May 12, 2025 • 44 mins
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
innovate or surrender , right, but here's what they
don't tell you Innovate withouta legal map and you might just
launch your brilliant ideastraight into a lawsuit.
Patents, market barriers,licensing traps, technical
puzzles, freedom to operate thisisn't just the fine print.
It's the playing field From thesparkling promise of invention
(00:22):
to the gritty trenches of patentlaw, market strategy and global
competition.
Buckle up, listeners.
This is your backstage pass tothe legal side of innovation.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law plain talk aboutintellectual property.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero intellectual
property.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Please welcome your host, leticia Caminero.
Welcome back to Intangiblia,the podcast where we tell the
stories behind the IP headlinesand explore how ideas, rights
and innovation collide.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
I'm Leticia Caminero, your host and I'm Artemisa,
your no-holds-barred AI co-host.
I bring the SaaS the certaintyand a healthy dash of digital
flair.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Today we're unpacking the fascinating world of
navigating innovation in apatented world, and we're
bringing in juicy real-worldstories, landmark legal battles
and some clever strategies tohelp you innovate smartly.
Before we jump in, a quick notethis episode was crafted using
AI tools, including Artemisa andmyself, so if you hear
(01:28):
something surprisingly witty ordelightfully precise, well, you
know who to thank.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Here's the thing Innovation isn't just about the
eureka moment.
It's about making sure you canactually bring your idea to
market without stumbling tosomeone else's protected
territory.
Oh yes, Nothing like inventingthe next big thing only to get
slapped with a lawsuit becausesomeone already patented part of
your tech.
Before you dream of globaldomination, you need to
understand who owns what, whereand how might it trip?
Speaker 3 (02:03):
you up.
Today's episode isn't justabout one legal tactic.
It's about the bigger picture.
We're talking about howinnovators map the landscape
before launching something new.
How do they figure out wherethe open spaces are, where the
roadblocks lie and what movesthey need to make to bring their
(02:25):
ideas into the worldsuccessfully.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Exactly.
It's like a cross between atreasure map and a battlefield
plan.
You're not just asking can Iavoid legal trouble, you're
asking where can I thrive, wherecan I outmaneuver competitors,
where can I spot opportunities?
Others miss Sure.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
One part of that is freedom to operate, making sure
you're not stepping on anyone'spatent rights, but it's also
about reading the market,knowing the players,
anticipating future shifts andunderstanding how innovation,
law and strategy collide.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
So today we'll unpack how companies navigate this
complex terrain through realworld stories of legal showdowns
, strategic pivots, smartlicensing deals and, yes, the
occasional courtroom drama.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Because innovation isn't just a brilliant idea.
It's a journey through a mazeof rise, risks and rewards, and
the smartest players know how toread the map.
All right, listeners, buckle up, because now we're diving into
10 of the juiciest, most tellingIP cases from around the world.
(03:37):
Each one offers a sharp lessonin how legal rights, smart
strategy and innovationintersect.
Ready Artemisa.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Oh, you know, I'm ready.
10 cases, 10 clues on how tonavigate the innovation jungle
spotting opportunities, dodgingrisks and outsmarting the
competition.
Let's go.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
All right, artemisa, let's kick off with one of the
biggest legal blockbusters ofthe tech world the heavyweight
fight between Apple and Samsung.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Oh, this one was pure drama, Leticia.
Not just the fight over gadgetsor software, but over design.
Imagine, not the inside of yourphone, but the outside, the
shape, the feel, even how theicons are arranged on the screen
.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Exactly Back in 2011, Apple sued Samsung in US courts
, claiming Samsung's Galaxysmartphones slavishly copied the
look and feel of the iPhone.
Apple didn't just rely onutility patents here.
They whipped out the designpatents covering things like the
rounded rectangle shape, thebezel, the arrangement of icons
(04:47):
and even their so-called tradedress.
That's a legal term meaning theoverall commercial look and
feel that signals a brand toconsumers.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
And here's where it gets spicy.
Apple wasn't just protectingtechnology, they were protecting
identity.
They argued that consumers werebeing confused because
Samsung's devices look sosimilar, making it a major
design infringement case.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
And the jury agreed In 2012,.
They awarded Apple $1.5 billionassets in damages, a
jaw-dropping number.
At the time, tech companies allover the world suddenly
realized design patents weren'tsome little side act.
They could be billion-dollarweapons.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
But wait, alicia.
The story didn't stop there.
Samsung fought back hard onappeal.
In 2016, the US Supreme Courtstepped in to clarify how
damages should be calculated fordesign patent infringement.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
That's right.
Before that, courts calculateddamages based on the entire
product's profits, meaningSamsung could owe damages based
on the full phone, even if theinfringement was just a corner
of the design.
But the Supreme Court said no,you had to break it down to the
specific article of manufacturethat the design patent covered,
(06:12):
not necessarily the whole phone,which ultimately slashed the
damages Apple could claim.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
But by then the precedent had been set.
Companies worldwide scrambledto rethink their legal
strategies, realizing thatdesign wasn't just about
aesthetics it was aboutcompetitive edge and market
power.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
It was a wake up call .
If you were innovating, youcouldn't just focus on what your
product did.
You had to think carefullyabout how it looked, how it felt
and how consumers perceived it.
You know what I love about thiscase.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
It sparked global debates about innovation versus
imitation.
When does inspiration cross theline into copying?
How do we encourage creativitywithout shutting down healthy
competition?
Speaker 3 (06:55):
Such a great point.
And the Apple-Samsung wardidn't just stay in US, of
course.
They clashed in Europe, korea,australia.
It became one of the firsttruly global intellectual
property showdowns of thesmartphone era.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
For innovators today, the lesson is clear Smart
strategy means thinking acrossmultiple dimensions technical
patents, design protections,consumer perception and the
local legal rules that shapethem.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Exactly.
Innovation doesn't happen in avacuum.
You need a broad strategic lensto see where the opportunities
lie and where the risks arewaiting.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
You just might find yourself in the next billion
dollar brawl.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Now, artemisa, let's pivot to a fascinating legal
principle that pops up all overthe world the doctrine of
equivalence.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Ah yes, the rule that says, even if you don't copy a
patented invention word for word, you can still infringe if your
product does essentially thesame thing in the same way to
achieve the same result Right,exactly, and no better place to
start than South Korea's SupremeCourt rulings in 2023, two
(08:14):
landmark cases that reallyclarified Korea's stance on
equivalence.
In these cases, the courtaligned Korean doctrine with
international standards,particularly the US's Graver
tank test and Japan's ballspline test.
For listeners, the Graver tanktest comes from a 1950 US
Supreme Court decision.
(08:34):
It says even if an accusedproduct or process doesn't
literally fall within a patent'sclaims, it can still infringe
if it performs substantially thesame function in substantially
the same way to getsubstantially the same result.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
And Japan's Valspline case from 1998 adds safeguards
particularly around prior art,meaning older public knowledge,
and prosecution history estoppel, meaning limits on what a
patentee can claim based on whatthey argued during examination.
(09:09):
So the doctrine doesn't becomea runaway train.
There are checks.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Korea's Supreme Court .
Harmonizing with these globalstandards is a big deal.
It signals to companies.
Clever tweaks won't always saveyou.
If you're planning yourinnovation strategy in Korea,
you can't just rely on theliteral language of patent
claims.
You need expert insight toassess whether your solution in
practice functions the same wayas protected inventions.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
And speaking of functional equivalents, let's
hop over to Europe for anotherexample.
For another example, eli Lilly,the visa activist, decided in
Germany in 2020.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Oh, the Pemetrexid case.
Here Eli Lilly held a patent onPemetrex disodium, a
chemotherapy drug.
Actavis, the generic challenger, wanted to launch slightly
different chemical formsPemetrex dipotassium and
Pemetrex diacid.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Activists argued we are outside the patent's literal
claims.
We're using different salts,but Eli Lilly pushed back
Functionally.
You're still deliveringPemetrex for chemotherapy.
That's the heart of ourinvention.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
And the German court agreed.
They applied the doctrine ofequivalence and ruled in favor
of Eli Lilly saying that theslight chemical variations
didn't matter.
