Podcasts about Wipo

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

Bruce Lehman, head of USPTO from 1993 to 1998, joins Clause 8 for a wide-ranging conversation about the modern IP system, the internet boom, and why the AI era may require a new copyright response from Congress.Lehman helped shape internet-era copyright policy from the USPTO, including the work that led to the WIPO Copyright Treaties and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). He also played a major role in the broader 1990s pro-IP moment, when the United States was strengthening IP rights globally through TRIPS, WIPO, and trade policy.Now, Lehman argues that courts have spent the last two decades weakening copyright through an expansive view of fair use — creating a system where AI companies can train on massive amounts of human-created content without giving creators a meaningful stake. Asked whether new legislation is needed to protect creators in the AI age, Lehman does not hesitate: “The short answer is yes.”The episode also covers:*Lehman's “patent pendulum” theory and why he believes the US is now in a low-protection IP era*How the DMCA emerged from the Clinton administration's internet copyright work*TRIPS, WIPO, and the globalization of IP rights in the 1990s*Bayh-Dole and the rise of the university-to-startup pipeline*Lehman's historic confirmation as the first openly gay man confirmed by the Senate*His role in turning the USPTO into a “prominent perch” for national IP policy*Gilbert Hyatt, submarine patents, and SAWS*USPTO telework, examiner retention, and modernization*His message that current leadership should “stop tormenting the Patent Corps”*The limits of AI — and why Lehman thinks it lacks the "metaphysical" spark behind true invention*Judge Pauline Newman and her pro-patent legacyWatch the full episode and read the companion post on Voice of IP: https://voiceofip.com/Subscribe to the Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/@clause8Disclaimer 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

09.00 กรมทรัพย์สินฯ ถอดบทวิเคราะห์ WIPO ส่งสัญญาณโลกยุคใหม่ แข่งกันที่ทุนทางความคิดและนวัตกรรม ปั้นธุรกิจไทยลุยเวทีโลก

11.00 ปณท จัดทำตราไปรษณียากร “WIPO Award for Creative Excellence” เนื่องในโอกาสที่ WIPO ทูลเกล้าฯ ถวายรางวัลแด่สมเด็จพระเจ้าลูกเธอ เจ้าฟ้าสิริวัณณวรีฯ เพื่อร่วมเฉลิมพระเกียรติและถ่ายทอดพระอัจฉริยภาพด้านการออกแบบและความคิดสร้างสรรค์

Here's something most inventors didn't realize until it was too late: your invention could be manufactured, sold, or knocked off anywhere in the world - and your U.S. patent didn't protect you outside U.S. borders.That's where WIPO and the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) came in.Matthias Reischle-Park, Deputy Director and Head of PCT Legal and User Support at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), joined host Brian Fried, Founder of National Inventor Club, and broke down everything you needed to know about protecting your invention globally.Here's what was covered:✅ PCT basics - What it was, how it worked, and why it mattered no matter where you were in your invention journey✅ The real costs - What you actually needed to budget for global protection (no surprises) ✅ Strategic timing - When to file PCT vs when to go direct (the 30-month decision that could save or cost you thousands)✅ Resources available - How to use WIPO tools and get help navigating the system ✅ Enforcement overseas - How you actually protect and enforce your IP if someone was ripping you off in another country✅ Common mistakes - What Matthias saw inventors doing wrong and how to avoid those pitfalls ✅ Success stories - Real examples of inventors who used PCT to protect and monetize their inventions globally✅ Future updates - Changes and improvements coming to international filingMatthias had been with WIPO since 1998, helping inventors and patent professionals navigate the PCT system. He had written the guidelines, trained thousands of applicants, and knew every move needed to protect an invention internationally without getting burned.This event was for you if:You were just starting and wanted to understand your global IP options from day oneYou were developing your invention and needed to know when international protection matteredYou had filed or had a U.S. patent and wondered what was next for international coverageYou were manufacturing overseas and needed to protect your IP thereSomeone was already knocking off your product internationally and you wanted to know your optionsYou were confused about PCT costs, timing, and what WIPO could actually do for youYour invention deserved global protection. It was time to learn how to do it right.Watch the episode here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-zZmwF0uL4-----------------------Become a member today @ https://nationalinventorclub.com.Unlock Your Invention's Potential with Inventor Smart! Inventor Smart Community - The Ultimate APP for Inventors to connect, collaborate, network, and drive invention ideas forward! Join social networking, participate in group chats, events, visit the library, and find the support you need! Download the Inventor Smart Community app on Google Play or Apple App Store or here http://inventorsmart.app Join us today!Have a great invention idea?Do you want to know if your idea will make you money?If you're just getting started, need help with product development, engineering, prototyping, finding a product licensing agent, or with bringing your invention idea to reality manufacturing, schedule a call with Brian Fried, The Inventor Coach @ https://brianfried.com

VLOG Feb 11 SDNY closed door Lively v Baldoni hype, book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DWC8BH55SBF 35 pg: https://www.patreon.com/posts/crypto-criminal-150424382 Alexander Bros, Bklyn, Erik; crypto fraud Karony 100 months, market structure bill, UN: WIPO elex https://innercitypress.com/ungate1lwipoicp021126.htmlhttps://www.amazon.com/United-Nations-Betrayals-Election-Guterres-ebook/dp/B0GDJJMN4L

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

Hii leo jaridani tnaangazia uchumi wa dunia unaoendelea kukua ila maendeleo katika kupata kazi zenye ubora na staha yamekwama, pia tunaangazia afya ya uzazi nchini Uganda na homa ya bonde la ufa (RVF) kwa mifugo nchini Tanzania. Licha ya uchumi wa dunia kuendelea kukua, maendeleo katika kupata kazi zenye ubora na staha yamekwama, huku mamilioni ya wafanyakazi wakisalia katika lindi la umaskini na ajira zisizo rasmi. Hayo ni kwa mujibu wa ripoti mpya ya Shirika la Umoja wa Mataifa la Kazi duniani (ILO)iliyotolewa hii leo huko Geneva Uswisi.Baada ya kuhitimu shahada ya udaktari nchini mwake Uganda, huko Afrika Mashariki, Daktari mmoja alibaini kuwa hiyo haitoshi, bali alienda mbali zaidi kubuni kifaa kinachosaidia wajawazito hasa wale wanaoishi maeneo ya ndani zaidi kufahamu hali ya afya ya watoto wao tumboni, na hivi sasa kifaa hicho kinaelekea kupata hakibunifu kupitia shirika la Umoja wa Mataifa la Hakibunifu, WIPO.Mfumo wa kubaini mapema homa ya bonde la ufa (RVF) iliyobuniwa na shirika la Umoja wa Mataifa la Chakula na Kilimo, FAO nchini Tanzania imewezesha wizara, wakulima, na madaktari wa mifugo kuchukua hatua za mapema, hivyo kulinda maisha na mali dhidi ya ugonjwa huo unaoshambulia mifugo na binadamu.Mwenyeji wako ni Anold Kayanda, karibu!

Baada ya kuhitimu shahada ya udaktari nchini mwake Uganda, huko Afrika Mashariki, Daktari mmoja alibaini kuwa hiyo haitoshi, bali alienda mbali zaidi kubuni kifaa kinachosaidia wajawazito hasa wale wanaoishi maeneo ya ndani zaidi kufahamu hali ya afya ya watoto wao tumboni, na hivi sasa kifaa hicho kinaelekea kupata hakibunifu kupitia shirika la Umoja wa Mataifa la Hakibunifu, WIPO. Assumpta Massoi anasimulia zaidi.

