Podcasts about us patent

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.

Mr. Beast Biography Flash a weekly Biography.In the past few days Mr Beast has made international headlines across business entertainment and social media in ways that could become pivotal chapters in his future biography. October 16 saw Mr Beast light up social networks when he posted a photo alongside Bollywood's legendary three Khans—Shah Rukh Khan, Salman Khan, and Aamir Khan—during the Joy Forum 2025 in Riyadh Saudi Arabia. The image, captioned Hey India should we all do something together quickly ignited rumors of a possible collaboration. Major Indian and international outlets including Hindustan Times and MensXP describe how this surprise gathering, rarely seen in Bollywood itself, unleashed a frenzy of speculation about what sort of global-scale project could bring together YouTube's top creator and Bollywood's most enduring superstars. Fans and commentators have been abuzz with theories, some calling it a PR move, others convinced something huge is brewing, but as of today nothing official has been confirmed by any party involved.On the business front the biggest confirmed development is Mr Beast's foray into fintech with Beast Financial. According to filings with the US Patent and Trademark Office made public on October 15-17, his company Beast Holdings LLC recently applied for the trademark MrBeast Financial which points to an ambitious plan for a mobile banking and crypto platform. Business Insider and Hypebeast report that investor pitch decks and trademark documents outline everything from a crypto exchange and digital banking to student loans insurance credit management and investment guidance, all targeted to his 445 million strong mostly young audience. The plan is to launch through partnerships with established fintechs, an approach business analysts say is meant to avoid regulatory hurdles and capital risks while leveraging Beast's immense brand trust among Gen Z and millennials. The filings suggest no definite launch date but the intent and scope are clear, and the social media reaction has already included offers of advice from industry veterans like Bank of Dave founder Dave Fishwick as highlighted by UniladTech.In social media territory Mr Beast's Instagram Story with the three Khans has already gone viral across India, surging to the top of Twitter and generating millions of shares and fan memes. Discussion continues about whether this cross-continental celebrity energy will transform into new content or business collaborations, but right now everything beyond the photo and his teasing caption is strictly speculation.No new Mr Beast video or Twitter controversy has broken out in the last 24 hours, and there's been no official statement so far addressing specifics of the Bollywood rumors or the anticipated fintech rollout. With long-term biographical significance, these moves signal Mr Beast's increasing ambition to move far beyond YouTube influence into global markets and high-stakes industries.Thanks for listening to Mr Beast Biography Flash. If you want to keep up with every twist in Mr Beast's amazing story don't forget to subscribe and search the term Biography Flash for more great biographies.Get the best deals https://amzn.to/4mMClBvThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Your business name, logo, slogan, or product design could be worth protecting—and trademarks are the key to safeguarding them. In this National Inventor Club session, we were joined by Christina Calloway, Attorney for Trademarks Customer Outreach at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), for an essential Trademark Boot Camp. Christina shared expert guidance on how inventors, entrepreneurs, and business owners can build lasting brand value by protecting their intellectual property before it's too late.

OA1193 - Could Tylenol sue RFK Jr. for libel? Does the pressure the FCC put on Disney/ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel constitute a First Amendment violation? Is the Trump administration really going to charge rural hospitals $100,000 for the privilege of being able to hire foreign doctors? In today's Rapid Response Friday we answer all of these recent patron questions and more, and Jenessa shares a personal footnote about her decision to voluntarily take the most specialized bar exam in the US legal system. The Campaign for Accountability's bar complaint against FCC chairman Brendan Carr  Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, (Presidential Proclamation dated 9/20/2025) US Patent and Trademark Office bar registration page  

This Day in Legal History: Lord Haw-Haw SentencedOn September 19, 1945, William Joyce—infamously known as “Lord Haw-Haw”—was sentenced to death by a British court for high treason. Joyce had gained notoriety during World War II for broadcasting Nazi propaganda over German radio to British audiences, aiming to demoralize Allied troops and civilians. Born in Brooklyn, New York, and raised in the UK and Ireland, Joyce later became a naturalized German citizen and an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler. His broadcasts, delivered in a nasal, sneering voice, opened with the phrase “Germany calling,” and earned him the derisive nickname "Lord Haw-Haw" from British listeners.After the war, Joyce was captured by British forces in Germany and brought back to the UK to stand trial. Despite his German citizenship, the court ruled that he had committed treason because he had held a British passport when he began working for the Nazis. His legal defense argued that he owed no allegiance to Britain at the time of the broadcasts, but the court held that possession of the passport created a duty of allegiance. The case raised significant questions about the limits of national loyalty and the reach of British treason laws.On January 6, 1946, Joyce was executed by hanging at Wandsworth Prison, becoming one of the last people to be executed for treason in the UK. The trial and execution were controversial, with some legal scholars and public commentators questioning the soundness of the court's interpretation of allegiance. Nevertheless, the sentence was seen by many at the time as a necessary response to one of the most prominent domestic collaborators of the war.The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), long considered a cost-effective and critical pillar of U.S. workplace safety, has been effectively dismantled under the Trump administration's 2025 restructuring efforts. The agency, a division of the CDC responsible for certifying N95 masks, studying firefighter deaths, and leading occupational health research, saw roughly 90% of its 1,000 staff receive layoff notices on April 1. This move paralyzed core programs, from black lung screenings to PPE certifications, halting NIOSH's role as both a public safeguard and a quiet corporate consultant. The sudden cuts sparked chaos: lab animals were euthanized, crucial research was frozen, and businesses warned of safety gaps and market instability.Many affected workers have since resigned or are stuck on administrative leave, while others remain in limbo as lawsuits challenge the legality of the terminations. Despite statements from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claiming essential functions remain intact, internal confusion and partial walk-backs—like budget proposals still seeking to slash 80% of NIOSH funding—suggest deeper dismantling intentions. Business leaders, labor unions, and safety advocates have united in rare bipartisan pushback, warning of long-term risks to both worker health and industrial standards.The agency's downfall is part of a broader campaign to weaken the federal workforce, spearheaded by Project 2025 architects and executed with sweeping firings, anti-DEI mandates, and deep budget cuts across agencies. Former government scientists describe the collapse of safety infrastructure as a slow, invisible crisis—where the full damage may not emerge for years. With morale shattered and talent fleeing, the future of U.S. workplace safety research is in jeopardy.Trump Team Derailed Corporate America's Most Valuable ConsultantTwo major elements of President Donald Trump's economic agenda—his global tariffs and his attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook—are now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, raising pivotal questions about the scope of presidential power. The court has agreed to hear a challenge to Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs, a law traditionally used to sanction hostile foreign actors, not manage trade. Arguments are set for November 5. Separately, Trump is seeking to fire Cook, claiming misconduct; however, critics argue this is a pretext for targeting her policy views and that doing so violates the 1913 law establishing the Fed's independence.Legal scholars warn that siding with Trump in either case could dramatically expand executive authority. Trump has already tested legal boundaries across immigration, diversity, and civil service policy. While lower courts have often blocked his initiatives, the Supreme Court—now with a 6-3 conservative majority including three Trump appointees—has frequently sided with him. The Cook case raises unprecedented constitutional questions, as no president has ever removed a Fed governor.Meanwhile, Trump's tariff actions have destabilized global trade relations and spurred economic uncertainty, though his allies argue they are central to his economic strategy. A decision favoring Trump in both cases could weaken institutional checks on executive power and erode the principle of independent monetary policy.Key parts of Trump's economic agenda now in Supreme Court's hands | ReutersIn Washington, D.C., immigrant neighborhoods like Mount Pleasant, Petworth, and Columbia Heights are pushing back against a surge in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests under President Donald Trump's intensified immigration enforcement campaign. Local residents have begun organizing in real-time—using chat groups and in-person protests—to disrupt ICE detentions, including a recent case where bystanders successfully pressured officers to release a Guatemalan man. These actions reflect growing distrust and fear within largely Latino communities, where residents report increased racial profiling and aggressive policing.The Trump administration's recent declaration of a “crime emergency” in D.C., coupled with the federalization of local police and a heightened ICE presence, has heightened tensions, especially in areas with deep immigrant roots. Community members and advocacy groups say people are being targeted based on appearance or location, not criminal history. Businesses that once bustled with immigrant patrons are seeing sharp declines in foot traffic, as many residents now avoid public spaces out of fear.Federal officials defend the enforcement as targeting serious offenders, but critics point out that many arrests involve individuals without criminal records. A Supreme Court ruling this month has further enabled ICE to continue race- or location-based arrests. Meanwhile, residents like Yessica Gonzalez and Nelvin Rodriguez say the climate of fear is unlike anything they've previously experienced. The increased enforcement has not only disrupted lives but also strained local economies and community trust.Washington's immigrant neighborhoods push back against ICE arrests | ReutersThe U.S. Senate has confirmed John Squires, a veteran intellectual property attorney and former Goldman Sachs executive, as the new head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under President Donald Trump. Squires takes over at a critical time, as the agency grapples with global competition from China and emerging legal challenges surrounding artificial intelligence in the patent process. His appointment follows a broad push by Senate Republicans to confirm a slate of Trump nominees despite Democratic opposition.Squires brings a deep background in both corporate and legal arenas, having worked on IP and tech issues at firms like Honeywell and most recently at Dilworth Paxson, where he focused on AI, blockchain, and cybersecurity. He has also taught at the University of Pennsylvania. His predecessor, Kathi Vidal, led the USPTO during the Biden administration and returned to private practice following Trump's 2024 election victory.The USPTO plays a vital role in the American innovation ecosystem, handling patent and trademark applications and advising the government on intellectual property policy. The agency's Patent Trial and Appeal Board frequently mediates high-stakes disputes over patent validity, especially in the tech sector. Squires steps into the role amid heightened political scrutiny, including a controversial Commerce Department order to review patents held by Harvard University as part of a broader White House campaign linked to campus antisemitism concerns.US Senate confirms Trump's pick to run US Patent and Trademark Office | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Gustav Mahler.This week's closing theme comes from one of the most enigmatic works in the orchestral repertoire: Mahler's Symphony No. 7, specifically its haunting first movement, Langsam – Allegro risoluto, ma non troppo. Composed between 1904 and 1905 and premiered on September 19, 1908, this symphony marks a fascinating midpoint in Mahler's artistic evolution—bridging the lush Romanticism of his earlier works with the more fractured, modernist terrain of his later symphonies.The first movement opens with a dark, slow introduction featuring the eerie voice of the tenor horn, an instrument rarely heard in symphonic writing. Its strange, searching call sets a tone of unease, as if the music is emerging from shadow. What follows is a restless march full of contrasts—grim fanfares, lyrical episodes, and bursts of uneasy energy—all presented with Mahler's characteristic sense of orchestral color and irony.Unlike the more spiritual or pastoral moods of Mahler's other symphonies, the Seventh is often described as "problematic," even "nightmarish"—a label Mahler himself rejected. He referred to the symphony as a progression “from night into day,” and this opening movement represents the beginning of that journey: turbulent, disoriented, and shot through with moments of beauty and menace.Mahler's orchestration here is dense and highly detailed, often requiring massive forces and unconventional instruments. Yet beneath its complexity lies a deep emotional current—one that shifts rapidly from the grotesque to the sublime. The movement ends not with resolution but with a kind of defiant uncertainty, a theme Mahler would continue to explore in his final works.As our closing theme this week, Langsam – Allegro reminds us that the path through darkness is rarely straightforward—and that art, like life, often resists tidy interpretation.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Langsam – Allegro risoluto, ma non troppo– enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Monday's are engineered to entice and intrigue newer solvers, and today's crossword, by Margaret Seikel, does so admirably. There were a few clues that gave us pause: 47D, Attaches, ADDSON (not ADHERES, which, among other problems, would not fit); 43D, Georgia politico Stacey _______, ABRAMS, eventually came to mind (she has definitely not been prominent in the news as of late); and we were especially surprised by 42A, Flower symbolizing early love, LILAC. Now we know!Show note imagery: US Patent 4,530,631, for the POPTABWe love feedback! Send us a text...Contact Info:We love listener mail! Drop us a line, crosswordpodcast@icloud.com.Also, we're on FaceBook, so feel free to drop by there and strike up a conversation!