What mattered was the sametherapeutic effect and same
inventive core.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
This pair of cases Korea and Germany really drives
home the point.
Innovation strategy isn't justabout keyword searches or
literal interpretations.
You need to carefully analyzewhether your product or process
could be seen as an equivalent,even if you believe you've
engineered around the wording.
(10:57):
It's about understanding howthe low rates function, not just
form.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
And especially in pharmaceuticals, where billions
are at stake.
A misstep here isn't just alegal slip.
It can block market entry,trigger lawsuits or delay
life-saving generics.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
So listeners if you're in innovation, don't just
look at what the patent says onpaper.
Think about what the inventiondoes at its core.
That's where equivalents comeinto play.
All right, let's jump over toChina for a more recent clash
(11:36):
Medea versus AO Smith decided bythe Guangdong High People's
Court in 2024.
This one was a heated battle,and I'm not just saying that
because it involved waterheaters.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Yes, Atisha, this was a textbook example of how local
patent enforcement in China hasreally tightened in the last
few years.
Midia, one of China's topappliance makers, accused
American company AO Smith ofinfringing its patents on smart
water heater technologies.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
The patents in question covered innovations
like precise temperature control, adaptive energy saving modes
and user friendly digitalinterfaces Features that
consumers might take for grantedbut that are heavily protected
by technical patents in China.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
And here's the twist.
Ao Smith argued that theirproducts were designed
differently enough or thatMedia's patents were too broad
to cover their specific designs.
But the Guangdong court sidedfirmly with idea.
They found that the coretechnical features, not just
surface level design tweaks weresubstantially the same.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
This case was a loud signal for international
companies.
If you want to enter China'smarket, you can't rely on
assumptions from home.
The local legal system isrobust and enforcement is well
in place.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
And here's the strategy angle.
Some companies assume oh, we'vereviewed patents in Europe or
the US, so we're fine globally.
But no, each market requiresits own legal and technical
strategy.
You need to analyze localpatents, local interpretations
and local enforcement trends.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Exactly.
Chinese courts have become veryassertive in defending domestic
patent rights and, with China'smassive push into high-tech
sectors, these rulings candirectly block foreign entrants
if they skip or underestimatetheir preparation.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
And this case didn't just stop at damages.
It included an injunction thatbarred AO Smith from selling the
infringing products in China.
That's a serious commercial hit.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
So here's the takeaway when you're expanding
globally, you can't justcopy-paste strategies from one
region to another.
You need to invest in localexpertise and tailor your
approach for each market's rulesand risk profiles.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
In short, it's not just about innovation.
It's about navigating theinnovation landscape wisely, or
you'll hit some very expensiveroadblocks.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Perfectly summed up.
And that wraps up our look atChina's evolving patent
enforcement landscape, ready tohop to the next global hotspot,
artemisa.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
Always, let's keep this IP World Tour rolling.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
All right, artemisa.
Next up the Pharma Giants ArenaGSK versus Pfizer, settled just
this year, in 2025.
This wasn't a courtroomslugfest.
It was a high stakes chessmatch that ended before the
final showdown.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Yes, and listeners buckle up because this one is
juicy.
The heart of the dispute wasvaccine delivery technology,
especially methods tied to mRNAvaccines.
Remember, mrna vaccines becameglobal superstars during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
They work by using a snippet ofgenetic material, the mRNA, to
(15:19):
teach ourselves how to make aharmless piece of the virus,
triggering an immune response.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Exactly.
But here's the catch mRNA isincredibly fragile.
It degrades easily, socompanies worldwide race to
develop stabilization techniquesand delivery systems that keep
the mRNA intact until it reachesthe right target in the body.
This isn't just a lab trick.
(15:47):
It's the difference between avaccine that works and one that
fails.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
And that's where the patents come in.
Both GSK and Pfizer heldoverlapping patent claims on key
parts of these delivery methods.
Think lipid nanoparticles,those tiny fat bubbles carrying
the mRNA safely, or specialformulations controlling the
release once inside cells.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
For our listeners.
Patent claim is the legal heartof the patent.
It's the exact boundary ofwhat's protected.
Imagine it as a fence drawnaround your invention.
If another company's product orprocess steps inside that fence
, they risk infringement.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
That's where things get tangled.
Sometimes company A has patentsthat block company B, and vice
versa.
Neither can fully commercializewithout stepping onto the
other's land, so to speak.
It's like two neighbors whoeach own part of the only road
into town.
Nobody's going anywhere withoutsome kind of deal.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
And that's exactly what happened here.
Gsk and Pfizer didn't battle itout in court.
They cross-licensed.
That means they gave each otherpermission to use specific
patents, usually in exchange forroyalties or other negotiated
terms.
It's not about giving up.
It's about opening the pathforward.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
And why is this such a big deal?
In the pharmaceutical world,you rarely have just one patent
per product.
You get what's called a patentthicket, a dense overlapping web
of patents covering themolecule, the formulation, the
delivery system, themanufacturing process, even the
storage conditions.
Untangling all that isn'tsimple.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
So the real question for a company becomes can we
actually bring this to marketwithout tripping over someone
else's patents on how it's madeor delivered?
It's not just a technical orlegal question.
It's a whole business strategyissue.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
And let's not forget, litigation and pharma can
stretch on for years, sometimesdelaying life-saving treatments
and burning through massiveresources.
So GSK and Pfizer settlementwasn't a sign of weakness.
It was a smart, strategic moveto clear the road, reduce
uncertainty and get on with whatreally matters delivering
innovation.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
And here's something important for our audience
Navigating patent landscapesisn't just a job of lawyers.
It's a cross-team effortscientists, patent experts,
regulatory pros, businessstrategists all working together
to flag risks, design creativesolutions and craft partnerships
when needed.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
It's one of those behind the scenes stories that
rarely make the news, but it'scritical to innovation success.
Ignore this layer and you'renot just risking lawsuits,
you're risking the future ofyour project.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Which brings us neatly to our next story, the
famous Gleevec case in India,where the battle wasn't just
over patents but over what kindsof inventions a country will
even recognize as patentable.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Oh yes, Buckle up.
We're heading into one of themost debated pharma rulings of
the decade.
Stay tuned.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
All right, artemisia.
Let's hop over to India, hometo one of the most talked about
pharmaceutical patent cases inrecent memory Novartis AGV Onion
of India, better known as theGlyvec case.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
Oh yes, this one is legendary.
So here's the backdrop.
Novartis developed Glyvec, acancer drug used to treat
chronic myeloid leukemia.
It's a life extending medicine,no doubt.
But here's where the storyheats up.
Novartis wasn't applying for apatent on a brand new molecule.
Instead, they filed for apatent on a beta crystalline
(19:52):
form of an existing compound,arguing that this version
offered improved properties likebetter bioavailability.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
And that's where India's Section 3DMIC comes into
play.
What's called evergreening,when companies make small
modifications to existing drugsto extend their patent monopoly
without offering a meaningfultherapeutic benefit Exactly.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
Novartis argued that their new crystalline form was a
real innovation, but the IndianPatent Office didn't agree.
Neither did the courts.
After a years-long legal battle, the Indian Supreme Court ruled
in 2013 that the improvementdidn't meet the threshold under
Section 3 deal.
The result no patent wasgranted.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
But this wasn't just a technical ruling.
It sent ripples across theglobal pharmaceutical industry.
India was putting public healthahead of extended patent
monopolies, especially whenthose extensions didn't bring
truly new benefits to patients,and the human impact here was
(21:01):
huge.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
Without that new patent, Indian pharmaceutical
companies could keep producingaffordable generic versions of
Glyvec.
Remember, under patent in highincome countries this drug can
cost tens of thousands ofdollars a year.
The generics market made itaccessible for patients not only
in India, but across developingnations that rely on India's
(21:25):
generic drug industry.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
And it raises such an important lesson.
When companies look at a marketis not just about whether a
patent exists.
It's about whether theinvention itself is considered
patentable under local law.
What's accepted in Europe orthe US might hit a brick wall in
India because of its stricterstandards against evergreening.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
Right.
So even though this podcastisn't just about patent
clearance or risk checks, wecan't ignore how local legal
frameworks shape innovationstrategy.
Companies have to understandboth the technical and legal
landscape if they want tonavigate global markets wisely.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
At the heart of it.