Speaker: Professor Lilian Edwards, Emeritus Professor of Law, Innovation & Society, Newcastle Law School Biography: Lilian Edwards is a leading academic in the field of Internet law. She has taught information technology law, e-commerce law, privacy law and Internet law at undergraduate and postgraduate level since 1996 and been involved with law and artificial intelligence (AI) since 1985. She is now Emerita Professor at Newcastle and Honorary Professor at CREAte, University of Glasgow, which she helped co-found. She is the editor and major author of Law, Policy and the Internet, one of the leading textbooks in the field of Internet law (Hart, 2018, new edition forthcoming with Urquhart and Goanta, 2026). She won the Future of Privacy Forum award in 2019 for best paper ("Slave to the Algorithm" with Michael Veale) and the award for best non-technical paper at FAccT in 2020, on automated hiring. In 2004 she won the Barbara Wellberry Memorial Prize in 2004 for work on online privacy where she invented the notion of data trusts, a concept which ten years later has been proposed in EU legislation. She is a former fellow of the Alan Turing Institute on Law and AI, and the Institute for the Future of Work. Edwards has consulted for inter alia the EU Commission, the OECD, and WIPO.Abstract: The right to an explanation is having another moment. Well after the heyday of 2016-2018 when scholars tussled over whether the GDPR ( in either art 22 or arts 13-15) conferred a right to explanation, the CJEU case of Dun and Bradstreet has finally confirmed its existence, and the Platform Work Directive has wholesale revamped art 22 in its Algorithmic Management chapter. Most recently the EU AI Act added its own Frankenstein-like right to an explanation (art 86) of AI systems .None of these provisions however pin down what the essence of the explanation should be, given many notions can be invoked here ; a faithful description of source code or training data; an account that enables challenge or contestation; a “plausible” description that may be appealing in a behaviouralist sense but might be actually misleading when operationalised eg to generate a medical course of treatment. Agarwal et al argue that the tendency of UI designers, and regulators and judges alike to lean towards the plausibility end, may be unsuited to large language models which represent far more of a black box in size and optimisation than conventional machine learning, and which are trained to present encouraging but not always accurate accounts of their workings. Yet this is also the direction of travel taken by CJEU Dun & Bradstreet , above. This paper argues that explanations of large model outputs may present novel challenges needing thoughtful legal mandates.For more information (and to download slides) see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Professor Lilian Edwards, Emeritus Professor of Law, Innovation & Society, Newcastle Law School Biography: Lilian Edwards is a leading academic in the field of Internet law. She has taught information technology law, e-commerce law, privacy law and Internet law at undergraduate and postgraduate level since 1996 and been involved with law and artificial intelligence (AI) since 1985. She is now Emerita Professor at Newcastle and Honorary Professor at CREAte, University of Glasgow, which she helped co-found. She is the editor and major author of Law, Policy and the Internet, one of the leading textbooks in the field of Internet law (Hart, 2018, new edition forthcoming with Urquhart and Goanta, 2026). She won the Future of Privacy Forum award in 2019 for best paper ("Slave to the Algorithm" with Michael Veale) and the award for best non-technical paper at FAccT in 2020, on automated hiring. In 2004 she won the Barbara Wellberry Memorial Prize in 2004 for work on online privacy where she invented the notion of data trusts, a concept which ten years later has been proposed in EU legislation. She is a former fellow of the Alan Turing Institute on Law and AI, and the Institute for the Future of Work. Edwards has consulted for inter alia the EU Commission, the OECD, and WIPO.Abstract: The right to an explanation is having another moment. Well after the heyday of 2016-2018 when scholars tussled over whether the GDPR ( in either art 22 or arts 13-15) conferred a right to explanation, the CJEU case of Dun and Bradstreet has finally confirmed its existence, and the Platform Work Directive has wholesale revamped art 22 in its Algorithmic Management chapter. Most recently the EU AI Act added its own Frankenstein-like right to an explanation (art 86) of AI systems .None of these provisions however pin down what the essence of the explanation should be, given many notions can be invoked here ; a faithful description of source code or training data; an account that enables challenge or contestation; a “plausible” description that may be appealing in a behaviouralist sense but might be actually misleading when operationalised eg to generate a medical course of treatment. Agarwal et al argue that the tendency of UI designers, and regulators and judges alike to lean towards the plausibility end, may be unsuited to large language models which represent far more of a black box in size and optimisation than conventional machine learning, and which are trained to present encouraging but not always accurate accounts of their workings. Yet this is also the direction of travel taken by CJEU Dun & Bradstreet , above. This paper argues that explanations of large model outputs may present novel challenges needing thoughtful legal mandates.For more information (and to download slides) see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

The global patent landscape marked its fifth consecutive year of growth, as China once again led the world with an impressive 1.8 millionpatent applications, according to a report issued by theWorld Intellectual Property Organization on Wednesday.据世界知识产权组织（WIPO）当地时间周三发布的报告显示，全球专利领域已连续第五年实现增长，中国以180万件的可观专利申请量再度领跑全球。The World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025 showed that global patent and industrial design application numbers continued their upward trajectory last year, with China standing out for its remarkable performance in these areas.《2025年世界知识产权指标》报告指出，去年全球专利及工业品外观设计申请量持续呈上升态势，中国在这些领域的表现尤为突出。In 2024, the number of global patent applications reached a record high of 3.7 million, marking a 4.9 percent increase from 2023 and the fifth straight year the number has risen.2024年，全球专利申请量达到370万件的历史新高，较2023年增长4.9%，实现连续五年增长。"This was the fastest growth since 2018, with many countries reporting a rise in applications," said Daren Tang, director general of the World Intellectual Property Organization.世界知识产权组织总干事邓鸿森表示：“这是2018年以来的最快增速，多个国家的专利申请量均出现增长。”China maintained its position as the global leader with 1.8 million patent applications, followed by the United States (501,831), Japan (419,132), South Korea (295,722) and Germany (133,485), per the report.报告显示，中国以180万件专利申请量稳居全球首位，紧随其后的是美国（501,831件）、日本（419,132件）、韩国（295,722件）和德国（133,485件）。It noted that computer technology continued to be the sector in which the highest number of published patent applications were sought across the world, accounting for over 13 percent of the global total, followed by electrical machinery, measurement technology, digital communications and medical technology.报告提到，计算机技术仍是全球已公布专利申请量最多的领域，占全球总量的13%以上（部分数据源显示具体占比为13.2%），其次是电机设备、测量技术、数字通信和医疗技术。After a slow two years, global trademark applications showed signs of a rebound in 2024, reaching 15.2 million, it said, revealing that the largest source of such applications was China, with approximately 7.3 million filings.经过两年的缓慢发展，2024年全球商标申请量出现反弹迹象，总量达1520万件。报告显示，中国是全球商标申请的最大来源国，申请量约为730万件。In addition, Chinese applicants filed for more than 906,000 design patents last year, ranking first globally, it added.此外，中国申请人去年提交的外观设计专利申请量超90.6万件（详细统计数据为906,849件），位居全球第一。Tang emphasized the significant role of intellectual property in today's global economy.邓鸿森强调了知识产权（IP）在当今全球经济中的重要作用。"In many businesses, it has become a critical asset at the heart of the business strategy; agame-changing technology, a brand that engenders feelings of trust and belonging, or a design that brings joy through its beauty," he said.他表示：“在许多企业中，知识产权已成为企业核心战略的关键资产——可能是一项具有变革性的技术、一个能引发信任与归属感的品牌，或是一款凭借美感带来愉悦的设计。”He noted that the growth in IP filings is a sign that market participants—both buyers and sellers—have trust in the IP system, a testament to the increased focus that national governments are putting on their innovation ecosystems, with WIPO's support for cooperation at the local, national and multilateral levels.邓鸿森指出，知识产权申请量的增长表明，市场参与者（无论是买家还是卖家）都对知识产权体系抱有信任。这一现象也证明，在世界知识产权组织对地方、国家及多边层面合作的支持下，各国政府正愈发重视本国的创新生态系统。"And it is vital that this confidence is sustained by a continuous process of reinforcement of IP standards globally, because businesses need a well-functioning IP ecosystem that facilitates the protection of IP globally," he added.他补充道：“至关重要的是，需通过持续强化全球知识产权标准来维持这种信任，因为企业需要一个运转良好的知识产权生态系统，以促进全球范围内的知识产权保护。”However, there are still some areas that need attention and improvement, Tang said, encouraging female inventors to participate in the international patent applications.不过，邓鸿森表示仍有部分领域需要关注和改进，并鼓励女性发明者参与国际专利申请。"Millions of women have the potential to contribute innovations, and their participation will add more innovative fuel to the global economy," he said.他说：“数百万女性拥有贡献创新成果的潜力，她们的参与将为全球经济注入更多创新动力。”The annual report is based on statistical data from the IP offices of approximately 150 countries and regions worldwide.这份年度报告基于全球约150个国家和地区知识产权局的统计数据编制而成。It provides a comprehensive overview of global application trends in such fields as patents, trademarks and industrial designs.这份报告全面概述了专利、商标、工业品外观设计及其他知识产权领域的全球申请趋势。World Intellectual Property Organization世界知识产权组织patent applications专利申请game-changing具有变革性的