With the school year just around the corner, we're going back to a great episode featuring Professor Nicole Morris of Emory Law. Nicole wears many hats. She's not only a professor, but also leads the TI:GER program, which brings together students from law, business, and engineering to turn ideas into real world innovations. Since we last spoke with her, she has become the Faculty Director of Emory's IP & Innovation Clinic, the only clinic in Georgia authorized by the US Patent and Trademark Office to allow law students to practice patent law. In our conversation, Nicole talks about how she found her way into legal education and why experiential learning is so essential for today's students. It's a must-listen as we gear up for the fall. Thank you very much. We're back after the holiday with a new episode. This week, we're joined by Nicole Morris, professor of practice at Emory University School of Law, director of the Innovation and Legal Tech Initiative, and director of the TI:GER program. Nicole has had a fascinating, multifaceted career journey. After working as a chemical engineer for several years, she decided to go to law school. She then became a patent attorney at large and midsize law firms, and later worked in-house. As a professor of practice at Emory, Nicole's focus includes patent law, patent litigation, IP licensing, and strategy. She is director of the school's program Technological Innovation: Generating Economic Results (TI:GER). TI:GER is an innovative program that brings together graduate students in law, business, science, and engineering to work on ways to take innovative ideas from the lab to the marketplace. In our discussion, Nicole talks about her journey from chemical engineering to law, the various elements of TI:GER, and the importance of human skills in the legal profession. Read a transcript of this episode here: https://www.seyfarth.com/dir_docs/podcast_transcripts/BestofPioneers_NicoleMorris.pdf

Welcome to another episode of The Lindsey Anderson Show! Today, I'm diving into a topic that I'm sure many of you haven't thought much about: legal protections for your online content. As entrepreneurs and online business owners, we show up online every day—creating content, generating sales, and building our brands. But here's the real question: Is your business actually protected?The truth is, many entrepreneurs are losing money, missing opportunities, and even getting taken advantage of because they haven't protected their intellectual property. Whether you're posting on social media, creating content, or launching offers, you need to ensure that your work is legally protected. Today's guest, Robert Thony, is here to help us navigate this crucial area of business. He'll be sharing how to protect your intellectual property before it's too late. I'm so excited for you to hear this!Guest IntroductionRobert Thony is the founder of Tony Law and Entertainment, a firm that specializes in IP law and business law. With over a decade of experience, Robert has been helping entrepreneurs, creators, and online business owners protect their work and secure better deals.He's an expert in trademarks, copyrights, contracts, and negotiation strategies. Robert has worked with countless brands to ensure they're legally protected while continuing to grow. His goal is simple: to help businesses not only survive but thrive, all while being legally secure. Robert provides guidance on everything from brand protection to navigating the complexities of the digital world with legal insight. Let's dive into the conversation with Robert!Protect Your Brand and Business - Key TakeawaysProtect Your Brand Early: It's critical to get your business structure right from the start. Whether you're a consultant, or running a tech startup, choosing the right legal entity is key to protecting your business in the long run.Trademark Protection: Your brand name and logo should be protected from day one. Register them with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to prevent infringement and legal issues down the line.Trademark Search: Always conduct a comprehensive trademark search to make sure no one else is using a name or logo that's too similar to yours.Legal Structure Matters: The legal structure you choose for your business affects the kind of protection you need. For example, a service-based business will have different legal needs than a product-based business.Investment in Protection: While it costs $350 per mark to file a trademark application with the USPTO, it's a worthwhile investment to secure your brand's future. The process can take 9-12 months, but it's worth the wait for the protection it provides.Why Entrepreneurs Wait Too Long: Entrepreneurs often delay legal protection due to budget constraints or the desire to focus on marketing. However, failing to protect your brand early could lead to costly rebranding or legal disputes in the future.Client Example: The Cost of WaitingWe share a common example that happens way too often. A business owner starts using a name that's similar to another trademarked brand. At first, everything seems fine, but then, the clients start getting confused—some even reach out to the wrong business thinking they're contacting the right one.In these situations, the client may have to rebrand entirely, which is a huge financial and logistical burden. And sometimes, the other business already owns the trademark, which means they have the legal right to shut you down. This happens all the time, and it can set you back months, if not years, in your business journey.Key Quotes"If you're serious about business, you need to get this protection so that you're not wasting...

The US Patent and Trademark Office has already invested heavily in artificial intelligence capabilities. Its employees have access to several tools to review documents and reduce the burden of administrative and clerical tasks on examiners through a new request for information, the USPTO wants to accelerate its use of AI tools with more on USPTO plans to bring these capabilities to its workforce. Federal News Networks' Executive Editor Jason Miller joins me now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

-The New Worst Game Release: https://www.eurogamer.net/mindseye-review -Prince of Persia is still happening: https://www.pcgamer.com/games/action/prince-of-persia-social-media-botch-forces-ubisoft-to-promise-once-again-that-its-still-working-on-the-sands-of-time/ -Xbox hardware isn't going anywhere: https://www.ign.com/articles/microsoft-confirms-first-party-next-generation-xbox-consoles-announces-deal-with-amd-and-promises-full-backwards-compatibility-with-your-existing-xbox-library -Riiiiiiiigggghhhhht… Sure Bungie, whatever you say: https://www.eurogamer.net/bungies-marathon-reboot-delayed-indefinitely-in-response-to-passionate-fan-feedback -Twyman's Switch 2, first switch he's owned and first impressions.  Also why the crap is Mario Kart $80…. -Sag-Aftra video game voice actor's strike is over… pending approval. https://www.polygon.com/gaming/606500/sag-aftra-video-game-voice-actors-strike-ending -Sony files a Notice of Opposition with the US Patent and Trademark office over “Naughty Cat”... https://www.ign.com/articles/naughty-dog-owner-sony-files-opposition-to-naughty-cat-trademark-application-says-dog-and-cat-are-highly-similar https://preview.redd.it/sony-sues-because-cat-and-dog-are-similar-v0-mkjps9sri76f1.jpeg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=2f5f2efb94be146054cce131893d06133b6cfb56

How do you patent health tech inventions in today's challenging IP landscape, especially when AI is reshaping the game? We explore the complex world of patenting health technology inventions with Ryan Phelan, U.S. Patent Attorney and Partner at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP. Health tech innovations, from AI-powered diagnostic tools to surgical robotics, often face unique patent hurdles. This is especially true under the U.S. Patent Office's evolving guidelines.  What you'll learn: Why many health tech patents get rejected as "organizing human activity" Proven strategies and workarounds to successfully patent healthcare IT and software-driven medical devices The explosive growth of AI patents in healthcare and what it means for innovators  Tips for healthcare startups and executives to protect their breakthroughs and intellectual property If you're working in healthcare innovation, med tech, medical device development, AI in health, or intellectual property law, this episode offers essential insights to help you safeguard your inventions. Find Ryan's work at: www.marshallip.com Subscribe and stay at the forefront of the digital healthcare revolution. Watch the full video on YouTube @TheDigitalHealthcareExperience The Digital Healthcare Experience is a hub to connect healthcare leaders and tech enthusiasts. Powered by Taylor Healthcare, this podcast is your gateway to the latest trends and breakthroughs in digital health. Learn more at taylor.com/digital-healthcare About Us: Taylor Healthcare empowers healthcare organizations to thrive in the digital world. Our technology streamlines critical workflows such as procedural & surgical informed consent with patented mobile signature capture, ransomware downtime mitigation, patient engagement and more. For more information, please visit imedhealth.com   The Digital Healthcare Experience Podcast: Powered by Taylor Healthcare Produced by Naomi Schwimmer  Hosted by Chris Civitarese Edited by Eli Banks Music by Nicholas Bach  

In this podcast episode, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover talks with Doug Howarth about hypernomics and improving our understanding of markets and decision-making processes. At fourteen, Doug Howarth was faced with a problem that would pursue him for decades. He had just been exposed to the 2D and 3D coordinate systems of René Descartes. While they offered a framework for many problems, he wondered: What other plotting systems exist that we haven't seen? Shortly after, Doug found out that his kidneys were failing and that clouded his thinking. Persevering through this challenge, he majored in economics at Washington State University, graduating top of his class. In 2002, Doug's best friend, Tim Schreiner, gave him a kidney. When he came to after the operation, his brain was clear for the first time in thirty years, and he was determined to make maximal use of his improved mental capacity. Not long after that, when he and his wife went shopping for a new washing machine, as she weighed her options aloud, he realized she had solved a multidimensional problem in her head. He instantly recognized that people throughout the store were subconsciously doing similar evaluations for all their considered purchases. In that moment, Doug Howarth discovered Hypernomics, the study of market actions across four or more dimensions, the plotting systems he had been wondering about for three decades. He founded Hypernomics Inc. on his ideas, which has worked for NASA, Virgin Galactic, and Lockheed Martin. Along with two others, he's been awarded US Patent 10,402,838 for the world's first 4D analytic software. Wiley will publish his book, Hypernomics: Using Hidden Dimensions to Solve Unseen Problems, in January 2024. Check out all of the podcasts in the HCI Podcast Network!