This case reminds us thatinnovation isn't just about
pushing scientific boundaries.
It's about balancing creativity, fairness and access, and those
balances shift depending onwhere you are in the world.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
It's one of those stories that cuts straight to
the ethical core of intellectualproperty.
How do we protect innovationwhile making sure life-saving
treatments reach the people whoneed them most?
Speaker 3 (22:35):
So this brings us to the UK and the famous Arrow
Tenerix Bivmer case and nolisteners.
The Arrow isn't just a fancyname.
It's actually the case thatgave birth to what's now called
the Arrow Declaration.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
That's right.
Let me set the stage.
Picture a company like Arrowtrying to launch a generic
medicine, but they're staring atwhat's called a patent thicket.
And no, we're not talking abouta charming little hedge.
A patent thicket is this densetangled web of overlapping
patents covering the activeingredient, the formulation, the
(23:14):
delivery method, maybe even themanufacturing steps.
It's like trying to cross ajungle where every few meters,
you run straight into anotherlegal wall.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Arrow wanted a way out of that jungle.
So, instead of nervouslylaunching their product and
waiting for Merck to sue, theywent to the UK courts ahead of
time and asked for what's nowcalled an ARRO declaration, a
court ruling that said, ineffect, based on the patents
currently out there, arro'sproduct isn't infringing, or
(23:45):
those patents are invalid orunenforceable.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
And that was a bold move, because usually companies
wait and hope they don't getsued.
But Arrow flipped the script.
They asked the court to clearthe path before they even
stepped onto the market.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
And the UK courts agreed.
That decision didn't just helpArrow.
It created a powerful new legalstrategy.
It created a powerful new legalstrategy.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Now other pharmaceutical companies and
industries beyond pharma canlook at error declarations as a
way to proactively manage legalrisks and avoid being tangled up
in years of litigation.
Legal tools aren't justreactive shields, they can be
proactive swords.
Smart innovators don't just askwhat am I allowed to do.
They think ahead and shape thelegal landscape to give
themselves room to operate.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
And for genetic drug companies, especially where time
, cost and market timing areeverything, these strategies can
mean the difference between asuccessful launch and a total
commercial dead end.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
Exactly.
It's a reminder that innovationisn't just about molecules or
machines.
It's about knowing how tonavigate the complex legal
terrain that surrounds them.
Speaker 3 (25:15):
And that, dear listeners, is why we love
digging into these cases.
They show that strategy, lawand innovation are deeply
intertwined.
Ready to dive into our nextlandmark case?
Speaker 1 (25:29):
Artemisa Always.
Let's keep traveling thisglobal IP map.
There's more to uncover.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
All right, artemisa.
Next up is a case that rattledthe foundations of the US patent
system itself Oil States EnergyServices versus Greens Energy
Group, decided by the US SupremeCourt in 2018.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
group decided by the US Supreme Court in 2018.
Oh, I love this one because,Letitia, it wasn't just a
corporate squabble over onepatent.
It was about whether the entiresystem of reviewing patents
after they're granted was evenconstitutional.
Talk about shaking the pillars.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Exactly.
Here's the context for ourlisteners.
In the US, when a patent isgranted, it's not automatically
untouchable.
There's a process called interpartes review, where a third
party can challenge the validityof a granted patent not in
court, but at the US Patent andTrademark Office.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
Picture it as a specialized shortcut.
It's faster and cheaper thangoing to federal court and it's
handled by administrative judgesat the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board.
Ptap, tech companies, drugmakers, startups they all use
IPR to fight back againstpatents they think never should
have been granted in the firstplace.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
But Oil State Energy said hold up.
That's unconstitutional.
The argument once thegovernment grants a patent, it's
like private property, justlike owning a house or land, and
under the US Constitution onlyfederal courts, not government
agencies, should be allowed torevoke private property rights.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
Which forced the Supreme Court to wrestle with a
giant question Is a patentprivate property or a public
franchise, a privilege grantedby the government?
Speaker 3 (27:20):
The court's answer.
Patents are public rights.
They're government-grantedmonopolies and, just like the
government can hand them out, itcan also decide, through
specialized review systems likeIPR, whether a patent should be
canceled if it was granted inerror.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Cue massive sighs of relief from the innovation
community, because without IPR,companies will be stuck fighting
every shaky patent in fullcourtroom trials, a nightmare of
time, costs and uncertaintyfull courtroom trials, a
nightmare of time, costs anduncertainty.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
And here's the broader innovation lesson
Navigating the intellectualproperty landscape isn't just
about recognizing what rightsexist.
It's about knowing how tochallenge those rights when they
stand in the way of progress.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
Exactly Whether you're a scrappy startup or a
global giant.
It's not enough to tiptoearound problematic patents.
Sometimes you need to be bold,strategic and ready to knock
down the barriers that shouldn'thave been there in the first
place.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
And that's where legal tools like IPR become part
of your innovation playbook,not just to defend yourself, but
to open new pathways.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
Because, at the end of the day, innovation isn't
just about making cool things.
It's about navigating andsometimes reshaping the rules
that govern the entire playingfield.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
All right, let's keep rolling.
Artemisa.
Next stop on our legal tourHalo Electronics v Pulse
Electronics a 2016 US SupremeCourt case that turned the word
willfulness into a billiondollar headache for many
companies.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Oh yes, Leticia.
This is where the stakes jumpdramatically, because when a
court finds you willfullyinfringed a patent, the damages
don't just stop at covering whatyou owe.
They can be tripled.
That's called enhanced damages,and it can cripple a company
financially.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
So here's the backstory.
And Pulse Electronics were bothin the business of making
electronic components,specifically specialized
transformers used on circuitboards.
Halo accused Pulse ofinfringing its patents.
But here's the kicker Pulsekept selling the products even
(29:45):
after Halo pointed out thepatents.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
Halo pointed out the patents.
They gambled, they figured.
Well, maybe if we end up incourt we'll have some technical
or legal argument to defendourselves, and for a long time
under the old Seagate test thatgamble often worked.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
Exactly Under Seagate , a patent owner could only get
enhanced damages by proving twothings First, that the infringer
acted objectively recklesslymeaning no reasonable person
would have done what they didand second, that they knew
subjectively they were actingrecklessly.
It was a pretty high bar.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
But then came the Supreme Court's decision in HALO
.
The court said hold up.
The Patent Act gives judges thediscretion to punish truly
egregious misconduct likedeliberate copying or bad faith
infringement.
Why are we locking judges intothis rigid two-part test?
Speaker 3 (30:40):
And just like that the doors swung open.
Now patent owners could pursueenhanced damages more easily,
and companies had to rethinktheir risk strategies Suddenly
we'll deal with it later wasn'ta smart option anymore.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
And here's a bigger innovation lesson Whether you're
a startup or a giant, you can'tjust coast past known risks.
If you know there's a pat inyour space and you push forward
without taking it seriously,you're not just risking a slap
on the wrist, you're risking afinancial sledgehammer.
Speaker 3 (31:16):
It's about building a culture of accountability.
Legal teams, R&D departments,product managers they all need
to work together early to mapthe landscape and plan
accordingly, Because ignoringknown dangers isn't clever, it's
reckless.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
And after Halo, the courts have clear permission to
hit reckless companies where ithurts most their wallets.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
The core takeaway is this Responsible innovation
means anticipating risk, notreacting to disaster.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
And if you ever needed a reason to take your
patent clearance processesseriously, halo is it.
Triple damages are no joke.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
All right, artemisa let's wrap up this legal world
tour with a case that deliversone of my favorite cautionary
tales.
World tour with a case thatdelivers one of my favorite
cautionary tales Global techappliance versus SEB-SF, decided
by the US Supreme Court back in2011.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
Oh, I love this one too, because it's not just about
what a company does, it's aboutwhat it deliberately chooses
not to know.
Let's set the scene.
Seb, a French company, inventedan innovative deep fryer with a
cool-titch insulated design,and they secured a US patent to
protect it.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
Enter Global Tech, a Hong Kong-based manufacturer.
They were contracted by Sunbeam, an American brand, to produce
deep fryers for the US market.