China's rapid development and strong protection of intellectual property have been praised by Daren Tang, director-general of the World Intellectual Property Organization, as a significant achievement not only for the country but also for the world.世界知识产权组织总干事邓鸿森（Daren Tang）称赞中国知识产权领域的快速发展与有力保护，认为这不仅是中国的重大成就，也为世界作出重要贡献。"The Chinese IP ecosystem cannot just be said to be one of huge quantity, but increasingly of high quality as well," Tang said at the opening ceremony of the 14th China International Patent Fair in Dalian, Liaoning province, on Monday.邓鸿森周一在辽宁省大连市举行的第十四届中国国际专利技术与产品交易会上致辞时表示：“中国的知识产权生态系统不仅规模庞大，质量也在不断提升。”Tang highlighted China's innovative progress, noting that the country entered the top 10 in WIPO's Global Innovation Index in 2025, making it the highest-ranked among upper-middle-income economies. He said 24 of China's innovation clusters are among the world's top 100, with the Hong Kong-Guangzhou-Shenzhen cluster ranked first.邓鸿森强调了中国在创新领域的进步，指出中国在2025年世界知识产权组织《全球创新指数》中跻身前10位，成为排名最高的中高收入经济体。他表示，中国有24个创新集群进入全球百强，其中“香港-广州-深圳”创新集群位列全球第一。He also commended China's strong momentum in its green transition, citing rapid growth in the electric vehicle industry, which has surged by 36 percent, the battery industry (53 percent) and the solar industry (18 percent). These advancements, he said, are helping drive green technology and artificial intelligence-enabled industries, which now make up nearly one-fifth of China's economy.他还赞扬中国在绿色转型方面势头强劲，并以相关产业的快速增长为例：电动汽车产业增长36%、电池产业增长53%、太阳能产业增长18%。他表示，这些进展正推动绿色技术和人工智能赋能产业发展，目前这类产业已占中国经济的近五分之一。In response to challenges brought by emerging digital technologies, especially AI, Tang called for adjustments to better support the integration of digital and industrial innovation. He stressed that intellectual property should be made more accessible, benefiting not only large enterprises but also startups and small and medium-sized companies.针对新兴数字技术（尤其是人工智能）带来的挑战，邓鸿森呼吁作出调整，以更好地支持数字创新与产业创新的融合。他强调，应提高知识产权的可及性，让其不仅惠及大型企业，也能助力初创企业和中小企业发展。"IP must accompany the aspirations of researchers and scientists so that laboratory results can have a real impact on society and the economy," he said.他表示：“知识产权必须与科研人员的愿景相伴而行，唯有如此，实验室里的成果才能对社会和经济产生切实影响。”Tang also called for a more comprehensive approach to intellectual property management—integrating patents, trademarks and designs into cohesive business strategies—and suggested policymakers align IP policies across industrial, digital and creative sectors to encourage innovation synergies.邓鸿森还呼吁采用更全面的知识产权管理方法，将专利、商标和外观设计整合为统一的商业战略。他建议政策制定者协调产业、数字和创意领域的知识产权政策，以激发创新协同效应。The 14th China International Patent Fair, which concludes on Wednesday, aims to promote patent transformation and utilization to empower innovative development. The event, considered China's premier national exhibition in the IP field, has become an important platform for exchanging innovations and fostering trade cooperation across industries both domestically and internationally.第十四届中国国际专利技术与产品交易会将于周三闭幕，展会旨在推动专利转化运用，为创新发展注入动力。作为中国知识产权领域的顶级国家级展会，该交易会已成为国内外各行业交流创新成果、促进贸易合作的重要平台。During the opening ceremony, Antonio Campinos, president of the European Patent Office, delivered a speech via video link. He said that in 2024, the office received 200,000 patent applications, with more than 10 percent coming from China, making the country the fourth-largest source of applications.开幕式上，欧洲专利局局长安东尼奥·坎皮诺斯（Antonio Campinos）通过视频连线致辞。他表示，2024年欧洲专利局共收到20万件专利申请，其中逾10%来自中国，中国成为该局第四大专利申请来源国。Campinos said the office has launched services to help innovators gain easier and faster access to the European market and expressed his eagerness to continue working with China to build a high-quality intellectual property system.坎皮诺斯表示，欧洲专利局已推出相关服务，帮助创新者更便捷、更快速地进入欧洲市场。他还表达了与中国继续合作、共建高质量知识产权体系的期待。Shen Changyu, head of the China National Intellectual Property Administration, likened the use of patents to a "bridge" that transforms innovative achievements into productive forces. He emphasized its importance for driving innovation-led development.中国国家知识产权局局长申长雨将专利运用比作一座“桥梁”，能将创新成果转化为现实生产力。他强调，这对于推动创新驱动发展具有重要意义。Shen encouraged more intellectual property exchanges during the event, describing it as a platform to promote high-level opening-up and support high-quality growth.申长雨鼓励各方在此次展会上开展更多知识产权交流，并表示该展会是推动高水平对外开放、支持高质量发展的重要平台。World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)n.世界知识产权组织 /wɜːld ˌɪntəˈlektʃuəl ˈprɒpəti ˌɔːɡənaɪˈzeɪʃn/China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)n.中国国家知识产权局/ˈtʃaɪnə ˈnæʃnəl ˌɪntəˈlektʃuəl ˈprɒpəti ədˌmɪnɪˈstreɪʃn/

①China rises to global innovation top 10: WIPO index ②Chinese researchers develop movable electrode for more advanced brain-computer interfaces ③Major airport in south China reports surging passenger flows from ASEAN ④China's landmark trade corridor witnesses enhanced connectivity, trade efficiency ⑤China expands medical insurance coverage against rare diseases

VOV1 - Chiều nay (26/9), tại Học viện Công nghệ Bưu chính Viễn thông (PTIT), Bộ Khoa học và Công nghệ phối hợp cùng Tổ chức Sở hữu trí tuệ thế giới (WIPO) tổ chức tọa đàm “WIPO và hành trình kiến tạo hệ sinh thái sở hữu trí tuệ thúc đẩy đổi mới sáng tạo cho thế hệ trẻ Việt Nam”.

Slator's Senior Research Analyst Alex Edwards joins Esther and Florian on the pod to discuss ElevenLabs' move from a pure-play language technology platform (LTP) to becoming a language solutions integrator (LSI) by adding a managed service offering.He outlines that the LSI will now offer managed services such as dubbing, transcription, and subtitling, hiring in-house linguists and vendor managers, while charging about USD 22 per minute for dubbing.Florian then turns to YouTube's rollout of multi-language audio tracks, which allows some creators to upload high-quality audio directly to videos and opens major opportunities for AI dubbing providers. The discussion shifts to OpenAI's research on ChatGPT usage, reporting that translation accounted for 4.5% of more than a million sampled conversations, underscoring massive global demand for AI translation.Esther highlights Microsoft's launch of its Live Interpreter API, which promises real-time speech translation with “human interpreter level latency”. Esther also details Mistral's USD 2bn funding to advance European AI capabilities, allowing them to compete with US and Chinese AI giants. Esther closes by reporting on WIPO's new Korean-English post-editing tender.

BUSINESS: Philippines re-enters top 50 in WIPO Global Innovation Index 2025 | Sept. 18, 2025Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein #TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As a disclaimer, we know that Mustafa Derahovic is behind the website that disparages Gil and Jezuz. We believe Mustafa is working with Raees Mohamed. That part has not been established so we are giving our opinions about those details. In this episode we learn that Mustafa Derahovic filed a response with Domain Disputes alleging that it's okay to have a website criticizing Gil Negrete because Gil is no longer practicing law. WIPO states that it doesn't matter if someone like Mustafa puts "WHOIS" in the domain , it's still damaging to the person with the name on the domain. In this case, Gil NegreteAccording to CHATGPT, Mustafa should lose his response. We will see how the appeals board rules on the outcome of that website. Stay Tuned.

The line between groundbreaking innovation and controversial ownership blurs when scientists begin creating life in laboratories. What happens when your invention isn't just a device or chemical formula, but a living, breathing, self-replicating organism that refuses to stay contained within traditional legal boundaries?Synthetic biology—the field where engineering meets genetics—has created a perfect storm for intellectual property law. Scientists can now design cells like software, program bacteria to clean oil spills, and edit genes with CRISPR technology. But who owns these inventions when they start reproducing themselves?From the landmark 1980 Chakrabarty decision that first allowed patents on genetically modified bacteria to the controversial Myriad Genetics case that determined human genes cannot be patented, we explore the fascinating legal battles that shaped biotech innovation. We journey through courtrooms worldwide where judges grappled with unprecedented questions: Can you patent a cloned sheep? Should farmers be allowed to replant patented seeds? Does traditional knowledge about medicinal plants deserve protection from corporate "biopiracy"?The legal landscape continues evolving, with a brand new WIPO treaty requiring disclosure of genetic resources' origins in patent applications. This represents a major shift toward transparency and fairness, especially for communities whose biodiversity and traditional knowledge have contributed to modern innovations.Whether you're a scientist, lawyer, entrepreneur, or simply curious about the legal frameworks governing emerging technologies, this episode offers crucial insights into how intellectual property systems are adapting to the brave new world where the line between invention and life itself becomes increasingly blurred. Subscribe to Intangiblia for more explorations of the fascinating intersection of law, technology, and innovation.Send us a text

