Podcasts about UPC

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.

"Revoluci

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.

Hoy hablaremos de la petición de Petro a Ecopetrol, la nueva empresa de ISA, la propuesta de la ANDI para la UPC y el proyecto de decreto que involucra a Airbnb https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va4POHt6WaKhONGGhi38[Patrocinado] Conoce las oportunidades que ofrece Deel ⁠aquí.⁠

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

​Al Capítol 76 de La Nova Mobilitat, parlem d'una tecnologia que ja està transformant la logística i la micromobilitat: la càrrega sense fils.​Conversem amb Eugeni Llagostera, CEO de Magnetika, una Deep Tech nascuda a la UPC que està liderant el desenvolupament de sistemes de transferència d'energia ressonant d'alta eficiència.​

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.

Neste episódio do Precision Cast, damos continuidade à conversa sobre Unidade de Pesquisa Clínica (UPC).

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/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

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

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.

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

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.

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

En tan solo un año, el nuevo arrecife del Port Olímpic de Barcelona se ha llenado de vida: pulpos, mantas, morrajas y hasta castañuelas. Es un festival, un jardín, en palabras del biólogo y director del Zoo de Bcn, Sito Alarcón. Más de un centenar de especies marinas ha colonizado este hábitat artificial formado por 50 estructuras de hormigón. Además de urtas, sargos, doradas y rascacios también hay un festival de algas como anémonas, pardas, rojas y plumas de mar. Nada que ver con las inmersiones que Alarcón recuerda hace 40 años cuando solo había un barro oscuro donde apenas vivían unos gusanos, la zona estaba plagada de vertidos de aguas residuales y suciedad que bajaba por el río Besós que ya era un vertedero en sí. En invierno y primavera, la biodiversidad será mucho más rica ya que es cuando tienen disponibilidad de nutrientes y agua más fresca. Una biodiversidad que captura CO2 y mejora la calidad del agua. Ahora se estudiará el agua, las especies y los sedimentos en un proyecto liderado por la Fundación Barcelona Zoo en colaboración con el Instituto de Ciencias del Mar (ICM) del CSIC, la Universidad de Barcelona y la UPC. Es zona portuaria, así que está prohibida la pesca y las inmersiones no científicas, pero cualquier terrestre podrá pasearse en un futuro próximo por el renovado fondo marino que a medio plazo se emitirá en streaming.Escuchar audio

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:

Vidcast:  https://www.instagram.com/p/DMA9yXjuHQo/Harbor Freight Tools Predator 2000 Watt Power Stations, when used in Emergency Power Supply mode, have wires in the AC outlet receptacles that are reversed, creating a risk of electric shocks.  Affected is SKU number 70084 and UPC 193175488718.About 6,500 units were sold at Harbor Freight Tools stores nationwide between February 2025 and April 2025.Immediately stop using these recalled power stations and return them to any Harbor Freight Tools location for a free replacement unit. For additional information, contact Harbor Freight Tools at 1-800-444-3353 or via the email recall@harborfreight.com. https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2025/Harbor-Freight-Tools-Recalls-Predator-2000-Watt-Power-Stations-Due-to-Shock-Hazard#harborfreight #powerstation #shock #recall

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.

Hofood99 Enoki Mushrooms Have Listeria Contamination. This bacterium causes a severe and sometimes fatal systemic infection in the very young, older frail individuals, and those with weakened immune systems. Listeria can also trigger miscarriages and stillbirths. Affected is product with UPC barcode 6 976532 310051.These enoki mushrooms were sold nationwide in retail stores.If you purchased these mushrooms, immediately return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.  For more information, call Hofood99 Inc. at (917) 756-9833.https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/hofood99-inc-recalls-enoki-mushroom-due-possible-health-riskVidcast:  https://www.instagram.com/p/DLBDbPBgevS/#hofood99 #enoki #mushrooms #listeria #infection #recall