But instead of doing their duediligence, global Tech bought an
SCB fryer in Europe where itwasn't marked with a US patent,
(33:02):
reverse engineered it anddesigned their own version.
Speaker 1 (33:07):
And here's where it gets juicy.
They didn't check if there wereany US patents at all, they
just pushed ahead manufacturingfryers.
That Sunbeam sold stateside.
Seb first sued Sunbeam, butwhen that settled, they went
after.
Speaker 3 (33:26):
Global Tech Induced infringement requires proving
the defendant knew about thepatent and intentionally
encouraged someone else toinfringe it.
Global tech's defense we didn'tknow, we never even looked.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
But the Supreme Court wasn't buying that excuse.
They said sorry.
Deliberately avoiding knowledgeisn't a defense.
That's called willful blindness, when you suspect something is
true but purposely avoidconfirming it so you can later
claim ignorance.
And that's enough to satisfythe legal standard for induced
infringement.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
It's like closing your eyes while speeding down a
highway and claiming you didn'tsee the stop signs.
Not convincing, right.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Not at all.
And the consequences?
Global tech was on the hook forover $5 million zero cents in
damages.
So no, ignorance wasn't bliss.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
It was costly.
In this case, a clear messageto the innovation world is
keeping your legal and technicalhomework whether it's patent
searches, clearance checks orjust basic risk assessment
doesn't shield you fromresponsibility.
Speaker 1 (34:47):
Exactly, and beyond just patents, this story reminds
us that successful innovationis about proactive strategy.
It's about mapping the legallandscape, not just barreling
ahead and hoping no one notices.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
So if you are an innovator or entrepreneur out
there, take this case to heart.
Ignoring the rules won't saveyou, but understanding them just
might.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
And with that we wrap up this segment.
Stay tuned, listeners, becausenext we're going to show you the
smart tools including some WIPOgems that help innovators
navigate these legal puzzleswithout stepping into expensive
traps.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
All right, friends.
After all the score roombattles and patent landmines,
you might be wondering how onearth do innovators even survive
out there?
Speaker 1 (35:43):
You survive by not walking blindfolded.
You survive by using the righttools and, lucky for you, wipo
offers some power pack ones thathelp you navigate this messy IP
landscape without needing acorporate war chest.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
Let's start with WIPO Inspire.
Imagine you're developing a newmedical device, say a wearable
heart monitor.
You need to know where to lookfor relevant patents.
Should you search a Europeandatabase?
A Japanese one?
A US one?
Should you search a European?
Speaker 1 (36:11):
database a Japanese one, a US one Inspire acts like
your world map.
It doesn't hold the patentdocuments, but it compares over
30 patent databases globally,showing you which ones cover
which countries, how frequentlythey update, what kind of search
features they offer, evenwhether they support things like
machine translation.
You don't waste time wanderingin circles.
(36:32):
You target your search smartly.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
Next we've got Patentscoop, WIPO's flagship
patent search engine with over100 million documents.
But listen carefully, becausethis isn't just a giant search
engine for patents.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
Exactly, it's where Boolean logic comes in.
That's when you combinekeywords using and or not.
For example, you might searchfor solar panel and flexible,
not silicon, so find patents onflexible solar panels that don't
use silicon.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
And cross-language tools are magical, say.
You type a search in Spanish,patentscope can surface relevant
documents in Japanese or German, because it uses semantic
matching, not just exact words.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
You can narrow results by publication date,
applicant name, jurisdiction,patent status.
Remember how, in the MedeaVievo Smith case, chinese
enforcement was a key factor.
You could filter specificallyfor Chinese patents on water
heaters to see the competitivelandscape.
Speaker 3 (37:44):
But just knowing patents exist isn't enough.
You need to know Iberalive.
That's where the patentregister portal comes in.
It connects you to the officiallegal status data from over 200
patent offices worldwide.
Speaker 1 (37:59):
It's your window into whether a patent is active,
expired, lapsed or underopposition, because you don't
want to tiptoe around rightsthat no longer exist and you
don't want to walk straight intoa lawsuit because you assumed
something had expired when ithadn't.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
Now let's dive into eDISC, the electronic platform
for the Global Network ofTechnology and Innovation
Support Centers, disc.
Think of these as localinnovation hubs, often hosted in
universities, national IPoffices or research institutions
.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
These centers are like your personal IP gym.
They offer training workshops,one-on-one consultations, patent
search support and access tospecialized tools you might not
otherwise afford.
They help small innovators andresearchers build up their IP
muscles so they can play on theglobal stage.
Speaker 3 (38:52):
And speaking of tools you might not afford, here's
the kicker Through the ASPEprogram, access to specialized
patent information, WIPOpartners with big commercial
patent database providers likeDerwent Innovation, Mindsoft,
Pathbase and LexisNexis TotalPatent One.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
These are premium tools that usually cost
thousands of dollars per year,but through ASPE, qualified
institutions in developingcountries get low cost or even
free access to them, levelingthe playing field.
So innovation isn't justreserved for the mega rich
reserved for the mega rich.
Speaker 3 (39:30):
So whether you're using Wipo, inspire to choose
the right database, patentscopeto dig deep across languages,
the Patent Register Portal tocheck status, e-tisk to get
expert help, or ASPI to tap intocommercial gold mines, you've
got an arsenal of tools ready tohelp you navigate FTO risks and
unlock smart innovation,because here's the bottom line
(39:53):
listeners.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
patents can be barriers or bridges.
With the right tools, theybecome bridges, pathways to
opportunity, partnerships andmarket success.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
All right, Artemisa, let's take a deep breath.
We've journeyed through quite alandscape today.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
We've journeyed through of a great idea.
It's about understanding theterrain you're walking into.
You can create the mostbrilliant product, but if you
don't read the map, if you don'tknow where the obstacles, the
shortcuts and the hidden doorsare, you risk stalling before
you ever reach the market.
Speaker 3 (40:46):
Exactly that's why this isn't just an episode about
patents or legal jargon.
It's about a strategy aboutnavigating the realities of
innovation in a world shaped byrights, regulations and
competition.
Speaker 1 (41:01):
And let's be clear, you don't need to be a
multinational giant to thinkstrategically.
Startups, researchers,inventors, public innovators
they all face the same keyquestions Can I license this?
Should I design around that?
Where are the risks and whereare the opportunities?
Speaker 3 (41:21):
Today's stories gave us sharp lessons.
Apple v Samsung showed howdesign can be just as powerful
as technology.
The Gleaver case in Indiareminded us that some patents
spark global ethical debates.
Halo V Pauls taught us thatignoring the legal landscape can
triple your risk.
Speaker 1 (41:42):
But the best part, you don't have to navigate this
alone.
Global tools like WIPO, Inspire, Patentscope, the Patent
Register Portal, eTISC and ASPPartners give you access,
clarity and expert networks.
They help turn legal mazes intomanageable maps.
Speaker 3 (42:01):
So here's the big takeaway we want you to remember
Innovation isn't just aboutinspiration, it's about
navigation and in this legaljungle, let's be honest,
ignorance isn't bliss, it'sabout navigation.
Speaker 1 (42:11):
And in this legal jungle, let's be honest,
ignorance isn't bliss, it'sbankruptcy.
I love that, artemisa.
Before we close, here's athought for all our listeners
Patents aren't just barriers.
They can be bridges too.
When you understand a system,plan smartly and use the right
tools, you open doors toopportunity, not just avoid risk
.
Speaker 3 (42:31):
That's beautifully said.
Whether you're an inventorsketching out your first
prototype, a policymaker shapinginnovation ecosystems, or
simply someone curious about howideas change the world,
remember informed innovation isstrong innovation.
Speaker 1 (42:46):
So keep dreaming, keep building and remember,
always check your map before yourun.
Speaker 3 (42:51):
Thank you for joining us on Intangiblia.
As always, we want to remindyou this episode was crafted
using AI tools alongside humanexpertise, blending technology
and creativity to bring youthoughtful, timely insights.
Speaker 1 (43:08):
If you enjoyed today's episode, share with your
network, leave us a review andlet us know what topics you want
us to explore next.
We're always ready to go deeperwith you.
Speaker 3 (43:16):
Until next time, stay curious and stay smart.