The difference between a brilliant innovation and a costly lawsuit often comes down to one critical factor: understanding the legal landscape before you launch. Patents, market barriers, and licensing traps aren't just fine print—they're the playing field that determines which ideas succeed and which ones crash.In this eye-opening exploration of intellectual property strategy, we dive deep into landmark legal battles that have shaped how companies navigate innovation today. From Apple and Samsung's billion-dollar design war to pharmaceutical giants' strategic licensing deals, each story reveals crucial lessons on bringing ideas to market without stepping on legal landmines.We unpack how the "doctrine of equivalence" catches companies who think minor tweaks will avoid infringement, why China's strengthening patent enforcement demands specialized strategies, and how India's stance on pharmaceutical patents challenges traditional notions of innovation. Through cases like Halo Electronics and Global-Tech Appliances, we discover why willful blindness to patent rights can triple your damages and sink your business.But this isn't just about avoiding trouble—it's about finding opportunity. We introduce powerful tools from WIPO that democratize patent intelligence, helping innovators large and small identify paths forward. Whether you're sketching your first prototype or leading an R&D department, you'll gain practical insights on turning potential legal barriers into strategic bridges.The most valuable innovation skill isn't just creating something new—it's knowing how to bring that creation into the world strategically. Join us to discover why, in the words of our AI co-host Artemisa, "Ignorance isn't bliss, it's bankruptcy." Subscribe now and learn to map your innovation journey before taking the first step.Send us a text

Has your creative work been secretly fed to AI systems without your knowledge or consent? Across the creative landscape, from journalism to literature to visual arts, professionals are discovering their life's work has been quietly scraped, processed, and monetized by tech companies building the next generation of AI tools.We pull back the curtain on what many are calling theft at an unprecedented scale. Meta's controversial harvesting of 81 terabytes from shadow libraries to train their Llama models. OpenAI and Microsoft facing lawsuits from major newspapers whose archives now power competing AI systems. The startling reality that creative works are being absorbed by machines programmed to mimic—and potentially replace—their human creators.The legal landscape is transforming in response, with dramatically different approaches emerging worldwide. The US Copyright Office questions whether AI training constitutes infringement while the UK proposes an opt-out system that artists condemn as a "default license to steal." Meanwhile, the EU demands transparency about training data, and Australia calls for stronger creator protections. As courts grow skeptical of expansive fair use claims, new models are taking shape: collective licensing systems, creator opt-in platforms, and calls for a global WIPO treaty to harmonize rights across borders.At its core, this isn't just about legal technicalities—it's about the future of human creativity itself. Can AI innovation flourish without erasing the value of human labor? The decisions we make today will determine whether copyright remains meaningful in a world where machines can copy everything. Join us as we navigate this critical intersection of innovation and authorship, and explore what a balanced future might look like—one where AI assists creators rather than replacing them. Subscribe now to stay informed as this pivotal battle for creative ownership unfolds.Send us a text

Speaker: Professor Margo Bagley, Emory University School of Law Abstract: 2024 was a year for multilateral IP like no other. WIPO Member states adopted two new treaties last year: the WIPO Treaty on IP, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty. Both were groundbreaking in their mention of one or more of genetic resources, traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and indigenous peoples and local communities, none of which are standard IP topics and all of which have been controversial additions to the normative work at WIPO. Moreover, both treaties address disclosure of origin for one or more of these controversial areas, another first for a WIPO treaty. I will discuss how these two treaties came to fruition and their ramifications for future multilateral IP treaty-making.Biography: Margo A. Bagley is Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law. She returned to Emory in 2016 after ten years at the University of Virginia School of Law, where she held the Hardy Cross Dillard chair. She was the Hieken Visiting Professor in Patent Law at Harvard Law School in Fall 2022. Her scholarship focuses on comparative issues relating to patents and biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and access to medicines, and IP and social justice issues. Professor Bagley served on two National Academies Committees on IP matters, is a technical expert to the African Union in World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) matters, and has served as a consultant to several United Nations organizations. She has served as a US Department of Commerce Commercial Law Development Program advisor and currently serves as a member of the U.S. DARPA ELSI Team for the BRACE project. She is an elected member of the American Law Institute and a faculty lecturer with the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, and also has taught patent related courses in China, Cuba, Israel, and Singapore. She has published numerous articles, book chapters, and monographs as well as two books with co-authors with a third on the way. She is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, practiced patent law with both Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, and Smith, Gambrell and Russell, and has been an expert witness in several patent cases. A chemical engineer by training, Professor Bagley worked in industry for several years before attending law school at Emory where she was a Woodruff Fellow. She is a co-inventor on patents on peanut butter and bedding technology. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Marc is an award-winning trademark attorney and experienced entrepreneur with over 20 years of launching and scaling businesses. He created the Power Trademark 360, a comprehensive framework that empowers entrepreneurs to leverage trademarks for business growth and sustainability. What are some emerging trends in intellectual property that entrepreneurs should be aware of? How do you see intellectual property intersecting with sustainability and social impact, particularly in the African market? What inspired you to develop the Power Trademark 360, and how does it benefit entrepreneurs? How can a strong IP strategy turn intangible assets into business growth drivers? What are the most common mistakes entrepreneurs make when it comes to protecting their intellectual property? Marc Luanghy Marc is an award-winning trademark attorney and experienced entrepreneur with over 20 years of launching and scaling businesses. Holding a Master's in Entrepreneurship from Cambridge University, he has worked across various industries, including tech, fashion, sports, and health, advising startups and SMEs on brand protection and growth. As a former consultant at WIPO, Marc brings deep expertise in intellectual property strategy, helping businesses avoid legal pitfalls and fortify their brand value. He created the Power Trademark 360, a comprehensive framework that empowers entrepreneurs to leverage trademarks for business growth and sustainability. Excellent Executive Coaching Podcast If you have enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on iTunes. We would love for you to leave a review. The EEC podcasts are sponsored by MKB Excellent Executive Coaching that helps you get from where you are to where you want to be with customized leadership and coaching development programs. MKB Excellent Executive Coaching offers leadership development programs to generate action, learning, and change that is aligned with your authentic self and values. Transform your dreams into reality and invest in yourself by scheduling a discovery session with Dr. Katrina Burrus, MCC to reach your goals. Your host is Dr. Katrina Burrus, MCC, founder and general manager of Excellent Executive Coaching a company that specializes in leadership development.

Last year, two new treaties were adopted by the WIPO, one relating to patents and the other design law, in a bid to increase protections for original and indigenous ideas. 

Hii leo jaridani tunakuletea mada kwakina inayotupeleka Havan Cuba ambapo mmoja wa walumbi wa lugha ya Kiswahili Jorum Nkumbi, ambaye pia ni mwandishi wa vitabu anayetumia sanaa ya uandishi wa vitabu kuitangaza lugha mama yake ya Kiswahili amezindua kitabu kipya hivi karibuni wakati wa kongamano la kimataifa la Kiswahili. Mengine tuliyokuandalia ni kama yafuatayo.Yerusalem Mashariki eneo la wapalestina linalokaliwa na Israeli ambako Mkuu wa Ofisi ya Umoja wa Mataifa ya kuratibu misaada ya dharura, OCHA, Tom Fletcher yuko ziarani na amepata shuhuda halisi za wanaokabiliwa na kufurushwa makwao. Mmoja wao ni Um Nasser ar Rajabi ambaye amemweleza kuwa Nimekuwa kwenye ndoa katika nyumba hii kwa miaka 50.Wataalamu wa Umoja wa Mataifa wamelezea wasiwasi wao mkubwa kuhusu mahitaji ya dharura ya ulinzi na mazingira magumu yanayokabili raia kwenye eneo la Mashariki mwa Jamhuri ya Kidemokrasia ya Congo, DRC lenye utajiri mkubwa wa madini, wakati huu uhasama ulioshika kasi tangu mwezi uliopita kati ya jeshi la serikali na waasi wa M23 wanaoungwa mkono na Rwanda umesababisha vifo vya watu 900, majeruhi zaidi ya 2000 na kufurusha watu 700,000 mjini Goma. Wametaka pande kinzani zizingatie sheria ya kimatiafa ya kibinadamu na zilinde raia wote.Shirika la Umoja wa Mataifa kuhusu Hakimiliki, WIPO hii leo limetoa ripoti mpya kuhusu mustakabali wa usafirishaji wa watu na bidhaa duniani ikimulika teksi za angani, magari yasiyokuwa na dereva pamoja na maroketi yanayoweza kutumika ten ana tena tofauti na sasa, likisema ndio majawabu ambayo wabunifu na wagunduzi wanahaha duniani kote ili kupunguza usafirishaji unaochafua mazingira.Na katika kujifunza lugha ya Kiswahili, mchambuzi wetu Dkt. Josephat Gitonga, kutoka Kenya ambaye ni mhadhiri katika Chuo Kikuu cha Nairobi kwenye kitivo cha tafsiri na ukalimani anatufafanulia maana ya methali “MTI WENYE MATUNDA NDIO HURUSHIWA MAWE”.Mwenyeji wako ni Anold Kayanda, karibu!  