For immediate release—breaking news, kind of. In this solo episode of The Sprinkler Nerd Show, Andy dives into what seems like a revolutionary product: a mechanical rain sensor that requires no batteries, no Wi-Fi, no firmware updates—just pure, functional design. It shuts off irrigation during rainfall and turns it back on when conditions dry out, all thanks to hygroscopic discs that expand and contract to trigger a simple switch. This device sounds like the newest drop in water-saving technology—until Andy reveals the twist: it's not new at all. In fact, it's based on US Patent 3,808,385, filed in 1972 and granted in 1974. That's over 50 years ago. And the core concept of the mechanical rain sensor hasn't changed since. Andy breaks down how the device works, why it's still effective today, and what it says about the pace of innovation in the irrigation industry. He challenges contractors and tech developers alike to ask the big question: why are we still using 1970s technology in 2025? Could we create a smarter, data-driven rain sensor that actually logs rainfall events, provides historical context, and informs better irrigation decisions? If so—why hasn't anyone built it yet? Key Highlights: Breakdown of how the moisture-responsive switch actuator works Benefits for contractors: simplicity, reliability, zero maintenance Installation and adjustment tips Why the current state of rain sensors is a wake-up call A challenge to the industry: let's rethink how we track rain and respond to it Andy closes the episode with a call to action for all Sprinkler Nerds: always ask why. Why things work the way they do, why they've stayed the same—and how we can make them better.

Kinder brauchen frische Luft. Doch wo sollte die frische Luft herkommen in den boomenden Großstädten Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts? Mal eben mit dem Kinderwagen durch den dichten Straßenverkehr? Besser das Kind im Käfig aus dem Fenster hängen, dachte sich eine findige Amerikanerin.

Join Eli Mazour as he explores the vital role of the U.S. patent system in fostering innovation. Entrepreneur Patrick Murray shares his journey from ideation to patent acquisition with Radium Payments, emphasizing the importance of intellectual property in business validation. Lisa Mueller, host of the AUTM on the Air podcast, delves into tech transfer, revealing how universities push innovations from labs to marketplaces. This episode underscores patents as essential drivers of American entrepreneurship and academic innovation, providing a nuanced look at their ongoing impact on business and technology. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

Unlock the secrets to crafting a brand that not only captures hearts but also stands firm in the legal arena. Join us as Erik Pelton, a renowned trademark attorney and former examiner at the US Patent and Trademark Office, shares his expertise on building memorable and legally protectable brand names. With Erik's guidance, learn how to avoid the common pitfalls that many businesses stumble into and discover the strategic advantage of securing trademark protection early on. This episode promises to equip you with the knowledge to lay a solid foundation for your brand's future success.Navigate the emotional and strategic challenges of small business branding with us. Through personal stories and real-world examples, we delve into the complexities of trademark protection and the importance of a strong brand name. From addressing trademark infringement issues to exploring resolutions outside of court, we highlight how proactive intellectual property protection serves as essential insurance. For small businesses with limited resources, investing in trademark protection isn't just wise, it's crucial for sustainable growth and partnership opportunities.Visit: http://www.erikpelton.com/Send us a text

Struggling to come up with the perfect name for your podcast, or wondering if a rebrand might be in order? In this episode, I dive into the nitty-gritty of podcast naming conventions and share 7 common mistakes to avoid. Tune in to discover all the essentials for naming success and keep your podcast journey moving!Resources Mentioned: Episode 66: Want to Attract New Listeners? Add a Subtitle to Your Podcast!US Patent and Trademark Search: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/searchThis episode was produced by me, The Podcast Teacher! Contact me at Hello@ThePodcastTeacher.com.

Mike Golic Jr. joins the show to tells us about his experience at the College Football National Championship and how he felt watching the game as a Notre Dame fan. He also weighs in on the breaking news of the day that Pete Carroll was named the next Raiders head coach. How does Mike think the NFL Conference Championship games will play out? // Four Down Territory: 1st Down: What would make a Super Win by the Bills even more impressive? 2nd Down: Who has become the godfather of the NFL? 3rd Down: What's something you are excited to see now that Pete is back in the NFL? 4th Down: Anything from Golic? // The Timeline: ESPN Bears reporter Courtney says she expects Hank Fraley to follow Ben Johnson to Chicago. Audio of a phone call by Shohei Ohtani’s former translator Ippei Mizuhara was leaked. In the call, Mizuhara claimed to be Ohtani. The US Patent and Trademark Office rejected Utah’s request to name their team the Yeti’s due to the Yeti Cooler company. // We predict our over/unders for the NFL Conference Championship weekend. Will Jalen Hurts throw 3 touchdown passes, can Saquon Barkley rush for 150 yards, can Patrick Mahomes pass for 300 yards? 

OpenAI has just unveiled its "Economic Blueprint," outlining a bold vision for America's AI future with a potential $175 billion investment in AI. Meanwhile, Google is offering Gemini at surprisingly accessible terms, while Microsoft shakes up the market with new Copilot pricing. Plus, Altman confirms the imminent release of OpenAI's o3-mini model, Apple Intelligence falls flat, TikTok's shutdown drama and more in our rapid-fire section. Join Paul and Mike as they break it all down. Access the show notes and show links here This episode is brought to you by our AI Mastery Membership:  This 12-month membership gives you access to all the education, insights, and answers you need to master AI for your company and career. To learn more about the membership, go to www.smarterx.ai/ai-mastery.  As a special thank you to our podcast audience, you can use the code POD150 to save $150 on a membership.  Today's episode is also brought to you by Marketing AI Institute's AI for Writers Summit, happening virtually on Thursday, March 6 from 12pm - 5pm Eastern Time.  Learn to craft compelling stories faster, boost your productivity, and build a sustainable writing strategy for the years ahead. Choose between free live access or premium tickets with on-demand replay. Don't miss this opportunity to transform your writing. Register now at aiwritersummit.com Timestamps: 00:06:38 — OpenAI Releases Its Economic Blueprint 00:19:27 — OpenAI “Super-Agent” Rumors + o3 Mini Release Date 00:30:20 — Google AI and Microsoft Copilot Pricing 00:40:02 — Google Releases New Research on the Potential Successor to Transformers 00:44:11 — Google Releases Factuality Benchmark for LLMs 00:47:49 — Apple Intelligence Falls Flat 00:52:56 — TikTok Shutdown Drama 00:58:43 — US Patent and Trademark Office Releases Its AI Strategy 01:01:56 — Meta AI Copyright Lawsuit 01:05:06 —Benchmarking the Energy Costs of Large Language Models 01:09:00 — NotebookLM Has to Do “Friendliness” Tuning on Its AI Podcast Hosts 01:10:59 — AI Funding and Product Updates to Watch Visit our website Receive our weekly newsletter Join our community: Slack LinkedIn Twitter Instagram Facebook Looking for content and resources? Register for a free webinar Come to our next Marketing AI Conference Enroll in AI Academy for Marketers

Vice President, Mark Murdock joins the show to introduce Theralight to all.TheraLight was founded in 2018 and is currently headquartered in Lindon, Utah. Boasting a 12,000 square foot facility, TheraLight is committed to providing the highest quality of manufacturing to ensure the best therapeutic outcomes, innovative technology to keep pace with a rapidly maturing industry, and turn-key marketing solutions to maximize clinical success. TheraLight is primarily focused on developing non-invasive photomedicine technology that is used to treat patients with a wide variety of conditions.  The Company has grown to become a world-wide leader with over 1,000 customers worldwide.TheraLight partners with healthcare professionals to bring the best and newest technology with advanced training and support that maximize clinical and financial outcomes. TheraLight is committed to research and development that will provide long term success and drive change in medicine by raising standards of medical care, with the goal of improving the quality of life of every patient using our products. TheraLight is committed to becoming and remaining an innovative leader in medicine.TheraLight is currently FDA registered, Health Canada Approved, ISO 13485 compliant (nearing ISO certification), and is registered with the BBB (Better Business Bureau). In 2020, TheraLight became the first full-body light therapy company to receive Space Technology Certification. In 2024, TheraLight was issued a patent from the US Patent and Trademark Office that represents a milestone for the Company's commitment to innovation and technology. www.theralight.com 