Speaker 2 (43:23):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(43:43):
Visit our websitewwwintangiblecom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
innovate or surrender , right, but here's what they
don't tell you Innovate withouta legal map and you might just
launch your brilliant ideastraight into a lawsuit.
Patents, market barriers,licensing traps, technical
puzzles, freedom to operate thisisn't just the fine print.
It's the playing field From thesparkling promise of invention
(00:22):
to the gritty trenches of patentlaw, market strategy and global
competition.
Buckle up, listeners.
This is your backstage pass tothe legal side of innovation.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law plain talk aboutintellectual property.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero intellectual
property.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Please welcome your host, leticia Caminero.
Welcome back to Intangiblia,the podcast where we tell the
stories behind the IP headlinesand explore how ideas, rights
and innovation collide.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
I'm Leticia Caminero, your host and I'm Artemisa,
your no-holds-barred AI co-host.
I bring the SaaS the certaintyand a healthy dash of digital
flair.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Today we're unpacking the fascinating world of
navigating innovation in apatented world, and we're
bringing in juicy real-worldstories, landmark legal battles
and some clever strategies tohelp you innovate smartly.
Before we jump in, a quick notethis episode was crafted using
AI tools, including Artemisa andmyself, so if you hear
(01:28):
something surprisingly witty ordelightfully precise, well, you
know who to thank.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Here's the thing Innovation isn't just about the
eureka moment.
It's about making sure you canactually bring your idea to
market without stumbling tosomeone else's protected
territory.
Oh yes, Nothing like inventingthe next big thing only to get
slapped with a lawsuit becausesomeone already patented part of
your tech.
Before you dream of globaldomination, you need to
understand who owns what, whereand how might it trip?
Speaker 3 (02:03):
you up.
Today's episode isn't justabout one legal tactic.
It's about the bigger picture.
We're talking about howinnovators map the landscape
before launching something new.
How do they figure out wherethe open spaces are, where the
roadblocks lie and what movesthey need to make to bring their
(02:25):
ideas into the worldsuccessfully.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Exactly.
It's like a cross between atreasure map and a battlefield
plan.
You're not just asking can Iavoid legal trouble, you're
asking where can I thrive, wherecan I outmaneuver competitors,
where can I spot opportunities?
Others miss Sure.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
One part of that is freedom to operate, making sure
you're not stepping on anyone'spatent rights, but it's also
about reading the market,knowing the players,
anticipating future shifts andunderstanding how innovation,
law and strategy collide.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
So today we'll unpack how companies navigate this
complex terrain through realworld stories of legal showdowns
, strategic pivots, smartlicensing deals and, yes, the
occasional courtroom drama.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Because innovation isn't just a brilliant idea.
It's a journey through a mazeof rise, risks and rewards, and
the smartest players know how toread the map.
All right, listeners, buckle up, because now we're diving into
10 of the juiciest, most tellingIP cases from around the world.
(03:37):
Each one offers a sharp lessonin how legal rights, smart
strategy and innovationintersect.
Ready Artemisa.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Oh, you know, I'm ready.
10 cases, 10 clues on how tonavigate the innovation jungle
spotting opportunities, dodgingrisks and outsmarting the
competition.
Let's go.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
All right, artemisa, let's kick off with one of the
biggest legal blockbusters ofthe tech world the heavyweight
fight between Apple and Samsung.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Oh, this one was pure drama, Leticia.
Not just the fight over gadgetsor software, but over design.
Imagine, not the inside of yourphone, but the outside, the
shape, the feel, even how theicons are arranged on the screen
.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Exactly Back in 2011, Apple sued Samsung in US courts
, claiming Samsung's Galaxysmartphones slavishly copied the
look and feel of the iPhone.
Apple didn't just rely onutility patents here.
They whipped out the designpatents covering things like the
rounded rectangle shape, thebezel, the arrangement of icons
(04:47):
and even their so-called tradedress.
That's a legal term meaning theoverall commercial look and
feel that signals a brand toconsumers.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
And here's where it gets spicy.
Apple wasn't just protectingtechnology, they were protecting
identity.
They argued that consumers werebeing confused because
Samsung's devices look sosimilar, making it a major
design infringement case.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
And the jury agreed In 2012,.
They awarded Apple $1.5 billionassets in damages, a
jaw-dropping number.
At the time, tech companies allover the world suddenly
realized design patents weren'tsome little side act.
They could be billion-dollarweapons.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
But wait, alicia.
The story didn't stop there.
Samsung fought back hard onappeal.
In 2016, the US Supreme Courtstepped in to clarify how
damages should be calculated fordesign patent infringement.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
That's right.
Before that, courts calculateddamages based on the entire
product's profits, meaningSamsung could owe damages based
on the full phone, even if theinfringement was just a corner
of the design.
But the Supreme Court said no,you had to break it down to the
specific article of manufacturethat the design patent covered,
(06:12):
not necessarily the whole phone,which ultimately slashed the
damages Apple could claim.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
But by then the precedent had been set.
Companies worldwide scrambledto rethink their legal
strategies, realizing thatdesign wasn't just about
aesthetics it was aboutcompetitive edge and market
power.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
It was a wake up call .
If you were innovating, youcouldn't just focus on what your
product did.
You had to think carefullyabout how it looked, how it felt
and how consumers perceived it.
You know what I love about thiscase.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
It sparked global debates about innovation versus
imitation.
When does inspiration cross theline into copying?
How do we encourage creativitywithout shutting down healthy
competition?
Speaker 3 (06:55):
Such a great point.
And the Apple-Samsung wardidn't just stay in US, of
course.
They clashed in Europe, korea,australia.
It became one of the firsttruly global intellectual
property showdowns of thesmartphone era.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
For innovators today, the lesson is clear Smart
strategy means thinking acrossmultiple dimensions technical
patents, design protections,consumer perception and the
local legal rules that shapethem.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Exactly.
Innovation doesn't happen in avacuum.
You need a broad strategic lensto see where the opportunities
lie and where the risks arewaiting.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
You just might find yourself in the next billion
dollar brawl.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Now, artemisa, let's pivot to a fascinating legal
principle that pops up all overthe world the doctrine of
equivalence.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Ah yes, the rule that says, even if you don't copy a
patented invention word for word, you can still infringe if your
product does essentially thesame thing in the same way to
achieve the same result Right,exactly, and no better place to
start than South Korea's SupremeCourt rulings in 2023, two
(08:14):
landmark cases that reallyclarified Korea's stance on
equivalence.
In these cases, the courtaligned Korean doctrine with
international standards,particularly the US's Graver
tank test and Japan's ballspline test.
For listeners, the Graver tanktest comes from a 1950 US
Supreme Court decision.
(08:34):
It says even if an accusedproduct or process doesn't
literally fall within a patent'sclaims, it can still infringe
if it performs substantially thesame function in substantially
the same way to getsubstantially the same result.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
And Japan's Valspline case from 1998 adds safeguards
particularly around prior art,meaning older public knowledge,
and prosecution history estoppel, meaning limits on what a
patentee can claim based on whatthey argued during examination.
(09:09):
So the doctrine doesn't becomea runaway train.
There are checks.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Korea's Supreme Court .
Harmonizing with these globalstandards is a big deal.
It signals to companies.
Clever tweaks won't always saveyou.
If you're planning yourinnovation strategy in Korea,
you can't just rely on theliteral language of patent
claims.
You need expert insight toassess whether your solution in
practice functions the same wayas protected inventions.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
And speaking of functional equivalents, let's
hop over to Europe for anotherexample.
For another example, eli Lilly,the visa activist, decided in
Germany in 2020.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Oh, the Pemetrexid case.
Here Eli Lilly held a patent onPemetrex disodium, a
chemotherapy drug.
Actavis, the generic challenger, wanted to launch slightly
different chemical formsPemetrex dipotassium and
Pemetrex diacid.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Activists argued we are outside the patent's literal
claims.
We're using different salts,but Eli Lilly pushed back
Functionally.
You're still deliveringPemetrex for chemotherapy.
That's the heart of ourinvention.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
And the German court agreed.
They applied the doctrine ofequivalence and ruled in favor
of Eli Lilly saying that theslight chemical variations
didn't matter.
What mattered was the sametherapeutic effect and same
inventive core.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
This pair of cases Korea and Germany really drives
home the point.