SummaryIn this episode, Samar and Jamie discuss various resources for independent inventors. They highlight the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website as a top resource, which provides information on patent basics, patent scams, and free services offered by the Patent Office. They also mention the Inventor Assistance Center and the Pro Bono Program, which are available through the USPTO. Other resources discussed include search tools like patents.google.com, PQ AI, Pantzilla, WIPO, and the European Patent Office. They also mention local inventor groups and inventor clubs, law schools and nonprofits that help inventors, and the book 'One Simple Idea' by Stephen Key as a great resource for patent licensing.TakeawaysThe USPTO website is a valuable resource for independent inventors. It provides information on patent basics, scams, and free services.Search tools like patents.google.com, PQ AI, Pantzilla, WIPO, and the European Patent Office can help with patent searches.Local inventor groups and clubs offer a supportive community and access to experienced inventors.Law schools and nonprofits can provide pro bono assistance to inventors.The book 'One Simple Idea' by Stephen Key is recommended for those interested in patent licensing.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Purpose of the Episode01:24 Top Resources for Independent Inventors05:37 Useful Patent Search Tools10:21 Joining Inventor Groups and Clubs13:39 Pro Bono Assistance from Law Schools and Nonprofits15:07 Recommended Book for Patent LicensingResourceshttps://www.uspto.gov/https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/inventors-entrepreneurs-resourceshttps://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/official-gazette/official-gazette-patentshttps://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-bono/patent-pro-bono-programhttps://patents.google.com/https://projectpq.ai/https://docs.ip-tools.org/patzilla/https://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/https://www.epo.org/en/searching-for-patents/technical/espacenethttps://inventleader.org/inventor-groups/https://inventright.com/books/one-simple-idea/

VLOG Dec 5 Diddy dismissal for MDC raid? Book https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DHP7YF19Daniel Penny jury Day 3, book https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DNXVK8JCCuomo seeks gag order re taxpayer funded defense; Trump's DEA, EDNY, Harvey Weinstein echo - & WIPO in corrupt UN https://www.innercitypress.com/ungate1fwipoicp120424.html

Speaker: Professor Ruth Okediji, Jeremiah Smith Jr., Professor of Law, Harvard Law School and Co-Director of the Berkman Klein CenterAbstract: The conclusion of the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in 1994 sparked a quiet revolution in the global IP system by directing unprecedented scrutiny to the maldistribution of innovation benefits among countries and communities, including Indigenous Peoples' traditional knowledge. The unauthorized access, use, and commercialization of biological resources raised specific questions about the malleability of acquisitive processes for patents, designs, and trademarks, and galvanized soft and hard law instruments recognizing interests in traditional knowledge and genetic resources that are in tension with dominant IP justifications. This lecture examines the recently concluded WIPO genetic resources treaty - the first formal attempt to overlay Indigenous people's concerns on the system of global IP rights and administration. The lecture will explore prospects for structural change in IP governance based on the treaty's design and highlight its implications for IP harmonization that differ starkly from the vision codified in the TRIPS Agreement. Those implications threaten prospects for the equitable allocation of benefits between Indigenous People's knowledge and other stakeholders in the international IP regime.Biography: Ruth L. Okediji is the Jeremiah Smith. Jr, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Co-Director of the Berkman Klein Center. A renowned scholar in international intellectual property (IP) law and a foremost authority on the role of intellectual property in social and economic development, Professor Okediji has advised inter-governmental organizations, regional economic communities, and national governments on a range of matters related to technology, innovation policy, and development. Her widely cited scholarship on IP and development has influenced government policies in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, and South America. Her ideas have helped shape national strategies for the implementation of the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). She works closely with several United Nations agencies, research centers, and international organizations on the human development effects of international IP policy, including access to knowledge, access to essential medicines and issues related to indigenous innovation systems.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminarsThis entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Join hosts J.D. Barker, Christine Daigle, Kevin Tumlinson, and Jena Brown as they discuss the week's entertainment news, including Random House Publishing Group acquiring Boom! Studios, WIPO launching a toolkit for authors and publishers, and TikTok's AI Chatbot called Genie. Then, stick around for a chat with Peter James! Peter James is a UK No.1 bestselling author, best known for his Detective Superintendent Roy Grace series, now a hit ITV drama starring John Simm as the troubled Brighton copper.  Much loved by crime and thriller fans for his fast-paced page-turners full of unexpected plot twists, sinister characters, and accurate portrayal of modern day policing, he has won over 40 awards for his work including the WHSmith Best Crime Author of All Time Award and Crime Writers' Association Diamond Dagger. In 2024, it was announced that he is the creator of Her Majesty Queen Camilla's favourite fictional detective.  To date, Peter has written an impressive total of 20 Sunday Times No. 1s, sold over 23 million copies worldwide and been translated into 38 languages. Her Majesty Queen Camilla has announced that Detective Superintendent Roy Grace is her favourite fictional detective. His books are also often adapted for the stage, with his six stage shows grossing over £17 million at the box office – the most recent being Wish You Were Dead. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/writersink/support

VLOG July 15 Verdict day on Menendez and/or Guo? Book(s) ready https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D7X51R2D Crypto: Binance Oct 7 suit, Tornado Cash Storm trial delayed. WIPO corruption scoop https://www.innercitypress.com/ungate1cwipoicp071524.html as UNSG @AntonioGuterres silent 16 hours on Butler PA shooting

I'm a bit biased but I've always found that global patent trends shows where any sort of technology is going. GenerativeAI is no different. Let's take a quick look at WIPO's 2024 GenAI report: https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/patent-landscape-report-generative-artificial-intelligence-genai/en/key-findings-and-insights.html#generativeai #genai #artificialintelligence #machinelearning ——————Follow me: https://www.instagram.com/wesjh_/X (fka Twitter): https://twitter.com/wesjh_  @chubbies, @chubbiesshortsSubscribe to the podcast!Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wes-henderson-podcast/id1570344602Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2WPDYKlvgoYbZWLPMMSxHa?si=O3ZEC-lORS2FLAs0e_xx6wSupport the Channel with my affiliate links!https://havenathletic.com/WES-HENDERSON. Code WES-HENDERSONShop Lululemon: https://creatoriq.cc/3sKggwzhttps://www.patreon.com/weshendersonBest active eyewear and triathlon gear in the game! Visit ROKA! https://www.avantlink.com/click.php?tt=cl&merchant_id=cca349d7-b121-43c4-a8a4-56bc2f084318&website_id=04d4bb09-ade8-466e-8f50-d02b5ef94363&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.roka.com%2F Thorne: Most science backed, and clinically validated supplements on the market - Get 20% off your first order with my link: https://thor.ne/qOtrs My choice for CBD - cbdMD - 15% OFF - https://cbdmd.t7c9v8.net/ZkMEkBadass Coffee Company - NVR Rest - Use ‘WES' to get 10% off - https://nvrrest.com/Shop on Amazon! https://www.amazon.com/?&_encoding=UTF8&tag=wesjh-20&linkCode=ur2&linkId=70b15611910ce468775b76425895bbae&camp=1789&creative=9325To get your own Eight Sleep mattress or pod pro cover use the following link and code 'WES' for $100 Off at checkout: https://eight-sleep.ioym.net/qnANPb

In this insightful conversation, Dr Ricardo Baptista Leite, the CEO of HealthAI and Chair of the Unite Parliamentarians Network for Global Health, shares his remarkable journey and vision for leveraging AI to advance global health equity. From his early passion for public service to his roles in parliament, medical practice, and leading initiatives, Dr Leite discusses the inflection points that shaped his career. He delves into the work of HealthAI, a global agency focused on responsible AI in healthcare, and the Unite network, which unites parliamentarians worldwide to promote science-based policymaking. Dr Leite also highlights the AI for Good Global Initiative, a collaborative effort between the WHO, ITU, and WIPO, emphasizing the importance of an inclusive, global approach to AI regulations and fostering innovation while ensuring no one is left behind. 00:08- About Dr Ricardo Baptista Leite Ricardo has a marvelous background and contribution across many dimensions, particularly in healthcare.  He has worked in Parliament and as a physician as well.  He was part of the COVID emergency and worked in the COVID emergency rooms. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tbcy/support

In this episode of the Knobbe IP+ podcast, Knobbe Martens partner Mauricio Uribe speaks with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Legal Officer Oscar Alberto Suárez Bohorquez on the recently announced WIPO Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program for resolving disputes in video games and esports. Mauricio and Oscar discuss the ways in which WIPO's ADR program is tailored to the ever-evolving industries of video games and esports and how WIPO's new program is positioned to assist organizations throughout the world with regard to business and legal issues in the esports and gaming industries.   Listen to the episode here or read the full transcript here.