K2 space has been awarded a $60m STRATFI contract by the US Space Force for a new mission, code-named Gravitas, that'll take place no earlier than February 2026. Blue Origin held a wet rehearsal for its 320-foot-tall New Glenn rocket at Cape Canaveral. NASA has announced that it is delaying the SpaceX Crew-10 launch until no earlier than March, and more. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Be sure to follow T-Minus on LinkedIn and Instagram. T-Minus Guest Elysia Segal from NASASpaceflight.com brings us the Space Traffic Report. Selected Reading K2 Space Awarded $60M STRATFI Contract for Groundbreaking Proliferated MEO Mission New US Space Force jammers aim to disrupt China's SATCOM signals Blue Origin New Glenn launch date inches closer as rocket sees testing at Cape Canaveral Astronauts who flew to space aboard Starliner face additional delay- CNN Exclusive: Power failed at SpaceX mission control before September spacewalk by NASA nominee- Reuters China's commercial rocket sends new batch of satellites into orbit - CGTN NASA Partners with US Patent and Trademark Office to Advance Technology Transfer India's first analog space mission: Could this be what our home on Moon or Mars might look like? A Year of Space-Based Innovation: ISS National Lab Sponsored More Than 100 Payloads in 2024, Advancing R&D in Low Earth Orbit T-Minus Crew Survey We want to hear from you! Please complete our 4 question survey. It'll help us get better and deliver you the most mission-critical space intel every day. Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at space@n2k.com to request more info. Want to join us for an interview? Please send your pitch to space-editor@n2k.com and include your name, affiliation, and topic proposal. T-Minus is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trademark scams are on the rise, threatening businesses with costly setbacks and legal risks. Hosts Michael Snyder and Joseph Gushue are joined Jason Lott, Managing Attorney for Trademark Customer Outreach at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to expose the deceptive tactics scammers use and provide practical tips to safeguard your intellectual property. From misleading solicitations and fake invoices to fraudulent renewal notices, this episode unpacks scams at every stage of the trademark process—before filing, during application prosecution, and post-registration. Jason shares real-world examples, red flags to watch for, and actionable steps to protect your trademarks. With expert insights and USPTO resources at your disposal, you'll learn how to defend your brand against bad actors, navigate the trademark process confidently, and avoid falling victim to costly scams.  For full show notes and to explore more episodes, please visit www.vklaw.com/newsroom-podcasts. USPTO Resources to Protect Yourself and Your Business from Trademark Scams: Trademark Application Process: learn the steps involved and the timeline required for attaining trademark protections to avoid being duped. USPTO Recognizing Common Scams: explore the most common scamming tactics and what to be vigilant for throughout the process. USPTO - Misleading Solicitations: USPTO's updated list of known fraudulent solicitations. USPTO fee schedule: understand the fees associated with the legitimate trademark process. USPTO Trademark Assistance Center (TAC): get support for trademark-related queries and verification. USPTO - Trademark Protection: webinars and guides on recognizing and reporting scams. USPTO Subscription Center: subscribe to stay updated, on news, and resources from the USPTO. Key Moments & Quick Links: (1:06) Introduction to Trademark Scams and Hoaxes & Guest Introduction (4:17) Movies About Scams and Deception (9:30) Trademark Scams Overview: Before, During, and After Registration (10:25) Pre- Trademark Application Scams USPTO.gov (14:26) Sophistication of Scams (19:03) Unauthorized Practice of Law Trademark Application Process (23:47) Trademark Scams During Trademark Application Prosecution USPTO Official Payment Platform (31:18) Post-Registration Trademark Scams USPTO - Misleading Solicitations  (36:05) USPTO Resources for Recognizing and Avoiding IP Scams FCC on Spoofed Phone Calls USPTO fee schedule USPTO Trademark Assistance Center (TAC) USPTO - Trademark Protection (38:14) Final Thoughts

In the first hour of today's show, Mark & the crew dive into the Left's defense of Biden's lie about his pardon of Biden, CNN correspondent Scott Jennings gives his thoughts on the lying & the attempted defense and how one aspect of the Far Left's ideology continues to drive real Democrats away from that side of the spectrum... In hour 2, Sue's News takes us through another classic song under fire, a new word of the year (it's a phrase...), the "Earworm Eraser" & which President had a US Patent. Jane Dueker joins the show to talk about the latest news involving Sam Page and the update in the Colin Brown case and Throttlenet's George Rosenthal explains the danger posed from China & Russia's targeting of undersea data cables. In hour 3, Mark is joined by Francis Menton, an attorney who publishes opinion pieces at his Manhattan Contrarian blog. He discusses his latest piece, "The Real Insurrectionists: The Federal Workers". He is then joined by Joe Arnold, a longtime Louisville broadcaster. They discuss the MLB toying with the idea of a big rule change titled, "Golden At Bat". They wrap up the show with the Audio Cut of the Day.

In hour 2 of the Mark Reardon Show, Sue's News takes us through another classic song under fire, a new word of the year (it's a phrase...), the "Earworm Eraser" & which President had a US Patent. Jane Dueker joins the show to talk about the latest news involving Sam Page and the update in the Colin Brown case and Throttlenet's George Rosenthal explains the danger posed from China & Russia's targeting of undersea data cables.

Donald Trump is back. In January, he will asend to office again after running a very anti-"woke" campaign often scapegoating transgender Americans.  Hundreds of horrible homophobic and transphobic bills passed in state houses may work their way to the federal level. And then there is Project 2025. Today we talk to two of our friends who have their fingers on the pulse of LGBTQ activism to find out the path forward for very concerned queer citizens: Brandon Wolf and Christopher Kane. Brandon is the National Press Secretary and Senior Director of Political Communications for the Human Rights Campaign. He is a nationally-recognized gun safety and LGBTQ civil rights advocate, author and dynamic public speaker. He has served as the Press Secretary for Equality Florida, the state's LGBTQ civil rights organization. Brandon also  co-founded the Dru Project, a nonprofit organization that works to empower youth and provide future leaders in the LGBTQ community funding for higher education.  Christopher is the White House correspondent for The Washington Blade.  Also having reported for the LA Blade, Chris is a longtime Washington DC-based reporter covering the White House, having previously covered the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission's investigations of major mergers and acquisitions - along with antitrust policy development by federal agencies and US Congress, high stakes "bet-the-company" litigation, and certain activities by the FDA and US Patent and Trademark Office.

Donald Trump is back. In January, he will asend to office again after running a very anti-"woke" campaign often scapegoating transgender Americans.  Hundreds of horrible homophobic and transphobic bills passed in state houses may work their way to the federal level. And then there is Project 2025. Today we talk to two of our friends who have their fingers on the pulse of LGBTQ activism to find out the path forward for very concerned queer citizens: Brandon Wolf and Christopher Kane. Brandon is the National Press Secretary and Senior Director of Political Communications for the Human Rights Campaign. He is a nationally-recognized gun safety and LGBTQ civil rights advocate, author and dynamic public speaker. He has served as the Press Secretary for Equality Florida, the state's LGBTQ civil rights organization. Brandon also  co-founded the Dru Project, a nonprofit organization that works to empower youth and provide future leaders in the LGBTQ community funding for higher education.  Christopher is the White House correspondent for The Washington Blade.  Also having reported for the LA Blade, Chris is a longtime Washington DC-based reporter covering the White House, having previously covered the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission's investigations of major mergers and acquisitions - along with antitrust policy development by federal agencies and US Congress, high stakes "bet-the-company" litigation, and certain activities by the FDA and US Patent and Trademark Office.

Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, turns over hosting responsibilities to Kim Jones, the Managing Director at Ursus Security Consulting. He takes a first principles look at the idea of identity. Check out Rick's 3-part election mini-series: Part 1: Election Propaganda Part 1: How Does Election Propaganda Work? In this episode, Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, discusses personal defensive measures that every citizen can take—regardless of political philosophy—to resist the influence of propaganda. This foundational episode is essential for understanding how to navigate the complex landscape of election messaging. Part 2: Election Propaganda: Part 2: Modern propaganda efforts. In preparation for the US 2024 Presidential Election, Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, discusses recent international propaganda efforts in the form of nation state interference and influence operations as well as domestic campaigns designed to split the target country into opposing camps. Guests include Nina Jankowicz, Co-Founder and CEO of the The American Sunlight Project and Scott Small, Director of Cyber Threat Intelligence at Tidal Cyber. Part 3: Election Propaganda: Part 3: Efforts to reduce the impact of future elections. Thinking past the US 2024 Presidential Election, In part three of the series, Rick Howard, N2K CyberWire's Chief Analyst and Senior Fellow, discusses reducing the impact of propaganda in the future elections with Perry Carpenter, Chief Human Risk Management Strategist at KnowBe4 and host of the 8th Layer Insights Podcast, Nina Jankowicz, Co-Founder and CEO of the The American Sunlight Project, and Scott Small, Director of Cyber Threat Intelligence at Tidal Cyber. References: Olivia Gulin, Tomberry., Peter Steiner, Alan David Perkins, 2012. On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Dog [History]. Know Your Meme. Staff, 2019. US Patent for Mutual authentication of computer systems over an insecure network Patent Patent]. Justia Patents Search. Staff, 2023. Federal Bureau of Investigation: Internet Crime Report [Report]. Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). Staff, 2024. Data Breach Investigations Report [Report]. Verizon Business. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Sara brings us Mary Kenner! Coming from a family of inventors, Mary wasted no time and went to work on her own first invention at six years old. She invented throughout her life, and received her first US Patent in 1957 for the Sanitary Belt - a precursor to the sanitary napkin! To this day Mary still holds the record for the most US Patents awarded to an African American woman - FIVE! — A Broad is a woman who lives by her own rules. Broads You Should Know is the podcast about the Broads who helped shape our world! BroadsYouShouldKnow.com YT/IG/FB @BroadsYouShouldKnow & TW @BYSKpodcast — 3 Ways you can help support the podcast: Write a review on Apple Podcasts Share your favorite episode with a friend or on social Send us an email with a broad suggestion, question, or comment at BroadsYouShouldKnow@gmail.com — Broads You Should Know is hosted by Sara Gorsky. IG: @SaraGorsky Web master / site design: www.BroadsYouShouldKnow.com — Broads You Should Know is produced and edited by Sara Gorsky, with original music by Darren Callahan.

Hilary Preston, vice-chair of the law firm Vinson & Elkins joins the podcast to discuss the intersection of patents with clean energy development, inclusive of a decision made by the US Patent and Trademark Office in June 2023 to expand its Climate Change Mitigation Pilot program.Later in the program, Ms. Preston reviews areas of innovation she has observed recently across clean energy development.New Project Media (NPM) is a leading data, intelligence, and events company providing origination led coverage of the US and European renewable energy markets for the development, finance, M&A, and corporate community.Download our mobile app.