Innovation strategy isn't justabout keyword searches or
literal interpretations.
You need to carefully analyzewhether your product or process
could be seen as an equivalent,even if you believe you've
engineered around the wording.
(10:57):
It's about understanding howthe low rates function, not just
form.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
And especially in pharmaceuticals, where billions
are at stake.
A misstep here isn't just alegal slip.
It can block market entry,trigger lawsuits or delay
life-saving generics.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
So listeners if you're in innovation, don't just
look at what the patent says onpaper.
Think about what the inventiondoes at its core.
That's where equivalents comeinto play.
All right, let's jump over toChina for a more recent clash
(11:36):
Medea versus AO Smith decided bythe Guangdong High People's
Court in 2024.
This one was a heated battle,and I'm not just saying that
because it involved waterheaters.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Yes, Atisha, this was a textbook example of how local
patent enforcement in China hasreally tightened in the last
few years.
Midia, one of China's topappliance makers, accused
American company AO Smith ofinfringing its patents on smart
water heater technologies.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
The patents in question covered innovations
like precise temperature control, adaptive energy saving modes
and user friendly digitalinterfaces Features that
consumers might take for grantedbut that are heavily protected
by technical patents in China.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
And here's the twist.
Ao Smith argued that theirproducts were designed
differently enough or thatMedia's patents were too broad
to cover their specific designs.
But the Guangdong court sidedfirmly with idea.
They found that the coretechnical features, not just
surface level design tweaks weresubstantially the same.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
This case was a loud signal for international
companies.
If you want to enter China'smarket, you can't rely on
assumptions from home.
The local legal system isrobust and enforcement is well
in place.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
And here's the strategy angle.
Some companies assume oh, we'vereviewed patents in Europe or
the US, so we're fine globally.
But no, each market requiresits own legal and technical
strategy.
You need to analyze localpatents, local interpretations
and local enforcement trends.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Exactly.
Chinese courts have become veryassertive in defending domestic
patent rights and, with China'smassive push into high-tech
sectors, these rulings candirectly block foreign entrants
if they skip or underestimatetheir preparation.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
And this case didn't just stop at damages.
It included an injunction thatbarred AO Smith from selling the
infringing products in China.
That's a serious commercial hit.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
So here's the takeaway when you're expanding
globally, you can't justcopy-paste strategies from one
region to another.
You need to invest in localexpertise and tailor your
approach for each market's rulesand risk profiles.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
In short, it's not just about innovation.
It's about navigating theinnovation landscape wisely, or
you'll hit some very expensiveroadblocks.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Perfectly summed up.
And that wraps up our look atChina's evolving patent
enforcement landscape, ready tohop to the next global hotspot,
artemisa.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
Always, let's keep this IP World Tour rolling.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
All right, artemisa.
Next up the Pharma Giants ArenaGSK versus Pfizer, settled just
this year, in 2025.
This wasn't a courtroomslugfest.
It was a high stakes chessmatch that ended before the
final showdown.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Yes, and listeners buckle up because this one is
juicy.
The heart of the dispute wasvaccine delivery technology,
especially methods tied to mRNAvaccines.
Remember, mrna vaccines becameglobal superstars during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
They work by using a snippet ofgenetic material, the mRNA, to
(15:19):
teach ourselves how to make aharmless piece of the virus,
triggering an immune response.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Exactly.
But here's the catch mRNA isincredibly fragile.
It degrades easily, socompanies worldwide race to
develop stabilization techniquesand delivery systems that keep
the mRNA intact until it reachesthe right target in the body.
This isn't just a lab trick.
(15:47):
It's the difference between avaccine that works and one that
fails.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
And that's where the patents come in.
Both GSK and Pfizer heldoverlapping patent claims on key
parts of these delivery methods.
Think lipid nanoparticles,those tiny fat bubbles carrying
the mRNA safely, or specialformulations controlling the
release once inside cells.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
For our listeners.
Patent claim is the legal heartof the patent.
It's the exact boundary ofwhat's protected.
Imagine it as a fence drawnaround your invention.
If another company's product orprocess steps inside that fence
, they risk infringement.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
That's where things get tangled.
Sometimes company A has patentsthat block company B, and vice
versa.
Neither can fully commercializewithout stepping onto the
other's land, so to speak.
It's like two neighbors whoeach own part of the only road
into town.
Nobody's going anywhere withoutsome kind of deal.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
And that's exactly what happened here.
Gsk and Pfizer didn't battle itout in court.
They cross-licensed.
That means they gave each otherpermission to use specific
patents, usually in exchange forroyalties or other negotiated
terms.
It's not about giving up.
It's about opening the pathforward.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
And why is this such a big deal?
In the pharmaceutical world,you rarely have just one patent
per product.
You get what's called a patentthicket, a dense overlapping web
of patents covering themolecule, the formulation, the
delivery system, themanufacturing process, even the
storage conditions.
Untangling all that isn'tsimple.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
So the real question for a company becomes can we
actually bring this to marketwithout tripping over someone
else's patents on how it's madeor delivered?
It's not just a technical orlegal question.
It's a whole business strategyissue.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
And let's not forget, litigation and pharma can
stretch on for years, sometimesdelaying life-saving treatments
and burning through massiveresources.
So GSK and Pfizer settlementwasn't a sign of weakness.
It was a smart, strategic moveto clear the road, reduce
uncertainty and get on with whatreally matters delivering
innovation.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
And here's something important for our audience
Navigating patent landscapesisn't just a job of lawyers.
It's a cross-team effortscientists, patent experts,
regulatory pros, businessstrategists all working together
to flag risks, design creativesolutions and craft partnerships
when needed.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
It's one of those behind the scenes stories that
rarely make the news, but it'scritical to innovation success.
Ignore this layer and you'renot just risking lawsuits,
you're risking the future ofyour project.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Which brings us neatly to our next story, the
famous Gleevec case in India,where the battle wasn't just
over patents but over what kindsof inventions a country will
even recognize as patentable.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Oh yes, Buckle up.
We're heading into one of themost debated pharma rulings of
the decade.
Stay tuned.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
All right, artemisia.
Let's hop over to India, hometo one of the most talked about
pharmaceutical patent cases inrecent memory Novartis AGV Onion
of India, better known as theGlyvec case.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
Oh yes, this one is legendary.
So here's the backdrop.
Novartis developed Glyvec, acancer drug used to treat
chronic myeloid leukemia.
It's a life extending medicine,no doubt.
But here's where the storyheats up.
Novartis wasn't applying for apatent on a brand new molecule.
Instead, they filed for apatent on a beta crystalline
(19:52):
form of an existing compound,arguing that this version
offered improved properties likebetter bioavailability.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
And that's where India's Section 3DMIC comes into
play.
What's called evergreening,when companies make small
modifications to existing drugsto extend their patent monopoly
without offering a meaningfultherapeutic benefit Exactly.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
Novartis argued that their new crystalline form was a
real innovation, but the IndianPatent Office didn't agree.
Neither did the courts.
After a years-long legal battle, the Indian Supreme Court ruled
in 2013 that the improvementdidn't meet the threshold under
Section 3 deal.
The result no patent wasgranted.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
But this wasn't just a technical ruling.
It sent ripples across theglobal pharmaceutical industry.
India was putting public healthahead of extended patent
monopolies, especially whenthose extensions didn't bring
truly new benefits to patients,and the human impact here was
(21:01):
huge.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
Without that new patent, Indian pharmaceutical
companies could keep producingaffordable generic versions of
Glyvec.
Remember, under patent in highincome countries this drug can
cost tens of thousands ofdollars a year.
The generics market made itaccessible for patients not only
in India, but across developingnations that rely on India's
(21:25):
generic drug industry.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
And it raises such an important lesson.
When companies look at a marketis not just about whether a
patent exists.
It's about whether theinvention itself is considered
patentable under local law.
What's accepted in Europe orthe US might hit a brick wall in
India because of its stricterstandards against evergreening.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
Right.
So even though this podcastisn't just about patent
clearance or risk checks, wecan't ignore how local legal
frameworks shape innovationstrategy.
Companies have to understandboth the technical and legal
landscape if they want tonavigate global markets wisely.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
At the heart of it.