A new treaty was adopted by the World Intellectual Property Organization about using knowledge and resources from indigenous people. This may have an effect on drug patents, where the initial knowledge of the drug comes from indigenous cultures, and the plants they use to treat ailments.  Listen to this episode to learn more about the treaty and how it affects disclosure requirements when you file a patent application. ----------------- Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament Phone/Text: (424)281-0162 YouTube Channel LinkedIn  

Chapter 7 delves into the complexities of international intellectual property (IP) law, exploring the framework of international treaties and conventions, the challenges associated with cross-border enforcement, the roles played by global organizations like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and provides case studies that illustrate these dynamics in action. International Treaties and Conventions International treaties and conventions provide a foundational framework for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights across national borders. These agreements aim to harmonize the protection of intellectual property worldwide, making it easier for countries to cooperate and for rights holders to secure and enforce their rights internationally. Key International Treaties include: The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883): One of the first intellectual property treaties, establishing important principles such as national treatment, right of priority, and independence of patents granted in different countries. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886): Establishes protections for creators of literary and artistic works, ensuring they receive rights in all signatory countries as they do in their own. The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) (1970): Streamlines the filing of patents in multiple countries by allowing for a single "international" patent application. The Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks: Facilitates the registration of trademarks in multiple jurisdictions around the world through a single application. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (1994): Administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), TRIPS sets down minimum standards for many forms of intellectual property regulation that WTO members must comply with. Cross-border Enforcement Challenges Enforcing IP rights across national borders presents significant challenges. Differences in national laws, the resources available for enforcement, and the political and economic climate can all impact the effectiveness of IP protection internationally. Challenges include: Variability in Legal Frameworks: Even with international treaties, countries implement and interpret intellectual property laws differently, leading to inconsistencies that can complicate enforcement. Jurisdictional Issues: Determining which country's laws apply, and where legal action should be taken, can be complex and hinder the efficiency of enforcement actions. Counterfeiting and Piracy: These issues are particularly rampant in countries with less stringent enforcement of IP laws, making it difficult for rights holders to protect their interests. Role of WIPO and Other International Organizations WIPO plays a critical role in the international intellectual property system. As a specialized agency of the United Nations, WIPO facilitates international cooperation in the creation and protection of intellectual property. It administers several international treaties, offers dispute resolution services, and helps developing countries build their capacity to use intellectual property for economic development. Other significant organizations include: World Trade Organization (WTO): Manages the TRIPS agreement which affects how intellectual property is handled in trade agreements between member states. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and similar regional bodies: Manage trademarks and designs within their respective regions, facilitating simpler processes for registration and enforcement across multiple countries. Case Studies of International IP Disputes Apple Inc. vs. Samsung Electronics Co.: This series of ongoing legal battles across multiple countries highlights issues with patent infringement and showcases how multinational companies protect their IP across different legal systems. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

International Intellectual Property Law Chapter 7 delves into the complexities of international intellectual property (IP) law, exploring the framework of international treaties and conventions, the challenges associated with cross-border enforcement, the roles played by global organizations like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and provides case studies that illustrate these dynamics in action. International Treaties and Conventions International treaties and conventions provide a foundational framework for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights across national borders. These agreements aim to harmonize the protection of intellectual property worldwide, making it easier for countries to cooperate and for rights holders to secure and enforce their rights internationally. Key International Treaties include: The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883): One of the first intellectual property treaties, establishing important principles such as national treatment, right of priority, and independence of patents granted in different countries. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886): Establishes protections for creators of literary and artistic works, ensuring they receive rights in all signatory countries as they do in their own. The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) (1970): Streamlines the filing of patents in multiple countries by allowing for a single "international" patent application. The Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks: Facilitates the registration of trademarks in multiple jurisdictions around the world through a single application. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (1994): Administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), TRIPS sets down minimum standards for many forms of intellectual property regulation that WTO members must comply with. Cross-border Enforcement Challenges Enforcing IP rights across national borders presents significant challenges. Differences in national laws, the resources available for enforcement, and the political and economic climate can all impact the effectiveness of IP protection internationally. Challenges include: Variability in Legal Frameworks: Even with international treaties, countries implement and interpret intellectual property laws differently, leading to inconsistencies that can complicate enforcement. Jurisdictional Issues: Determining which country's laws apply, and where legal action should be taken, can be complex and hinder the efficiency of enforcement actions. Counterfeiting and Piracy: These issues are particularly rampant in countries with less stringent enforcement of IP laws, making it difficult for rights holders to protect their interests. Role of WIPO and Other International Organizations WIPO plays a critical role in the international intellectual property system. As a specialized agency of the United Nations, WIPO facilitates international cooperation in the creation and protection of intellectual property. It administers several international treaties, offers dispute resolution services, and helps developing countries build their capacity to use intellectual property for economic development. Other significant organizations include: World Trade Organization (WTO): Manages the TRIPS agreement which affects how intellectual property is handled in trade agreements between member states. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and similar regional bodies: Manage trademarks and designs within their respective regions, facilitating simpler processes for registration and enforcement across multiple countries. Case Studies of International IP Disputes Apple Inc. vs. Samsung Electronics Co.: This series of ongoing legal battles across multiple countries highlights issues with patent infringement and showcases how multinational companies protect their IP across different legal systems. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

