitter: https://twitter.com/myamazonguySubscribe to the My Amazon Guy podcast: https://podcast.myamazonguy.comApple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-amazon-guy/id1501974229Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4A5ASHGGfr6s4wWNQIqyVwSupport the show