TICKETS ARE OFFICIALLY ON SALE FOR OUR FALL TOUR! GET 'EM AT WHOWEEKLY.US/LIVE. SEE Y'ALL IN TORONTO & MONTREAL THIS WEEKEND! The Idol won an Emmy; this is a great ep of Who? Weekly — both things can be true. We got a new (disappointing?) Pepsi Gladiator ad, 23 Things Jason Schwartzman can't live without, Scott Eastwood does his own laundry, Sienna Miller is the 'perfect amount' of famous... Brian McKnight launches a fatherhood Instagram show (???), Meghan Markle fights with the US Patent and Trademark Office, Ben Platt and Noah Galvin tied the knot, Julianne and Scooter Braun are #justfriends, Muni Long gets a divorce, Michael Shannon finds a mystery woman at the U.S. Open, Demi Lovato's sister is pregnant and Rita's at NY Fashion Week!!!!!!!! She's here!!!!!!!!!! As always, call in at 619.WHO.THEM to leave questions, comments & concerns for a future episode of Who's There?. Get a ton of bonus content over on Patreon.com/WhoWeekly and COME SEE US LIVE THIS FALL! Grab tickets at http://www.whoweekly.us/live. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Creating opportunities for young people to learn about patents by introducing invention education and IP literacy is an important part of STEM learning.Lauren Strechay and Nicolette Buonora, recently graduated high school students, developed the Battery Swap System as their solution in a classroom challenge. After continued iteration, their Battery Swap System was recognized at the US National Invention Convention, earning a patent sponsorship and a finalist award, propelling Lauren and Nicolette to the global convention and ultimately a USPTO patent approval. From the US Patent and Trademark Office, Juan Valentin is an education program advisor in the USPTO's Students and Learners Division in the Office of Public Engagement, where he is responsible for the development and implementation of educational projects of national and international scope, with a particular emphasis on directing and coordinating the development of STEM, design-thinking, or invention-focused projects infused with intellectual property (IP) concepts. A significant part of Juan's job is cultivating relationships and finding areas for collaboration with external organizations, academic institutions, and federal agencies.Prior to joining the Students and Learners Division, Juan was a patent examiner at the USPTO for 12 years, specializing in the art of optical measuring and testing devices. Juan holds a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the Clarkson University.Resources & Opportunities mentioned by Juan:Kids, students, and educators | USPTONational Summer Teacher Institute | USPTOEquIPHQ (uspto.gov)Master Teacher of Invention and Intellectual Property Education Program (MTIP) | USPTOLearn more about Lauren & Nicolette's Battery Swap invention in this news storyConnect with The USPTO:Website: uspto.govemail: education@uspto.govTwitter/X: @usptoYouTube: @USPTOvideoFacebook: facebook.com/uspto.govInstagram: @usptoChris Woods is the host of the STEM Everyday Podcast... Connect with him:Website: dailystem.comTwitter/X: @dailystemInstagram: @dailystemYouTube: @dailystemGet Chris's book Daily STEM on AmazonSupport the Show.

We get a live report today from Christopher Kane, White House correspondent for The Washington Blade. He is on the floor at the Democratic convention. He will bring us the latest on the speakers and behind-the-scenes exclusive interviews, plus news of the LGBTQ+ caucus. Also having reported for the LA Blade, Chris is a longtime Washington DC-based reporter covering the White House, having previously covered the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission's investigations of major mergers and acquisitions - along with antitrust policy development by federal agencies and US Congress, high stakes "bet-the-company" litigation, and certain activities by the FDA and US Patent and Trademark Office. With co-host Brody Levesque

We get a live report today from Christopher Kane, White House correspondent for The Washington Blade. He is on the floor at the Democratic convention. He will bring us the latest on the speakers and behind-the-scenes exclusive interviews, plus news of the LGBTQ+ caucus. Also having reported for the LA Blade, Chris is a longtime Washington DC-based reporter covering the White House, having previously covered the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission's investigations of major mergers and acquisitions - along with antitrust policy development by federal agencies and US Congress, high stakes "bet-the-company" litigation, and certain activities by the FDA and US Patent and Trademark Office. With co-host Brody Levesque

In this episode, we are joined by Andrei Iancu, former Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and former Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to discuss whether AI-generated works can be copyrighted (15:52), what the latest USPTO guidance means for the patent subject matter eligibility of AI systems (22:31), who can claim inventorship for AI-facilitated inventions (36:00), and the use of AI by patent and trademark applicants and the USPTO (53:43).

Was the confrontation by Donald Trump against a trio of black women journalists a strategic move on his part? Was the mind-bending attack on Kamala Harris's racial identity a dog whistle to his white supremecyMAGA enthusiasts?  And is it a buoyant rainbow tinges wind at the back of Kamala Harris that has her creating an unprecedented political comeback turning the political stage on its ear? We discuss this and other topics around the current campaigns on today's episode with renowned journalist Broday Levesque and our guest, political reporter Chris Kane.. Also having reported for the LA Blade, Chris is a longtime Washington DC-based reporter covering the White House, having previously covered the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission's investigations of major mergers and acquisitions - along with antitrust policy development by federal agencies and US Congress, high stakes "bet-the-company" litigation, and certain activities by the FDA and US Patent and Trademark Office. With co-host Brody Levesque

Was the confrontation by Donald Trump against a trio of black women journalists a strategic move on his part? Was the mind-bending attack on Kamala Harris's racial identity a dog whistle to his white supremecyMAGA enthusiasts?  And is it a buoyant rainbow tinges wind at the back of Kamala Harris that has her creating an unprecedented political comeback turning the political stage on its ear? We discuss this and other topics around the current campaigns on today's episode with renowned journalist Broday Levesque and our guest, political reporter Chris Kane.. Also having reported for the LA Blade, Chris is a longtime Washington DC-based reporter covering the White House, having previously covered the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission's investigations of major mergers and acquisitions - along with antitrust policy development by federal agencies and US Congress, high stakes "bet-the-company" litigation, and certain activities by the FDA and US Patent and Trademark Office. With co-host Brody Levesque

In this episode of the Experience Milwaukee podcast, Adam and I have a super informative and high energy conversation with James Wilson from the US Patent and Trademark Office. What are James's emotional connections to the patents he's worked on in his career? How can you access USPTO resources and assistance to navigate the patent/trademark process independently? We even reveal a little “secret” around the USPTO's growth strategy and expansion. Experience Milwaukee is generously presented by Nicolet Law. Wanna meet some Milwaukee Legends? Check out the series in our stream, sponsored by Harley-Davidson. Our home studio is in Transfer Pizzeria Café. Our official beer partner is New Barons Brewing Cooperative. And our official THC beverage partner is Crescent9 Seltzers. Intro and outro music provided by Milwaukee's own NEWSKI. Finally, get in on our weekly Monday Milwaukee experience giveaways at TextMKE.com. Thanks for listening. Love you, Milwaukee.

Discover Hypernomics, the ultimate wealth transformation tool that will change the way you think about money and success. Learn how Hypernomics can help you achieve financial freedom and unlock your true wealth potential.In 2002, Doug's best friend, Tim Schreiner, gave him a kidney. When he came to after the operation, his brain was clear for the first time in thirty years, and he was determined to make maximal use of his improved mental capacity. Not long after that, when he and his wife went shopping for a new washing machine, as she weighed her options aloud, he realized she had solved a multidimensional problem in her head. He instantly recognized that people throughout the store were subconsciously doing similar evaluations for all their considered purchases. In that moment, Doug Howarth discovered Hypernomics, the study of market actions across four or more dimensions, the plotting systems he had been wondering about for three decades. Doug founded Hypernomics Inc. on his ideas, which has worked for NASA, Virgin Galactic, and Lockheed Martin. Along with two others, he's been awarded US Patent 10,402,838 for the world's first 4D analytic software. Wiley has published his book, Hypernomics: Using Hidden Dimensions to Solve Unseen Problems, in January 2024.Websites:• www.hypernomics.com • https://www.doughowarth.com/Social Media:LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/doughowarth/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/doug.howarth.37 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hypernomicsinc/Twitter: https://twitter.com/dougkhowarth YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@hypernomics Get Doug's book: Hypernomics: Using Hidden Dimensions to Solve Unseen Problems 1st Edition https://www.amazon.com/Hypernomics-Hidden-Dimensions-Unseen-Problems/dp/139420888X or wherever you get your books."WOW, what an innovative discovery. Being able to solve problems in your business before they happen is more than proactive. Words can't describe how this can eliminate so many obstacles in your business. Doug thank you for this, You are changing how we manage our business more efficiently." IdaRemember to SUBSCRIBE so you don't miss "Information That You Can Use." Share Just Minding My Business with your family, friends, and colleagues. Engage with us by leaving a review or comment.  Your support keeps this podcast going and growing.Visit Just Minding My Business Media™ LLC at https://jmmbmediallc.com/ to learn how we can support you in getting more visibility on your products and services.

In today's episode, we discuss AI-generated content in the pharmaceutical industry. AI has revolutionized content creation, but it's not without its legal and ethical dilemmas. Take, for instance, the New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI, highlighting the contentious issue of data ownership. As pharma companies increasingly rely on AI for content generation, they must navigate murky waters to ensure compliance with existing regulations and respect for intellectual property rights.Controlling AI output presents another challenge. Unlike human creators, AI can produce content that may not align with intended guidelines or quality standards. For pharma, where precision and compliance are paramount, this unpredictability poses risks. It's crucial for companies to implement robust review processes, involving both legal and regulatory teams, to mitigate potential errors and ensure content accuracy.Moreover, the issue of ownership looms large. Both legal and regulatory bodies have expressed concerns about the ownership of AI-generated content. The US Patent and Trademark Office requires human oversight to verify accuracy and compliance with existing rules. Similarly, the US Copyright Office has stringent criteria for copyright protection, requiring human authorship. This raises questions about how much human intervention is necessary before AI-generated content can be considered owned or copyrighted.In conclusion, while AI offers immense potential for innovation in content creation, pharma companies must navigate a complex legal and ethical landscape. By staying informed, implementing robust review processes, and seeking legal guidance, companies can harness the power of AI while ensuring compliance and ethical use. For tailored advice on integrating AI into your content strategy, reach out to us at the Kulkarni Law Firm. Stay tuned for more insights on navigating the evolving landscape of AI in pharma.Support the Show.