This Day in Legal History: WIPO EstablishedOn April 26, 1970, a significant advancement in the protection and management of intellectual property took place with the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This marked the enforcement of the Convention Establishing WIPO, making it one of the specialized agencies under the United Nations focused on intellectual property (IP) issues. WIPO's primary mission is to promote and protect intellectual property across different countries by fostering international cooperation. As of now, 184 countries are signatories to the convention, showcasing a global commitment to the principles laid out by WIPO.WIPO plays a crucial role in the development of a balanced and accessible international IP system, which benefits both creators and the public, thereby contributing to economic, social, and cultural development worldwide. The organization administers 26 international treaties, including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. These treaties serve as the backbone for international IP law, standardizing the protection of IP across borders and promoting creative activity globally.WIPO also assists countries in developing their IP strategies and provides a platform for dispute resolution concerning IP. Through its various programs, WIPO enhances the ability of countries to utilize IP for economic development. Additionally, WIPO's efforts include tackling the challenges of IP in relation to new technologies, which continually reshape the boundaries of law and creativity.The creation of WIPO in 1970 was a response to the growing significance of intellectual property in the age of technological and artistic innovation, recognizing the need for a systematic approach to IP issues that transcended national borders. Today, WIPO continues to evolve as it addresses emerging issues in intellectual property influenced by the digital age and globalization, underscoring its ongoing relevance in international legal and economic landscapes.The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on Donald Trump's assertion of immunity from prosecution regarding charges that he illegally tried to remain in power. During a hearing, there was notable skepticism from the justices towards Trump's broad claims of immunity relating to his efforts to overturn the election results of 2020. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested possibly remanding the case back to lower courts for a more detailed examination of the allegations, indicating that the appeals court had not sufficiently scrutinized the specifics of the actions and documents in question.Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns about the potential long-term implications of making presidents vulnerable to prosecution for their official acts, fearing it could cyclically affect future presidents. Meanwhile, the liberal justices questioned the absence of constitutional immunity for presidents, highlighting the risk of a president acting without fear of legal consequences. Justice Amy Coney Barrett also challenged the idea that former presidents could only be prosecuted post-impeachment.The case underscores the urgency from Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is pressed by time constraints to try Trump before the upcoming election, given that a trial and subsequent conviction could adversely affect Trump's electoral prospects. Trump, facing multiple prosecutions, has argued for absolute immunity for actions taken while in office, which include his conduct leading up to and on January 6th.There are fundamental questions that must be addressed about the scope of presidential power and its limits, which are central to the case's legal and constitutional stakes.Supreme Court Wary of Trump Immunity But May Keep Trial on HoldThe Biden administration's Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, a key component of the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at reducing the costs of certain Medicare Part D drugs by 2026, has attracted significant legal attention. Numerous former government officials, scholars, and patient advocacy groups have filed amicus briefs supporting the administration in response to legal challenges from the pharmaceutical industry, which contests the constitutionality of the program.These challenges involve several constitutional claims by the pharmaceutical companies, including violations of compelled speech under the First Amendment, the takings clause and due process under the Fifth Amendment, and excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment. The industry argues that the program unlawfully compels them to sell their products at government-dictated prices without just compensation.However, a notable decision by Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly dismissed AstraZeneca's due process claims, asserting that the manufacturer did not have a constitutional property interest jeopardized by the program. This decision aligns with several key legal precedents cited in various amicus briefs that reinforce the government's position.The case also touches on broader implications for governmental regulatory powers and the limits of constitutional protections for businesses under economic regulation frameworks. Legal experts and scholars have argued that the claims raised by the pharmaceutical industry stretch constitutional interpretations to protect against price negotiation practices that have been historically upheld as constitutional.The legal battle also involves a debate over the First Amendment, with the government asserting that the program does not compel speech from drug manufacturers. Judges and legal experts have scrutinized these claims, emphasizing the potential impact of accepting such an interpretation on a wide range of regulatory activities.While the majority of amicus briefs support the government, a few filed on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry focus on concerns about stifling drug innovation and the severe financial penalties imposed for non-compliance with the program's pricing mandates.The ongoing legal proceedings at the district court level, though less common for amicus filings than higher courts, play a crucial role in shaping the preliminary legal landscape before potentially reaching the Supreme Court. The involvement of high-level legal expertise in the form of amicus briefs underscores the significant stakes and complex legal issues at play, reflecting the profound implications of the outcome on the healthcare sector and regulatory practices.Wave of Amicus Briefs Back Drug Price Plan at Trial Court StageThe EPA's recent final rule under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as the Superfund law, designates two PFAS chemicals—perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)—as hazardous substances. This designation is expected to significantly impact companies responsible for contaminated sites, potentially leading to the reevaluation and cleanup of sites previously considered resolved.The rule aims to address sites contaminated with PFOA and PFOS, which are part of a group of chemicals known as "forever chemicals" due to their persistence in the environment. Currently, only a small fraction of National Priorities List (NPL) sites have been identified as contaminated with these substances, but this number is expected to rise as more comprehensive testing is implemented. The EPA's action follows increasing evidence of the health risks associated with high concentrations of these chemicals, including potential links to cancer and other serious health issues.Companies and other entities responsible for releases of these chemicals will face new reporting requirements if they release one pound or more of PFOA or PFOS within a 24-hour period. These reports will contribute to the Toxics Release Inventory and are part of broader efforts to increase transparency and regulatory oversight regarding PFAS releases into the environment.The designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA is likely to lead to significant legal and financial implications for responsible parties due to the costly nature of cleanup efforts and potential litigation. Moreover, the rule's implications extend beyond immediate cleanup efforts, potentially impacting water utilities and prompting them to seek remediation and accountability from polluters as stricter limits on PFAS in tap water are set to take effect.This regulatory change reflects a growing recognition of the serious environmental and health impacts of PFAS chemicals, and it aligns with broader environmental justice efforts to address pollution exposure disparities among racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. The long-term challenges of managing PFAS contamination will involve complex legal, environmental, and public health considerations, particularly as affected communities and regulatory agencies navigate the implications of these pervasive pollutants.New PFAS Designation Expected to Spark Rise in Superfund SitesHarvey Weinstein's 2020 conviction for sexual assault and rape was overturned by New York's highest court on April 25, 2024. The court, in a closely contested 4-3 decision, cited critical errors by the trial judge, particularly in allowing testimony about alleged assaults that were not directly related to the charges Weinstein faced. This decision has reignited discussions about the challenges in prosecuting powerful figures and has been met with dismay by many, including actress Ashley Judd, who viewed it as an institutional betrayal.The Manhattan District Attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, has indicated plans to retry the case, underscoring their ongoing commitment to addressing sexual assault. The overturned conviction, which had been a significant victory for the #MeToo movement, involved allegations by Miriam Haley and Jessica Mann that dated back to 2006 and 2013, respectively.Weinstein's legal team celebrated the decision as a triumph for justice, noting Weinstein's relief and resilience despite his ongoing incarceration. He remains imprisoned on a separate 16-year sentence in California for similar charges, which stands unaffected by the New York ruling.This case has had broad implications, influencing legislation and public awareness about sexual misconduct. New York, among other states, has passed laws allowing civil lawsuits for sexual misconduct outside the typical statutes of limitations, reflecting a legislative response to #MeToo. The case's developments continue to be closely watched, with potential impacts on both legal precedents and societal norms concerning accountability for sexual violence.Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction is overturned by top New York court | ReutersThe defamation lawsuit filed by Jack and Leslie Flynn against CNN, which involved claims of being wrongfully associated with the QAnon conspiracy theory, has been dismissed by a judge. The case revolved around a CNN segment that showed the Flynns at a barbecue raising their hands while Michael Flynn, the former National Security Advisor, recited a phrase linked to QAnon. The Flynns argued that this portrayal falsely labeled them as QAnon followers, which they considered defamatory.CNN countered that the phrase "where we go one, we go all" used by Michael Flynn during the event is widely recognized as associated with QAnon, and that the Flynns were visible participants in the event. The court, upon review, determined that the term "QAnon followers" as used in the context of the CNN segment is a non-defamatory opinion, not a statement of fact. The judge ruled that opinions, especially when based on disclosed, non-defamatory facts, do not constitute defamation.Furthermore, the court highlighted that the portrayal of the Flynns in the segment was based on their actual appearance and participation in an event alongside Michael Flynn, which is not disputed by the Flynns. The dismissal reflects judicial recognition of the challenges in proving defamation when the statements in question are based on interpreted opinions rather than explicit facts. The decision underscores the importance of context in defamation cases, particularly when public figures and political movements are involved. This case also reflects ongoing legal debates about the limits of free speech and the scope of media responsibility in reporting on controversial public figures and events.Flynn Family's SLAPP Suit Against CNN Slapped Down By Judge | TechdirtThis week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven.For this week's closing piece of classical music, where we will once again delve into the towering genius of Ludwig van Beethoven and his monumental Piano Sonata No. 29 in B-flat major, Op. 106, known as the "Hammerklavier." Composed in 1819, the "Hammerklavier" Sonata stands as one of the pinnacles of Beethoven's creative output and showcases his profound depth in musical structure and expressive range.This sonata is particularly renowned for its technical difficulty and ambitious scope, pushing the boundaries of the piano sonata form of the time. Beethoven's late period, during which he composed the "Hammerklavier," is marked by an increased use of complex structures and an exploration of new musical ideas, and this sonata is a testament to his innovative spirit.This week, we will focus specifically on the second movement of this sonata, the Scherzo: Assai vivace. In stark contrast to the grandiose and deeply serious first movement, the Scherzo bursts with energy and playfulness. Its rapid tempo and lively rhythms present a dazzling display of technical prowess and artistic flair. This movement is a brilliant example of Beethoven's ability to juxtapose contrasting moods within a single piece, providing a refreshing and exhilarating counterpart to the sonata's more introspective segments.The Scherzo is structured around a lively theme that leaps and dances across the keyboard, filled with syncopated rhythms and sudden dynamic changes that challenge even the most skilled pianists. It embodies a sense of joy and almost mischievous playfulness, showcasing Beethoven's mastery in transforming musical ideas into a vivid emotional narrative.As we close this week's episode with the Scherzo from Beethoven's "Hammerklavier" Sonata, let the vivacity and brilliance of this music inspire you. It serves not only as a showcase of Beethoven's technical mastery but also his undiminished spirit and the enduring power of his music to evoke a wide range of profound emotions. Enjoy the spirited journey through one of the most challenging yet rewarding pieces in the piano repertoire.Without further ado, Beethoven's Piano Sonata no. 29 “Hammerklavier”, Op. 106 - II. Scherzo - Assai vivace. Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today is World Intellectual Property (IP) Day. Established by the World Intellectual Property Organization— or WIPO—in 2000, World IP Day serves to raise awareness of the positive role of IP—including copyright, designs, patents, and trademarks—in society and in the daily lives of consumers, and to celebrate IP as a driver of innovation, creativity, and economic development. WIPO selected April 26 for World IP Day as it was on this day in 1970 that the Convention Establishing WIPO entered into force.Each year, World IP Day focuses on a specific theme. This year, it looks at the ways in which IP is advancing the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals—or SDGs. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all UN Member States in 2015, provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future. At its heart are the 17 SDGs, which are an urgent call for action by all countries—developed and developing—in a global partnership. They recognize that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth – all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests.Titled, “IP and the SDGs: Building our common future with innovation and creativity,” World IP Day 2024 looks at how we need to re-think how we live, work, and play, if we are to build a common future and achieve the SDGs. It is an opportunity to explore how IP encourages and amplifies the innovative and creative solutions that are so crucial to building our common future, and how inventors, creators, and entrepreneurs can benefit from IP to achieve their own goals while also heling improve people's lives and safeguard our planet in line with the SDGs.Our guest today is Edward Kwakwa, Assistant Director General, Global Challenges and Partnerships Sector, at WIPO. The Global Challenges and Partnerships Sector covers issues relating to traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and genetic resources. It also leads WIPO's efforts to work with other UN agencies and international organizations on cross-cutting global issues; builds on and expands partnerships with stakeholders, including those from international, business, and civil society sectors; and builds bridges with new stakeholders.ADG Kwakwa served as General Counsel at WIPO from 2004 until September 2016. He holds an LL.B. degree from the University of Ghana, an LL.M. from Queen's University in Canada, and an LL.M. and a J.S.D. from Yale Law School in the United States. Before joining WIPO, he practiced with the law firm of O'Melveny and Myers in Washington, D.C., worked as International Legal Adviser at the Commission on Global Governance in Geneva, Switzerland, as Senior Legal Adviser at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and as Legal Affairs Officer at the World Trade Organization.  Resources: About Edward Kwakwa About World IP Day WIPO's Global Challenges and Partnerships Sector The United Nation's SDGs