This show has been flagged as Explicit by the host. Prerequisites: Novice Ability to read and write. Access to pen and paper. Advanced/Expert Disc bound notebook (if you're cool you'll have one) Title: BIC Soft Feel Retractable Ballpoint Pen, Medium Point (1.0mm) Source(s): https://us.bic.com/en_us/bic-soft-feel-retractable-ball-point-pen-medium-assorted-36-pack.html UPC: 070330196506 Item Number: SCSM361-AST Commercial name: Soft Feel Retractable Ball Pen Retractable pen no-slip grip Tungsten carbide ball 1.0mm medium point Title: BIC Cristal Xtra Smooth Black Ballpoint Pens, Medium Point (1.0mm). Source(s): https://us.bic.com/en_us/bic-cristal-xtra-smooth-black-ballpoint-pens-medium-point-1-0mm-500-count-pack.html UPC: 070330377226 Item Number: MS500E-BLK Commercial name: Cristal Xtra Smooth Ball Pen Cap with pocket clip Tungsten carbide ball 1.0mm medium point Translucent barrel for visible ink supply Title: BIC Round Stic Xtra Comfort Black Ballpoint Pens, Medium Point (1.0mm). Source(s): https://us.bic.com/en_us/bic-round-stic-xtra-comfort-black-ballpoint-pens-144-count-pack.html UPC: 070330377325 Item Number: GSMG144E-BLK Commercial name: Round Stic Grip Xtra Comfort Ball Pen Cap with pocket clip Tungsten carbide ball 1.0mm medium point Title: BIC Round Stic Xtra Life, Ball Point Pen Source(s): https://us.bic.com/en_us/bic-round-stic-xtra-life-ball-point-pen-blue-60-pack.html Cap with pocket clip Tungsten carbide ball 1.0mm medium point Translucent barrel for visible ink supply UPC: 070330131613 Item Number: GSM609DC Commercial name: Round Stic Xtra Life Ball Pen Title: Pilot G2 Pens 0.7 mm Source(s): https://www.target.com/s/pilot+g2+pens Source(s): https://pilotpen.us/Product?0=41&1=47&cid=260 Gel ink Rolling Ball 0.7mm fine point Translucent barrel for visible ink supply Rubber grip Refillable Convenient clip Title: Uniball Signo 207 Source(s): https://www.unibrands.co/collections/207 Gel ink 0.7mm fine point Translucent barrel for visible ink supply Rubber grip Refillable Convenient clip Title: uniball™ Roller, Rollerball Pens. Source(s): https://www.unibrands.co/collections/rollerball-pens/products/roller-rollerball-pens Gel ink 0.7mm fine point Refillable Cap with clip Title: 8.5 x 11 dot grid paper, 100 sheets/200 pages. Source(s): https://www.amazon.com/Unpunched-Refills-Discbound-Notebook-Planner/dp/B08Q3DR7LX?th=1 Title: Bullet Journal® (aka Bujo) is a simple life operating system. Source(s): https://bulletjournal.com/ Source(s): https://youtu.be/fm15cmYU0IM Source(s): https://www.youtube.com/bulletjournal Title: hpr2415 :: bullet journal to org mode Source(s): https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr2415/index.html Title: Staples 1-Subject Customizable Notebook Source(s): https://www.staples.com/staples-arc-customizable-notebook-6-3-4-x-8-3-4-60-sheets-narrow-ruled-black-20000/product_886234 Title: Pen+Gear Soft Pencil Grip, Assort Color 20 Counts Source(s): https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-Soft-Pencil-Grip-Assort-Color-20-Counts/1214761626 Title: Pen+Gear Silicone Pencil Grip, Multicolor, 6 Count Source(s): https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pen-Gear-Adaptive-Pencil-Grips-Assorted-Colors-6-Count/1663341728 Title: F-301 Retractable Ballpoint Source(s): https://www.zebrapen.com/collections/featured-products/products/f-301-retractable-ballpoint?variant=40832122126542Provide feedback on this episode.