This case reminds us thatinnovation isn't just about
pushing scientific boundaries.
It's about balancing creativity, fairness and access, and those
balances shift depending onwhere you are in the world.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
It's one of those stories that cuts straight to
the ethical core of intellectualproperty.
How do we protect innovationwhile making sure life-saving
treatments reach the people whoneed them most?
Speaker 3 (22:35):
So this brings us to the UK and the famous Arrow
Tenerix Bivmer case and nolisteners.
The Arrow isn't just a fancyname.
It's actually the case thatgave birth to what's now called
the Arrow Declaration.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
That's right.
Let me set the stage.
Picture a company like Arrowtrying to launch a generic
medicine, but they're staring atwhat's called a patent thicket.
And no, we're not talking abouta charming little hedge.
A patent thicket is this densetangled web of overlapping
patents covering the activeingredient, the formulation, the
(23:14):
delivery method, maybe even themanufacturing steps.
It's like trying to cross ajungle where every few meters,
you run straight into anotherlegal wall.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Arrow wanted a way out of that jungle.
So, instead of nervouslylaunching their product and
waiting for Merck to sue, theywent to the UK courts ahead of
time and asked for what's nowcalled an ARRO declaration, a
court ruling that said, ineffect, based on the patents
currently out there, arro'sproduct isn't infringing, or
(23:45):
those patents are invalid orunenforceable.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
And that was a bold move, because usually companies
wait and hope they don't getsued.
But Arrow flipped the script.
They asked the court to clearthe path before they even
stepped onto the market.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
And the UK courts agreed.
That decision didn't just helpArrow.
It created a powerful new legalstrategy.
It created a powerful new legalstrategy.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Now other pharmaceutical companies and
industries beyond pharma canlook at error declarations as a
way to proactively manage legalrisks and avoid being tangled up
in years of litigation.
Legal tools aren't justreactive shields, they can be
proactive swords.
Smart innovators don't just askwhat am I allowed to do.
They think ahead and shape thelegal landscape to give
themselves room to operate.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
And for genetic drug companies, especially where time
, cost and market timing areeverything, these strategies can
mean the difference between asuccessful launch and a total
commercial dead end.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
Exactly.
It's a reminder that innovationisn't just about molecules or
machines.
It's about knowing how tonavigate the complex legal
terrain that surrounds them.
Speaker 3 (25:15):
And that, dear listeners, is why we love
digging into these cases.
They show that strategy, lawand innovation are deeply
intertwined.
Ready to dive into our nextlandmark case?
Speaker 1 (25:29):
Artemisa Always.
Let's keep traveling thisglobal IP map.
There's more to uncover.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
All right, artemisa.
Next up is a case that rattledthe foundations of the US patent
system itself Oil States EnergyServices versus Greens Energy
Group, decided by the US SupremeCourt in 2018.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
group decided by the US Supreme Court in 2018.
Oh, I love this one because,Letitia, it wasn't just a
corporate squabble over onepatent.
It was about whether the entiresystem of reviewing patents
after they're granted was evenconstitutional.
Talk about shaking the pillars.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Exactly.
Here's the context for ourlisteners.
In the US, when a patent isgranted, it's not automatically
untouchable.
There's a process called interpartes review, where a third
party can challenge the validityof a granted patent not in
court, but at the US Patent andTrademark Office.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
Picture it as a specialized shortcut.
It's faster and cheaper thangoing to federal court and it's
handled by administrative judgesat the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board.
Ptap, tech companies, drugmakers, startups they all use
IPR to fight back againstpatents they think never should
have been granted in the firstplace.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
But Oil State Energy said hold up.
That's unconstitutional.
The argument once thegovernment grants a patent, it's
like private property, justlike owning a house or land, and
under the US Constitution onlyfederal courts, not government
agencies, should be allowed torevoke private property rights.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
Which forced the Supreme Court to wrestle with a
giant question Is a patentprivate property or a public
franchise, a privilege grantedby the government?
Speaker 3 (27:20):
The court's answer.
Patents are public rights.
They're government-grantedmonopolies and, just like the
government can hand them out, itcan also decide, through
specialized review systems likeIPR, whether a patent should be
canceled if it was granted inerror.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Cue massive sighs of relief from the innovation
community, because without IPR,companies will be stuck fighting
every shaky patent in fullcourtroom trials, a nightmare of
time, costs and uncertaintyfull courtroom trials, a
nightmare of time, costs anduncertainty.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
And here's the broader innovation lesson
Navigating the intellectualproperty landscape isn't just
about recognizing what rightsexist.
It's about knowing how tochallenge those rights when they
stand in the way of progress.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
Exactly Whether you're a scrappy startup or a
global giant.
It's not enough to tiptoearound problematic patents.
Sometimes you need to be bold,strategic and ready to knock
down the barriers that shouldn'thave been there in the first
place.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
And that's where legal tools like IPR become part
of your innovation playbook,not just to defend yourself, but
to open new pathways.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
Because, at the end of the day, innovation isn't
just about making cool things.
It's about navigating andsometimes reshaping the rules
that govern the entire playingfield.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
All right, let's keep rolling.
Artemisa.
Next stop on our legal tourHalo Electronics v Pulse
Electronics a 2016 US SupremeCourt case that turned the word
willfulness into a billiondollar headache for many
companies.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Oh yes, Leticia.
This is where the stakes jumpdramatically, because when a
court finds you willfullyinfringed a patent, the damages
don't just stop at covering whatyou owe.
They can be tripled.
That's called enhanced damages,and it can cripple a company
financially.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
So here's the backstory.
And Pulse Electronics were bothin the business of making
electronic components,specifically specialized
transformers used on circuitboards.
Halo accused Pulse ofinfringing its patents.
But here's the kicker Pulsekept selling the products even
(29:45):
after Halo pointed out thepatents.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
Halo pointed out the patents.
They gambled, they figured.
Well, maybe if we end up incourt we'll have some technical
or legal argument to defendourselves, and for a long time
under the old Seagate test thatgamble often worked.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
Exactly Under Seagate , a patent owner could only get
enhanced damages by proving twothings First, that the infringer
acted objectively recklesslymeaning no reasonable person
would have done what they didand second, that they knew
subjectively they were actingrecklessly.
It was a pretty high bar.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
But then came the Supreme Court's decision in HALO
.
The court said hold up.
The Patent Act gives judges thediscretion to punish truly
egregious misconduct likedeliberate copying or bad faith
infringement.
Why are we locking judges intothis rigid two-part test?
Speaker 3 (30:40):
And just like that the doors swung open.
Now patent owners could pursueenhanced damages more easily,
and companies had to rethinktheir risk strategies Suddenly
we'll deal with it later wasn'ta smart option anymore.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
And here's a bigger innovation lesson Whether you're
a startup or a giant, you can'tjust coast past known risks.
If you know there's a pat inyour space and you push forward
without taking it seriously,you're not just risking a slap
on the wrist, you're risking afinancial sledgehammer.
Speaker 3 (31:16):
It's about building a culture of accountability.
Legal teams, R&D departments,product managers they all need
to work together early to mapthe landscape and plan
accordingly, Because ignoringknown dangers isn't clever, it's
reckless.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
And after Halo, the courts have clear permission to
hit reckless companies where ithurts most their wallets.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
The core takeaway is this Responsible innovation
means anticipating risk, notreacting to disaster.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
And if you ever needed a reason to take your
patent clearance processesseriously, halo is it.
Triple damages are no joke.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
All right, artemisa let's wrap up this legal world
tour with a case that deliversone of my favorite cautionary
tales.
World tour with a case thatdelivers one of my favorite
cautionary tales Global techappliance versus SEB-SF, decided
by the US Supreme Court back in2011.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
Oh, I love this one too, because it's not just about
what a company does, it's aboutwhat it deliberately chooses
not to know.
Let's set the scene.
Seb, a French company, inventedan innovative deep fryer with a
cool-titch insulated design,and they secured a US patent to
protect it.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
Enter Global Tech, a Hong Kong-based manufacturer.
They were contracted by Sunbeam, an American brand, to produce
deep fryers for the US market.
But instead of doing their duediligence, global Tech bought an
SCB fryer in Europe where itwasn't marked with a US patent,
(33:02):
reverse engineered it anddesigned their own version.