Justina, Bart, and John are back! In this episode of 'The Fog of Truth', the hosts engage in a vibrant discussion about the Oscar-nominated short films. As they anticipate the Oscar celebration broadcast, they share their individual experiences and projects, including attending South by Southwest and working on book drafts. The debate opens with remarks on the absence of American-made documentaries in the best feature documentary category, celebrating international contributions instead. They meticulously review each short documentary nominee, providing insights into their themes, distribution, and impacts on audiences. The films discussed include 'The ABCs of Book Banning', 'The Barber of Little Rock', 'Island in Between', 'The Last Repair Shop', and 'Na, Nai and Wipo'. Special attention is given to the importance of storytelling, the role of major distributors in supporting short films, and the impact of these documentaries on real-world issues such as book banning, community banking, and cultural identities. The hosts express their favorites and speculate on potential Oscar winners, emphasizing the power of documentaries to frame pressing societal issues compellingly. 00:00 Introduction and Catching Up 00:51 Oscar Features and Controversies 01:35 Oscar Nominated Short Films: A Discussion 19:50 The ABCs of Book Banning: A Deep Dive 24:30 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

This week on The Leaders Lab Podcast, we talk about something we haven't discussed on the show before - and that's how AI is changing not just the business world, but our lives in general. Joining us to tackle this very timely topic is an investor in the applications of powerful emerging technologies; someone who believes these technologies are transforming our world - and our place in it; someone who champions our collective responsibility in shaping our societal, financial, and environmental future.Our guest this week has lectured on these topics at University College London, Wharton Business School, and WIPO to name a few. Learn more about him below…ABOUT OUR GUESTDaniel Doll-Steinberg started his career in London and New York in the early days of the global derivatives technology industry. He created one of the first digital rights management businesses, which helped transform the software and entertainment industries. In 2016, he was introduced to Blockchain and saw it accelerating AI in remodeling our economy. He co-founded the Atari Token Project to build a metaverse-based new economy platform with Atari, an Ethereum founder, and several gaming legends. He is founding partner at active innovation fund EdenBase.Daniel was appointed an expert advising both the UK Government and EU Commission, including during the crucial period following the 2007 financial crash, specializing in disruption, education, and the future of work. Daniel has also recently written his book 'Unsupervised: Navigating and Influencing a World Controlled by New Technologies'.You can learn more about him and his work here:https://linkedin.com/in/daniel-doll-steinbergABOUT OUR HOSTKen Eslick is an Entrepreneur, Author, Podcaster, Tony Robbins Trainer, Life Coach, Husband of 35+ Years, and Grandfather. Ken currently spends his time as the President & Founder of The Leaders Lab where he and his team focus on Senior Leadership Acquisition. They get founders the next level C-Suite Leaders they need to go from being an Inc. Magazine 5000 fastest growing company to $100,000,000 + in revenue. You can learn more about Ken and his team at Theleaderslab.coListen to more episodes on Mission Matters:https://missionmatters.com/author/ken-eslick/

EPISODE 1696: In this special KEEN ON from the DLD AI Summit in Munich, Andrew talks to the songwriter, music producer and musician Niclas Molinder about the opportunities and threats that AI presents to the creative community Niclas Molinder is a songwriter, music producer and musician who now also is running several organisations to innovate the music industry's data and rights management with the music creators in focus. After 20 years of songwriting and producing for artists as Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, Mary J Blige and The Jonas Brothers, as well as running his own publishing company RedFly Music – the Swedish entrepreneur decided to be part of solving the value gap in the music industry. In 2014, Niclas Molinder founded SessionStudio, the world's first independent global hub for authoritative pre registration music metadata sourced from creators together with Max Martin, Björn Ulvaeus of ABBA and Avicii originator Ash Pournouri. Molinder's vision is to create and set a standard for how music creators and their representatives internationally are identified with their roles in song so everyone can get credited and correctly compensated when their music is used. He also founded Music Rights Awareness Foundation in 2016 together with Max Martin and Björn Ulvaeus – an apolitical foundation that works to increase knowledge of music rights worldwide, adjusted to the future industry. Music Rights Awareness Foundation is together with the UN agency WIPO behind the unique rights awareness platform CLIP. With the support of creators, other stakeholders and governments across the globe, it will form a truly open and inclusive community. It will work together to improve networks and infrastructure supporting the growth of creative industries everywhere. CLIP aim to raise awareness and increase knowledge of creators' rights and related management practices, ensuring recognition and fair reward for all creators regardless of their geographical, cultural or economic conditions. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, innovation is key to driving business growth and competitive advantage, with intellectual property or IP sitting at the very heart of this strategy. In recent years we've witnessed some remarkable strides across the globe in bridging the gender gap in the IP sector. Yet, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization, only 16 percent of international patent applications are filed by women inventors. At this rate, the WIPO doesn't expect to achieve gender parity before 2064. That's almost 40 years into the future. So, while progress is being made, clearly much more must be done to quickly close this gap as well as a similar gap in career opportunities for minorities.    Tarianna Stewart – our featured guest in the latest episode of the Ideas to Innovation Season 2 podcast from Clarivate – ventured into her IP career by accident. “I happened to learn about IP during my Ph.D. program and thought, ‘this seems interesting… maybe a little bit better than working in the lab.'” Now an experienced biomedical scientist and accomplished IP professional at the technology unit of New York University in New York City, Tarianna has smart advice for women and people of color who seek to follow in her footsteps and pursue careers in IP and innovation. In our podcast discussion, she recalls how she “fell in love with the tech transfer space,” and offers a ‘been-there-done-that' perspective on what she believes it will take to foster a more inclusive IP and innovation landscape for the benefit of all involved. 

‘Hacking for Cash' is a new ASPI podcast series exploring state sponsored campaigns of cyber espionage for commercial gain. Throughout the series we talk to experts who were close to the negotiations that led to a 2015 agreement between the United States and China to refrain from supporting and engaging in ‘hacking for cash', as well as a G20 leaders' commitment to stamp out cyber-enabled intellectual property (IP) theft. The series features conversations with cybersecurity experts on state-sponsored hackers and how they operate, and with industry leaders about risk and resilience. We also talk with IP experts about how the US and China protect trade secrets, and with national cybersecurity and counter-intelligence agencies about how companies and universities can protect their crown jewels. In this third episode of the series, Teesta Prakash, Analyst at ASPI, speaks to Dr Francis Gurry, former Director General at the World Intellectual Property Organisation. They discuss the role WIPO plays in IP protection, the historical context of IP theft, and how the digital transformation has changed the way IP is protected. Teesta also speaks to Nigel Cory and Elizabeth Chien, and they unpack both US and Chinese perspectives on IP protection, theft, and prosecution. Music: "Lounge It" by Maarten Schellekens, licensed with permission from the Independent Music Licensing Collective - imlcollective.uk

Katie and Steve speak with WIPO economists Alexander Cuntz and Matthias Sahli about their recent article, Intermediary liability and trade in follow-on innovation, published in the Journal of Cultural Economics in February 2023. Their research looks at how intermediaries in the art market altered their behavior after the Second Circuit's decision in Cariou v. Prince, which was seen as greatly expanding permissible fair use in appropriation art. THIS PODCAST WAS RECORDED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE WARHOL CASE, WHICH PULLED BACK ON THE TRANSFORMATIVE USE ANALYSIS FOR COPYRIGHT FAIR USE.   Notes for this episode: http://artlawpodcast.com/2023/07/05/do-market-players-react-to-court-decisions-impacting-art/   Follow the Art Law Podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/artlawpodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@artlawpodcast

By 1998 the US had passed its Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And partly because the US generates so much copyrightable material, and partly just because it's the US and is a little pushy on the world stage, the DMCA became the de facto way of handling copyright protections on the internet around the world.But what is it? Why did we need the DMCA or the WIPO copyright treaty at all?Let's help you Know a Little more about the DMCAFeaturing Tom Merritt.Full episode transcript available here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Refugee agency appeals for $137 million to help displaced in Horn of AfricaMozambique targets 720,000 in cholera vaccination drive: WHOPatent filings hit record high in 2022: WIPO

Myanmar: Rights expert urges Korea to play ‘enhanced leadership role'WHO updates list of ‘priority pathogens' including ‘Disease X'2021 global intellectual property filings reached new records: WIPO

Listener The Gregolas asked if I might explain The Illegal Number. What makes a number illegal? Can numbers actually be illegal? Isn't that absurd? YES! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.