This Day in Legal History: Corporations Are “Persons” Under 14th AmendmentOn May 10, 1886, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, fundamentally altering the legal landscape for corporations in the United States. This ruling established that corporations were to be considered "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment and were thus entitled to equal protection rights under state law. The decision arose from a dispute involving Santa Clara County and the Southern Pacific Railroad, which contested certain tax assessments on the grounds that they were discriminatory against the corporation.The Supreme Court, without directly addressing the issue in the oral argument or written opinion, allowed the notion that corporations were persons for the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to stand, based on a headnote by the court reporter, which was not part of the official opinion. This headnote indicated that the Chief Justice had acknowledged corporate personhood in relation to the amendment during the proceedings. Although it did not form part of the decision, this assertion guided future interpretations of corporate rights in the U.S.As a result, the ruling provided corporations with expanded protections that had originally been intended to protect the rights of former slaves. Over time, this interpretation has been used to defend corporations in various legal battles, granting them rights comparable to those of individual citizens in many respects. This includes the right to a trial by jury, the right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to free speech.The implications of the Santa Clara decision have been far-reaching and controversial. Critics argue that it has led to an excessive amount of power being held by corporations, influencing political processes and public policy disproportionately. Supporters, however, see the ruling as essential for ensuring that businesses can operate on a level playing field, free from unfair government interference.The Santa Clara case remains a pivotal point in legal history, frequently cited in discussions about the balance between corporate power and public control. It opened the door to subsequent legal challenges and rulings that continue to shape the interaction between corporations, individuals, and the government in the United States. The ongoing debates surrounding corporate influence in politics and society trace back to this seminal Supreme Court decision, underscoring its significance in American legal history.The Biden administration is considering a proposal by Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) and other groups to use U.S. Code § 1498 to seize patents for the cancer drug Xtandi, manufactured by Astellas Pharma, without paying royalties. This move, aimed at reducing the drug's cost, represents a more aggressive stance toward pharmaceutical pricing, leveraging the government's legal abilities to override private patents under specific conditions. Xtandi, costing over $14,000 monthly for uninsured patients, has been a focal point in debates over drug prices. The proposal suggests that because Xtandi was developed with government grants, existing laws provide a mechanism for the government to authorize generic production without compensating the patent holder. Critics, including former US Patent and Trademark Office head Andrei Iancu, argue that this interpretation distorts patent laws and undermines the Hatch-Waxman Act, which regulates drug patent exclusivities and generic entry. Despite skepticism about the administration adopting this aggressive approach, proponents see it as a viable strategy to control drug prices and alter pharmaceutical company behaviors without the need for compensation, sparking a significant legal and ethical debate on the extent of government intervention in private industry.Cancer Drug Price-Cutting Pitch Mulled by HHS as Industry WaitsThe Biden administration and several civil rights groups, including the ACLU, have filed lawsuits against the state of Iowa to challenge a new law, S.F. 2340, which authorizes the arrest and prosecution of individuals who re-enter the U.S. after deportation. The law, signed by Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, makes "illegal reentry" into Iowa a criminal offense punishable by up to two years in prison and permits state judges to order deported individuals to return to their home countries. Both the federal government and civil rights organizations argue that this state law unlawfully conflicts with federal immigration law and its established procedures for handling illegal entries and deportations. This Iowa law also fails to exempt individuals with legal status in the U.S., such as asylum seekers and visa holders. This move by Iowa reflects a broader trend among Republican-led states, influenced by similar laws in Texas and recently Oklahoma, aiming to enforce immigration laws due to perceived inaction by the federal government on illegal border crossings. A U.S. appeals court recently blocked a similar law in Texas, citing its inconsistency with federal jurisdiction over immigration matters.Biden administration, civil groups sue Iowa over immigrant arrest law | ReutersElon Musk may be required to provide additional testimony in the SEC's investigation into his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter. During a court hearing in San Francisco, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley considered the SEC's request to compel Musk to testify, following another judge's earlier ruling in favor of the agency. The SEC is investigating whether Musk violated federal securities laws during his 2022 purchase of Twitter, now renamed X, particularly concerning his stock purchases and related public statements and filings. Musk had previously participated in the investigation via two videoconference sessions and had provided documents. His legal representation argued that further testimony would impose an undue burden on him, given his responsibilities to multiple companies. The judge questioned the argument that Musk's busy schedule should exempt him from compliance with securities laws. This legal battle is part of an ongoing feud between Musk and the SEC that dates back to a 2018 incident where Musk tweeted about having funding secured to take Tesla private.Elon Musk may be compelled to testify again in SEC's Twitter takeover probe | ReutersThe American Bar Association (ABA) is considering endorsing alternative pathways to lawyer licensing that do not involve passing the traditional bar exam, signaling a significant shift from its longstanding pro-exam stance. This reconsideration is spurred by a task force formed to evaluate the ABA's existing policies, which since 1921 have primarily supported the bar exam as a requisite for legal practice. The draft policy, set for discussion on May 17, encourages states to develop diverse licensing methods. This change comes in response to actions by states like Oregon and Washington, which have already implemented alternatives such as apprenticeships and skills coursework to bypass the bar exam. The ABA's move aligns with efforts to address racial and socioeconomic disparities in bar exam pass rates, which show significantly lower success rates among minority test takers. The National Conference of Bar Examiners acknowledges the ABA's new direction as it prepares to launch a revised bar exam in 2026, highlighting the ongoing evolution in standards for entering the legal profession.Bar exam alternatives, long out of favor with ABA, make inroads | ReutersThe U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is set to finalize two significant rules aimed at enhancing the planning and funding mechanisms for long-distance electric transmission lines. These rules are designed to facilitate the development of a more robust national power grid and address the increasing demand driven by renewable energy sources and electric vehicles. The first rule mandates regional grid planners to develop at least 20-year plans that consider a broad range of benefits, updating the less effective 2011 guidelines. The second rule potentially allows FERC to issue permits for transmission lines even if they are denied by states, focusing on national interest corridors identified by the Department of Energy.The proposed rules have sparked concerns regarding the traditional role of state regulators in siting and permitting transmission lines and the potential sidelining of competitive bidding processes, which some argue could increase costs and project delays. However, proponents argue that the new rules will facilitate much-needed investment in the transmission infrastructure necessary to meet future energy demands and reduce longstanding disparities in regional transmission capabilities. The discussion is also heavily centered around equitable cost allocation, aiming to distribute costs in alignment with the derived benefits, a topic that has historically been contentious and frequently litigated. These regulatory changes are occurring amidst broader administrative efforts to modernize and expand the U.S. electric grid to support a clean energy future.Transmission Rules to Back Planning of Long-Range Power LinesThis week's closing theme is by Bedřich Smetana.Bedřich Smetana, a towering figure in Czech music, stands as one of the pioneering composers of the 19th century, especially noted for his development of a distinctly Czech musical style. Born on March 2, 1824, in Litomyšl, now part of the Czech Republic, Smetana was a child prodigy in both violin and piano. He grew up immersed in a rich cultural atmosphere that fueled his passion for music, leading him to compose from an early age.His early career was marked by the struggle for recognition, balancing a desire to compose with the need to earn a living as a teacher and conductor. Despite these challenges, Smetana's nationalist spirit found expression in his music, which often incorporated Czech folk themes and stories. By the 1860s, he had established himself as a central figure in Prague's musical life, becoming the principal conductor of the Provisional Theatre, where he championed the cause of Czech music.Smetana's personal life, however, was fraught with tragedy. He suffered the loss of his beloved wife and some of his daughters, and later, he was struck with deafness. Yet, these personal hardships only deepened the emotional depth of his compositions. One of his most famous works, "Má vlast" ("My Country"), is a cycle of six symphonic poems that celebrates the Czech landscape, history, and legends.Among these poems, "Vltava" (known in German as "Die Moldau") is perhaps the most internationally celebrated. It beautifully captures the course of the Vltava River as it flows through the Bohemian countryside, underlining Smetana's mastery of orchestral color and melodic contour. This piece serves as a vivid sonic portrait of the Czech landscape, intertwining folk music with the river's thematic journey through the countryside.Today, as we conclude our week, we turn to this poignant piece from Bedřich Smetana's "Má vlast." Without further ado, "Vltava," or "The Moldau," from Bedřich Smetana's symphonic poems "Má vlast" or "My Country." Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: First Union FormedOn May 1, 1794, a pivotal development in labor rights history occurred in Philadelphia with the formation of the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers. This organization, consisting of skilled shoemakers, marks the establishment of the first trade union in the United States. The union was created as a response to the increasingly difficult economic conditions that tradesmen faced, including low wages and long working hours.The Cordwainers, recognizing the strength in numbers, aimed to leverage their collective bargaining power to negotiate better wages and working conditions. This was a significant step forward in the labor movement, as it introduced the concept of organized labor in America. The formation of this union was not just about improving pay; it was also about dignifying the labor force and providing workers a platform to voice their concerns.Philadelphia, being a hub of commerce and trade in the late 18th century, provided the perfect setting for such an organization. The city's workshops and bustling markets meant that there was a significant demand for skilled labor, which the Cordwainers could supply. However, with industrialization beginning to take root, these skilled workers found themselves under threat from cheaper, mass-produced goods.The Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers set a precedent that would be followed by other trades across the country. Their actions led to the establishment of similar societies and unions, which eventually contributed to the broader national labor movement. The Cordwainers themselves faced legal challenges, particularly in 1806, when they were involved in a landmark legal case concerning the rights of workers to organize, known as Commonwealth v. Pullis. In this case, the court ruled against the union, marking one of the first legal battles over the legitimacy of trade union activities in the United States.Despite the legal setbacks, the resilience and pioneering spirit of the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers inspired subsequent generations of workers to fight for their rights. Their legacy is a testament to the enduring struggle for fair labor practices and workers' rights. This day in legal history not only marks the formation of America's first trade union but also celebrates the long journey towards justice and equity in the workplace.The US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) recently proposed a rule that would require pharmaceutical companies to submit unredacted settlement agreements involving patent challenges to a new