Speaker 1 (33:07):
And here's where it gets juicy.
They didn't check if there wereany US patents at all, they
just pushed ahead manufacturingfryers.
That Sunbeam sold stateside.
Seb first sued Sunbeam, butwhen that settled, they went
after.
Speaker 3 (33:26):
Global Tech Induced infringement requires proving
the defendant knew about thepatent and intentionally
encouraged someone else toinfringe it.
Global tech's defense we didn'tknow, we never even looked.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
But the Supreme Court wasn't buying that excuse.
They said sorry.
Deliberately avoiding knowledgeisn't a defense.
That's called willful blindness, when you suspect something is
true but purposely avoidconfirming it so you can later
claim ignorance.
And that's enough to satisfythe legal standard for induced
infringement.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
It's like closing your eyes while speeding down a
highway and claiming you didn'tsee the stop signs.
Not convincing, right.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Not at all.
And the consequences?
Global tech was on the hook forover $5 million zero cents in
damages.
So no, ignorance wasn't bliss.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
It was costly.
In this case, a clear messageto the innovation world is
keeping your legal and technicalhomework whether it's patent
searches, clearance checks orjust basic risk assessment
doesn't shield you fromresponsibility.
Speaker 1 (34:47):
Exactly, and beyond just patents, this story reminds
us that successful innovationis about proactive strategy.
It's about mapping the legallandscape, not just barreling
ahead and hoping no one notices.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
So if you are an innovator or entrepreneur out
there, take this case to heart.
Ignoring the rules won't saveyou, but understanding them just
might.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
And with that we wrap up this segment.
Stay tuned, listeners, becausenext we're going to show you the
smart tools including some WIPOgems that help innovators
navigate these legal puzzleswithout stepping into expensive
traps.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
All right, friends.
After all the score roombattles and patent landmines,
you might be wondering how onearth do innovators even survive
out there?
Speaker 1 (35:43):
You survive by not walking blindfolded.
You survive by using the righttools and, lucky for you, wipo
offers some power pack ones thathelp you navigate this messy IP
landscape without needing acorporate war chest.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
Let's start with WIPO Inspire.
Imagine you're developing a newmedical device, say a wearable
heart monitor.
You need to know where to lookfor relevant patents.
Should you search a Europeandatabase?
A Japanese one?
A US one?
Should you search a European?
Speaker 1 (36:11):
database a Japanese one, a US one Inspire acts like
your world map.
It doesn't hold the patentdocuments, but it compares over
30 patent databases globally,showing you which ones cover
which countries, how frequentlythey update, what kind of search
features they offer, evenwhether they support things like
machine translation.
You don't waste time wanderingin circles.
(36:32):
You target your search smartly.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
Next we've got Patentscoop, WIPO's flagship
patent search engine with over100 million documents.
But listen carefully, becausethis isn't just a giant search
engine for patents.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
Exactly, it's where Boolean logic comes in.
That's when you combinekeywords using and or not.
For example, you might searchfor solar panel and flexible,
not silicon, so find patents onflexible solar panels that don't
use silicon.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
And cross-language tools are magical, say.
You type a search in Spanish,patentscope can surface relevant
documents in Japanese or German, because it uses semantic
matching, not just exact words.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
You can narrow results by publication date,
applicant name, jurisdiction,patent status.
Remember how, in the MedeaVievo Smith case, chinese
enforcement was a key factor.
You could filter specificallyfor Chinese patents on water
heaters to see the competitivelandscape.
Speaker 3 (37:44):
But just knowing patents exist isn't enough.
You need to know Iberalive.
That's where the patentregister portal comes in.
It connects you to the officiallegal status data from over 200
patent offices worldwide.
Speaker 1 (37:59):
It's your window into whether a patent is active,
expired, lapsed or underopposition, because you don't
want to tiptoe around rightsthat no longer exist and you
don't want to walk straight intoa lawsuit because you assumed
something had expired when ithadn't.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
Now let's dive into eDISC, the electronic platform
for the Global Network ofTechnology and Innovation
Support Centers, disc.
Think of these as localinnovation hubs, often hosted in
universities, national IPoffices or research institutions
.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
These centers are like your personal IP gym.
They offer training workshops,one-on-one consultations, patent
search support and access tospecialized tools you might not
otherwise afford.
They help small innovators andresearchers build up their IP
muscles so they can play on theglobal stage.
Speaker 3 (38:52):
And speaking of tools you might not afford, here's
the kicker Through the ASPEprogram, access to specialized
patent information, WIPOpartners with big commercial
patent database providers likeDerwent Innovation, Mindsoft,
Pathbase and LexisNexis TotalPatent One.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
These are premium tools that usually cost
thousands of dollars per year,but through ASPE, qualified
institutions in developingcountries get low cost or even
free access to them, levelingthe playing field.
So innovation isn't justreserved for the mega rich
reserved for the mega rich.
Speaker 3 (39:30):
So whether you're using Wipo, inspire to choose
the right database, patentscopeto dig deep across languages,
the Patent Register Portal tocheck status, e-tisk to get
expert help, or ASPI to tap intocommercial gold mines, you've
got an arsenal of tools ready tohelp you navigate FTO risks and
unlock smart innovation,because here's the bottom line
(39:53):
listeners.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
patents can be barriers or bridges.
With the right tools, theybecome bridges, pathways to
opportunity, partnerships andmarket success.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
All right, Artemisa, let's take a deep breath.
We've journeyed through quite alandscape today.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
We've journeyed through of a great idea.
It's about understanding theterrain you're walking into.
You can create the mostbrilliant product, but if you
don't read the map, if you don'tknow where the obstacles, the
shortcuts and the hidden doorsare, you risk stalling before
you ever reach the market.
Speaker 3 (40:46):
Exactly that's why this isn't just an episode about
patents or legal jargon.
It's about a strategy aboutnavigating the realities of
innovation in a world shaped byrights, regulations and
competition.
Speaker 1 (41:01):
And let's be clear, you don't need to be a
multinational giant to thinkstrategically.
Startups, researchers,inventors, public innovators
they all face the same keyquestions Can I license this?
Should I design around that?
Where are the risks and whereare the opportunities?
Speaker 3 (41:21):
Today's stories gave us sharp lessons.
Apple v Samsung showed howdesign can be just as powerful
as technology.
The Gleaver case in Indiareminded us that some patents
spark global ethical debates.
Halo V Pauls taught us thatignoring the legal landscape can
triple your risk.
Speaker 1 (41:42):
But the best part, you don't have to navigate this
alone.
Global tools like WIPO, Inspire, Patentscope, the Patent
Register Portal, eTISC and ASPPartners give you access,
clarity and expert networks.
They help turn legal mazes intomanageable maps.
Speaker 3 (42:01):
So here's the big takeaway we want you to remember
Innovation isn't just aboutinspiration, it's about
navigation and in this legaljungle, let's be honest,
ignorance isn't bliss, it'sabout navigation.
Speaker 1 (42:11):
And in this legal jungle, let's be honest,
ignorance isn't bliss, it'sbankruptcy.
I love that, artemisa.
Before we close, here's athought for all our listeners
Patents aren't just barriers.
They can be bridges too.
When you understand a system,plan smartly and use the right
tools, you open doors toopportunity, not just avoid risk
.
Speaker 3 (42:31):
That's beautifully said.
Whether you're an inventorsketching out your first
prototype, a policymaker shapinginnovation ecosystems, or
simply someone curious about howideas change the world,
remember informed innovation isstrong innovation.
Speaker 1 (42:46):
So keep dreaming, keep building and remember,
always check your map before yourun.
Speaker 3 (42:51):
Thank you for joining us on Intangiblia.
As always, we want to remindyou this episode was crafted
using AI tools alongside humanexpertise, blending technology
and creativity to bring youthoughtful, timely insights.
Speaker 1 (43:08):
If you enjoyed today's episode, share with your
network, leave us a review andlet us know what topics you want
us to explore next.
We're always ready to go deeperwith you.
Speaker 3 (43:16):
Until next time, stay curious and stay smart.
Speaker 2 (43:23):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(43:43):
Visit our websitewwwintangiblecom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.