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

謙信著作：歷史偵探武田謙信，共十七集已經完結，在Readmoo kobo 都已經發售，google、amazon 與Bookwalker書店也將上架。 業務合作請洽：japantraveler1@gmail.com athrunzhung@gmail.com 在1974年6月26日，俄亥俄州特洛伊市的Marsh超市中，一位普通的收銀員用掃描器掃過了第一包商品——箭牌（Wrigley）的Juicy Fruit口香糖。這不僅僅是一個普通的結帳動作，它象徵著通用產品代碼（UPC）條碼技術的誕生，開啟了零售業的全新篇章。這項創新技術，現在被我們熟知並無處不在，從超市、零售店到醫院、甚至太空探測器，條碼的應用幾乎涵蓋了我們日常生活的方方面面。 條碼技術最初的誕生，是為了解決當時雜貨店中繁瑣且低效的手動結帳過程。想像一下，在沒有條碼的年代，收銀員需要一一手動輸入每個商品的價格，這不僅耗時，也容易出錯。而UPC條碼的出現，讓這一切都變得簡單又高效。商品上只需要印上一個小小的條碼，掃描器一掃，價格和商品信息瞬間就能顯示出來，省時又準確。 fb專頁：https://www.facebook.com/historysquare/ FB社團：https://www.facebook.com/groups/873307933055348 Podcast : http://kshin.co​ Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2S-492vfSw&list=PLolto1Euzd4XcbP9oX9JXI3wOlrovdgcC twitter:@alexzhung 電子書著作 Amazon : https://reurl.cc/g8lprR​ Readmoo ：https://reurl.cc/jqpYmm​ Kobo : https://reurl.cc/GdDLgW​ Google : https://reurl.cc/9ZyLyn​ －－－－以下訊息由 SoundOn 動態廣告贊助商提供－－－－

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

Send us a textAre you dealing with Amazon Error Code 8541? This happens when you try to change listing attributes like UPC, ASIN, or brand name, and Amazon rejects the update. Learn the exact steps to fix this issue, whether using flat file uploads or contacting Amazon Seller Support.Get more sales with smarter ads, download our PPC guide today: https://bit.ly/4ketTdn#AmazonSeller #AmazonListing #AmazonFBA #EcommerceTips #FlatFileUploadsWatch these on YouTube:PPC Bidding Hacks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FyxMeI8ShE&list=PLDkvNlz8yl_b9RMGmU9XeqkI9D7QDOAI8 Solve Error Code 8572 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8mv8hl7gzM&list=PLDkvNlz8yl_ZtZAhInHLZiRq2TBiQ2A2i-----------------------------------------------Not sure if your listing is fully optimized? Let us take a look: https://bit.ly/4k0QIRKOne call can change your strategy. Book a free call with us: https://bit.ly/3Qg8HWFTimestamps00:00 - Struggling with Amazon Error 8541?00:18 - What is Error Code 8541?01:10 - Attributes You Can & Can't Change on Amazon02:40 - How to Fix Error 8541 with Flat File Uploads03:50 - What to Do If Your UPC Conflicts with Another Listing05:00 - Contacting Amazon Support for Listing Issues06:30 - Best Practices to Prevent This Error07:20 - Final Thoughts & How to Get More 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