repository. This rule is aimed to assist the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in detecting antitrust violations. The proposal arose from concerns that these settlements, often reached in administrative tribunals like the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), could be used to delay cheaper biosimilar drugs from entering the market.Evan Diamond, special counsel, noted that the PTO has not clearly defined "good cause" for accessing these agreements, which might increase third-party access and create confidentiality concerns. The fear is that the database could enable federal agencies to easily assess the frequency of potentially anticompetitive pay-for-delay settlements—a practice scrutinized under the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis, which ruled such deals could be illegal.The proposal aligns with an executive order from President Joe Biden encouraging interagency cooperation to prevent practices that unjustifiably delay generic and biosimilar competition. This move has heightened the pharmaceutical industry's fears of increased antitrust enforcement, particularly as the FTC has been actively challenging questionable patent listings that could hinder the approval of generic drugs.Agencies like the FTC and DOJ already have certain reporting requirements under the Medicare Modernization Act for pharmaceutical companies, but the PTO's rule could capture additional agreements that do not meet existing criteria. This has sparked debate over the necessity and potential overlap of the new rule.The pharmaceutical industry, represented by major lobbyist groups like Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, has expressed strong opposition, citing concerns over the scope of PTO's authority and the ambiguity around the "good cause" criterion.This development highlights a broader regulatory push against anti-competitive practices not only in pharmaceuticals but also in other sectors like technology, where companies like Apple and Google are frequently involved in patent litigation.In summary, the PTO's proposed rule could significantly impact how pharmaceutical settlements are handled, potentially exposing companies to greater antitrust scrutiny. This measure reflects a governmental shift towards stricter oversight of patent practices to foster competition and reduce drug prices.Drug Makers Exposed to Antitrust Probes if Patent Cache AdoptedThis term, Jones Day had the highest number of attorneys—five in total—arguing cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, more than any other firm. Among them, John Gore and C. Kevin Marshall presented for the first time at the high court. Other experienced attorneys like former U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, and partners Hashim Mooppan and Traci Lovitt also argued cases, contributing to the firm's visibility.In comparison, other leading law firms such as Gibson Dunn, Hogan Lovells, and Williams & Connolly had slightly fewer representatives. Gibson Dunn introduced three new attorneys to the Supreme Court lectern, including Theane Evangelis, D. Nick Harper, and Eugene Scalia, who is a son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Hogan Lovells' Jessica Ellsworth argued for the first time, including in a significant case regarding the abortion drug mifepristone. Williams & Connolly had Lisa Blatt argue all four of their cases, marking her 50th Supreme Court appearance.Overall, the season saw a mix of seasoned veterans and newcomers. Of the total 152 arguments made, over half were by attorneys who had appeared at least five times before, while a quarter were by first-time arguers. This highlights both the depth of experience and the ongoing introduction of new talent in the legal field's highest echelons.Jones Day Leads in Supreme Court Arguments With New FacesJohnson & Johnson (J&J) is currently seeking approval for an $11 billion settlement to resolve ongoing litigation concerning its talc-based baby powder, which has been alleged to cause ovarian cancer. This amount is a significant increase from a previous offer of $8.9 billion. J&J's strategy involves a third attempt at a bankruptcy filing, specifically a pre-packaged bankruptcy, which allows for faster processing if they secure enough creditor support—in this case, needing the approval of 75% of the talc plaintiffs.The company proposes to pay $6.48 billion over 25 years to settle ovarian cancer claims, but it has not specified how funds will be divided between existing and future claims. Additionally, J&J has nearly settled all claims regarding mesothelioma believed to be caused by asbestos in the powder. This settlement approach follows multiple failed attempts to use Chapter 11 to manage these lawsuits, which now number almost 60,000.These lawsuits have been a significant factor depressing J&J's stock price, according to analysts. Despite the legal challenges, J&J maintains that its talc products do not cause cancer and asserts that it has marketed its baby powder responsibly for over a century. A recent verdict, however, led to a $45 million payout to a family, implicating J&J and its spinoff Kenvue in the ongoing litigation.The company's persistence in seeking a bankruptcy-based settlement reflects its strategic approach to managing a complex legal challenge that impacts thousands of plaintiffs and could potentially set a precedent in how large corporations handle mass tort liabilities through bankruptcy court.J&J Seeks Backing for $11 Billion Baby Powder Cancer SettlementIn President Joe Biden's Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposal, a notable change is the suggestion to tax unrealized gains—value increases in assets not yet converted into cash through a sale. This marks a significant shift from traditional tax frameworks, which typically avoid taxing unrealized gains due to their complexity, potential liquidity issues, and difficulties in implementation.The rationale behind this proposal is to ensure tax fairness by capturing increases in wealth that currently escape taxation. For example, if a billionaire's stock appreciates significantly without being sold, they realize no taxable gain. However, if they borrow against these increased values, they effectively use this appreciation as a means to generate wealth without incurring tax liabilities. This situation presents a loophole where wealth can grow and be leveraged without contributing to the tax base.The FY2025 budget aims to address these disparities by proposing a tax on unrealized gains for very high-net-worth individuals and entities that have not been subject to a tax event in the last 90 years. This approach seeks to broaden the tax base without raising rates, aiming to increase tax revenue from the wealthy without additional burdens on middle and lower-income individuals.This policy shift acknowledges the need to adapt tax strategies to a changing economic environment where traditional taxation methods no longer capture all forms of wealth accumulation. The proposal suggests that a more equitable tax system requires taxing wealth as it grows, even if it is not realized through a sale. By proposing to tax unrealized gains, the administration intends to correct imbalances allowing substantial wealth to accumulate tax-free, signaling a significant potential change in how wealth is taxed in the U.S.Unrealized Gain Tax—A Coming Sea Change in FY2025 Budget Proposal? Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On today's episode of the podcast we're chatting trademarks and what we've learned about the trademark filing process over the last year. In the past year we've filled 22 trademark registration applications and we've gotten back eight of those thus far. The way we kick off our trademark application process is through what we call Trademark Quickie Searches (notavglaw.com/tmquickie). A traditional law firm would charge you their trademark fee up front (typically $1k - $3k for smaller business, up to like $10k for big businesses like Procter&Gamble because there's a lot more that goes into it). Once you retain them they'll do a trademark search and chat with you about the likelihood of approval of your application and if you have over like 50% odds they'll file the application. Sometimes they'll also look into alternative trademarks for you. We do Trademark Quickie Searches first (these started at $10, then became $25, $50 and are now $100).We raised our price point to help with conversions because at $10 we were getting more people who were just curious about trademarks, not because they were interested in getting one. These searches are time intensive for us, it's not something you can just click a button to search. We are currently accepting five new TM Quickies. You can get started at notavglaw.com/tmquickie Registering a trademark at the federal level has several benefits including: • The right to exclusive nationwide ownership of the mark (except where it's being used by prior users). • The right to put the ® symbol after the mark. This puts others on notice that you own the registered mark. • A legal presumption that the registrant owns the mark. Trademark rights are given to the person who first uses the mark in commerce, not the first person to file, although filing is still a great idea rather than relying on being first inuse. “Use in commerce” means you're actually using the mark to sell a thing. If you rebrand, your new mark isn't being used in commerce until you release it to the world. What we've learned from filing trademarks: 1. Likelihood of confusion is maybe not as big of a deal as we thought it would be, at least it hasn't come up in the eight marks we've had processed by the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Likelihood of confusion means they can get approved of they're likely not to be confused with someone else's mark. This tells me we can be a little bit more aggressive with the terms we file. 2. People really need to stop filing their own trademark applications. This is because trademarks are more of an art and a science and the way you craft your application impacts approval odds and your ability to enforce the application. Even if it gets approved, you may find your application doesn't have many teeth to it when you try to enforce it. And if it's not approved and you get something back from the PTO asking you to fix it, hiring a law firm to fix it is going to cost a lot more than just hiring them from the get-go. 3. Nearly descriptive marks are a big deal and something most folks wouldn't inherently think about. Some marks actually are much easier to protect than others. Some can't even be registered. Trademark law has invented a system based on the “strength” of a mark. Astrong mark is easy to protect, while a weak mark may be difficult or impossible to protect. There are five levels of strength with varying rules: Generic: No protection (ex: coffee) Descriptive: No protection unless you can prove secondary meaning. (ex: Coldstone Creamery) Suggestive: Protection (ex: Netflix) Arbitrary: High protection (ex: Apple) Fanciful: Highest protection (ex: Xerox) At a minimum we want it to be suggestive. I experienced this personally when I went to file a TM for the Contract Club. It was at first denied because it was merely descriptive of a club that you can join that provides contract templates. I worked with another attorney on this and we submitted a brief to argue against the refusal saying it's not really a club because it's a one-time payment, there's no dues and no membership screening, etc. My attorney estimated 50/50 odds of it getting approved. It did not. 4. You have to own your mark. Apply now so you don't have to change it later. This is something I already knew and want to make sure others do too. You don't want to need to change your business or product name down the line. 5. Working with the examiners isn't so bad. They want to move your application off their desk so they don't want to make the process difficult. When you file with the PTO it goes to an examiner who is an attorney. If they determine any issues they issue an office action. Sometimes it's simple like didclaiming a word, sometimes it's more complex. I found them easy to work with. 6. Getting a trademark application approved can taking even longer than I thought. I thought most applications would get approved within a year but around when we started filing trademark applications, the processing time to even get the application looked at was about eight months in the shortest end, 10 months on the longer end, and then from there you're often going to have that back-and-forth office action. Once they approve the application and it gets published, anyone who wants to oppose your trademark has up to three months to oppose the men. 7. There are a lot of great names out there to be trademarked, especially online business folks, when it comes to names for courses, memberships and online programs. I've done searched for at least 75 trademarks (and filed 22 of them). Sometimes I really surprised at some some really great names our clients have that a search showd are really free and clear. I think this will change over the next several years. The market is getting really saturated and there are some that have really obvious buzz words like "academy" but I'm still surprised about how many are available. If you've landed on a program you really like, you should get a TM application. 8. Trademark applications can be a very easy process, or a very lengthy one. We've done some minor ammendments on disclaimers, but other than that, our client TM applications have gone though pretty well. If our clients are responsive and communicative I usually get the application in within a week and then it's a waiting game from there. If you're interested in getting the process started, we are currently accepting five new TM Quickies. You can get started at notavglaw.com/tmquickie

Can AI be an inventor?The US Patent and Trademark Office has put out new and long-awaited guidance about how and when AI can contribute to an inventive process.The latest AI Chats episode explains what the actual impact is and what's left to figure out.Dina Blikshteyn, Partner and Co-Chair - AI and Deep Learning Practice GroupBrooke Cohen, Patent Practice Group Associate

This episode I am reading from Kevin Hall's book 'SIGNS: The Veil is Thinner Than We Imagine'.Have you experienced hearing a whispered voice when no one else is around, or perhaps a gentle nudge appearing to direct you? Have you had a dream of a departed loved one so real that it left you with undeniable feelings? Have you had inanimate objects suddenly turn on by themselves?Have you thought that it was all a coincidence or maybe your imagination? Are you looking for answers as to why these unusual occurrences have happened in your life? SIGNS provides some needed direction in order to help you find the answers you seek.This book contains a collection of true stories, each linked to a theme of how the Veil is thinner than we imagine. It will challenge you to explore your own SIGN experiences, while providing compelling research to assist with your personal journey of understanding.What is in this book for YOU:Discover the importance of SIGNS in your lifeExplore real life stories of notable people and their SIGNSLearn from experts and historical referencesGain comfort in knowing that you are not alone.BioKevin Hall joyfully adopts the titles of dad, grandpa, and papa. Residing with his wife in Rush, NY—a suburb of Rochester—he is a family man with two married children, six grandchildren, and a beloved dog named Pal.His career spanned over 40 years in the private sector, during which he secured a US Patent, was featured in Forbes magazine, authored several white papers, and received numerous accolades for his contributions.Now retired and contemplating his next chapter, he turned to writing. In 2022, he published his first two memoir/history books. When queried about his motivation to write, he replies, "It was the persistent curiosity of my grandchildren, always asking, 'What was it like when you were young, grandpa?'"For his third book, he interviewed a range of fascinating individuals, sharing their extraordinary and inspiring tales—some bordering on the miraculous. One Certified Buyer comments: Have you ever been in a situation where you get a tingling sensation telling you something extraordinary is happening? This book took me through an interesting journey of some astounding stories and other smaller tales of wonder in day-to-day life.Amazon link https://tinyurl.com/4bk5h73bhttp://kevin-hall.com/https://www.pastliveshypnosis.co.uk/https://www.patreon.com/ourparanormalafterlifeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/our-paranormal-afterlife-finding-proof-of-life-after-death--5220623/support.

This week I am talking to Kevin Hall about his book 'SIGNS: The Veil is Thinner Than We Imagine'.Have you experienced hearing a whispered voice when no one else is around, or perhaps a gentle nudge appearing to direct you? Have you had a dream of a departed loved one so real that it left you with undeniable feelings? Have you had inanimate objects suddenly turn on by themselves?Have you thought that it was all a coincidence or maybe your imagination? Are you looking for answers as to why these unusual occurrences have happened in your life? SIGNS provides some needed direction in order to help you find the answers you seek.This book contains a collection of true stories, each linked to a theme of how the Veil is thinner than we imagine. It will challenge you to explore your own SIGN experiences, while providing compelling research to assist with your personal journey of understanding.What is in this book for YOU:Discover the importance of SIGNS in your lifeExplore real life stories of notable people and their SIGNSLearn from experts and historical referencesGain comfort in knowing that you are not alone.BioKevin Hall joyfully adopts the titles of dad, grandpa, and papa. Residing with his wife in Rush, NY—a suburb of Rochester—he is a family man with two married children, six grandchildren, and a beloved dog named Pal.His career spanned over 40 years in the private sector, during which he secured a US Patent, was featured in Forbes magazine, authored several white papers, and received numerous accolades for his contributions.Now retired and contemplating his next chapter, he turned to writing. In 2022, he published his first two memoir/history books. When queried about his motivation to write, he replies, "It was the persistent curiosity of my grandchildren, always asking, 'What was it like when you were young, grandpa?'"For his third book, he interviewed a range of fascinating individuals, sharing their extraordinary and inspiring tales—some bordering on the miraculous. One Certified Buyer comments: Have you ever been in a situation where you get a tingling sensation telling you something extraordinary is happening? This book took me through an interesting journey of some astounding stories and other smaller tales of wonder in day-to-day life.Amazon link https://tinyurl.com/4bk5h73bhttp://kevin-hall.com/https://www.pastliveshypnosis.co.uk/https://www.patreon.com/ourparanormalafterlifeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/our-paranormal-afterlife-finding-proof-of-life-after-death--5220623/support.

Can AI be an inventor?The US Patent and Trademark Office has put out new and long-awaited guidance about how and when AI can contribute to an inventive process.The latest AI Chats episode explains what the actual impact is and what's left to figure out. Host:William Joy, Communications ManagerGuests:Dina Blikshteyn, Partner and Co-Chair - AI and Deep Learning Practice GroupBrooke Cohen, Patent Practice Group Associate 

Here's what to expect on the podcast:How does the power of connection influence a person's sense of belonging and identity?Why do some individuals find it challenging to connect with people?How can building connections affect a person's career advancement and success?What is the iceberg concept, and how does it apply to all relationships?And much more! About Karl Becker!I am here with Karl Becker. This interview could be about his accomplishments: he has a US Patent, he founded and ran a globally recognized digital agency, he was a 40 Under 40 award winner, and is an author of three books. Instead, he is here to talk more about how all of his missteps, tough situations, life experiences, and growing up dyslexic in a highly academic family have made him an accidental sales consultant.Karl's focus is helping salespeople but contends that each of us, salesperson or not, can connect better with ourselves, find and leverage our natural strengths, and learn how to find depth and more substance in all of our relationships. Plus, his new book, Iceberg Selling, has illustrations of polar bears and walruses - so we are going to find what that's about too. Connect with Karl Becker!Websites: https://www.improvingsalesperformance.com/ | https://www.icebergselling.com/karlbeckerspeaker.htmlLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/karlbeckeriii/ Connect with Candice Snyder!Website: https://hairhealthvitality.com/passion-purpose-and-possibilities/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/candice.snyderInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/candicesny17/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/candicesnyder/ICAN Institute: https://vl729.isrefer.com/go/mindandbody/PassionPurpose22/Shop For A Cause With Gifts That Give Back to Nonprofits: https://thekindnesscause.com/

Michael Giuliano is an American entrepreneur and scholar that has independently designed, developed, patented, and commercialized products in excess of $2,000,000,000 USD.He has a mastery level in the areas of Business Intelligence, Predictive Analytics, Artificial Intelligence, Organizational Change, Corporate Alignment, Data Science, Quantitative Analytics, Machine Learning, AntiGravitics, and Neural Networks. An active board member and volunteer at several top rated Engineering and Business Schools.  He currently serves as a paid Chairman of the Board for several of the top echelon leadership organizations including Special Forces, Cyber, Tactical, and Corporations.Michael started his career at tech-giant Intel® as a microchip manufacturing engineer earning distinct Engineering honors spanning some of the highest-profile product launches on record in the digital and mobility spaces (including X-Box®, Apple®, Xeon®,and Pentium4®) and served as Intel's First Lean Content Expert at their Flagship Plant.Clients and collaborators include the global "who's who" of brands including: Intel, Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Disney, Coca-Cola, Altria, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Louis Vuitton, McDonald's, Toyota, Honda, Nike, Cisco, SAP, Oracle, Verizon, GE, Budweiser, IBM, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, American Express, L'Oréal, Gucci, Hermès, General Motors, Nestles, Home Depot, Starbucks, Sony, FedEx, UPS, YellowRoadway, AmerisourceBergen, ClevelandClinic, Stryker, Medtronic, and more.Michael is most recognized as the US Patent & Trademark Owner of certifiedlean®, he has led and trained thousands globally in Lean, Product Development, Rapid Prototyping, and Hoshin Kanri spanning nearly every industry, discipline, and profession.  In 2014, he proudly donated his “certified-lean®" mark to Ohio University, which has been formally incorporated into the Industrial and Systems Engineering Undergraduate and Graduate Degrees as well as professional online certifications across the globe.Listen to this episode to hear what it takes to have a disciplined mindset and be able to stay focused and become unstoppable.Follow Michael on Instagram Support the showFollow Jackie Minsky on Instagram Send a message and let Jackie know what you love, what you want more of on the show

A fire in 1836 wiped out nearly every patent on file in the United States. How did the patent office rebuild, and how did a second fire in 1877 change things even more?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of The Vivek Show, host Vivek Ramaswamy is joined by former US Patent and Trademark Office head, Andrei Iancu, to discuss the significance of intellectual property (IP) in America's founding and its role in fostering innovation. They explore the history of IP rights in the US, the challenges of applying a centuries-old statute to modern technologies, and the need for an intentional innovation policy. Iancu emphasizes the importance of IP in competing with China and other countries, highlighting the necessity of a high-level plan to identify future technologies and enable innovation in both the public and private sectors. This thought-provoking conversation dives deep into the intersection of technology, innovation, and economics.--Donate here: https://t.co/PE1rfuVBmbFor more content follow me here:Twitter - @VivekGRamaswamyInstagram - @vivekgramaswamyFacebook - http://facebook.com/VivekGRamaswamyTruth Social - @VivekRamaswamyRumble - @VivekRamaswamy--Time-codes:00:00 - America's founding ideals of IP rights and their impact on innovation02:47 - The significance of "right" in the Constitution's IP clause07:10 - The role of IP rights in a free market economy11:31 - Jefferson and Madison's unchanged patent code from 179312:40 - Challenges with fitting new technologies into an old statute19:47 - Data protection as another form of IP protection22:29 - The need for a holistic innovation policy in the US25:08 - Competing in the AI, quantum, biotech, and new materials races26:16 - IP as a tool for global competition29:25 - Balancing decentralized free market economy and centralized national plans31:59 - Questioning the classical model of total decentralization