About the Guest(s):Adam Peek is an expert in the packaging industry with over 14 years of experience. He specializes in labels, folding cartons, and RFID technology. Currently residing in West Jordan, Utah, Adam has a strong footprint in the labeling sector, working with a variety of companies to optimize their product packaging solutions. His deep understanding of the complexities of labeling and packaging positions him as a leading voice in sustainable packaging practices and innovations within the industry.Episode Summary:In this informative episode of the Packaging Today show, Adam Peek tackles an essential and often overlooked aspect of the packaging world: labels. While his co-hosts Cory and Evelio are attending Paris Packaging Week, Adam broadcasts solo from his home base in Utah. He provides an in-depth analysis of why labels are, in fact, a crucial component of packaging—contrary to some industry beliefs. Adam delves into the role labels play in product identification, compliance, and consumer information, asserting that labels are vital not only for brand identity but for the overall functionality and recyclability of packaging.Adam emphasizes the importance of selecting the right labels and adhesives, particularly concerning sustainability and recyclability. He discusses the declining PET resin prices and how the packaging industry must adapt to ensure the economic feasibility of recycling efforts. Adam dissects the complexities of label application, adhesive types, and the dire environmental implications of mismatched materials. The conversation underscores the transition in global packaging towards enhanced recyclability, highlighting how both consumers and companies can contribute to better recycling outcomes by understanding and improving label choices.Key Takeaways:* Labels are Essential Packaging: Labels are not merely decorative; they are essential for product identification, compliance, and consumer engagement, making them an integral part of the packaging.* Adhesive Selection is Crucial: The choice of adhesive on labels significantly impacts the recyclability of packaging, with the potential to either facilitate or hinder the recycling process.* Recyclability Challenges: PET and HDPE containers face distinct challenges regarding labels, and improper label choices can render materials unrecyclable, affecting recyclability economics.* Sustainable Practices: Understanding the complete lifecycle of packaging, including labeling, is necessary for developing sustainable solutions in the industry.* Technological Transition: Upcoming changes like the shift from UPC codes to QR codes (Sunrise 2027) signify evolving labeling technologies and their functionalities.Notable Quotes:* "Labels are packaging. They're not something separate from the realm of packaging, they are integral to it."* "The adhesive is not only about getting that label to stick, but about how we can navigate the challenges posed by recycling."* “There's no perfect solution for packaging. The perfect solution is really to have nothing, but that's not practical."* "The shift from the traditional UPC to QR codes by 2027 will transform how consumers and registers interact with packaging."* "It's not just the label material that needs attention; the adhesive is critically important when it comes to the recycling ecosystem."Resources:* SpecRight* Trayak* GS1 Website for information on Sunrise 2027* Consortium for Waste Circularity* Packaging Today Podcast: Search on Apple and Spotify for episodesDiscover more about the intricacies of packaging design and sustainability by tuning into this episode. Stay updated with the latest trends in the packaging industry, and anticipate insightful discussions from Packaging Today in future episodes. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.packagingisawesome.com

How can advertisers navigate today's fragmented media landscape and deliver better ad experiences for consumers? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I'm joined by Nada Bradbury, CEO of Ad-ID, to discuss how universal ad-tracking solutions are transforming the ad-tech industry. As audiences seamlessly switch between linear and digital content, the critical need for a standardized system like Ad-ID has never been more urgent.Nada explains how Ad-ID provides a universal registry for creative ads—assigning unique identifiers to each ad, similar to UPC codes for products. This innovation addresses key challenges in the advertising world, such as ad frequency management, cross-platform measurement, and balancing personalization with consumer trust. The result? A better content experience for consumers and a more efficient, optimized approach for brands. We explore the findings of a recent Harris Poll survey highlighting the consumer impact of ad overload, with 61% of respondents stating that excessive ad frequency discourages them from buying a product.  Nada shares how Ad-ID is helping brands prevent overexposure, improve targeting, and deliver relevant ads without compromising privacy. With 76% of viewers desiring better-targeted ads, Ad-ID's metadata-driven approach offers a powerful solution for creating engaging and tailored experiences. The conversation also delves into the broader role of Ad-ID in supporting cross-platform transparency and accountability, as well as its potential to set global standards for ad measurement and optimization. Whether you're in advertising, marketing, or simply curious about how technology is improving the consumer experience, this episode offers valuable insights into the future of ad-tech. How do you see ad-tracking solutions like Ad-ID shaping the future of advertising and consumer trust? Join the discussion and share your thoughts!