Bequeathing Bitcoin – What Happens To Bitcoin After Death – Interview With Debbie Hoffman And Anna Mouland – UPC Decisions About Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions – Podcast IP Fridays – Episode 162 IP Fridays - Your Intellectual Property Podcast About Trademarks, Patents, Designs And Much More podcast

Content provided by Rolf Claessen and Ken Suzan, Rolf Claessen, and Ken Suzan. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Rolf Claessen and Ken Suzan, Rolf Claessen, and Ken Suzan or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

IP Fridays - your intellectual property podcast about trademarks, patents, designs and much more »
Bequeathing Bitcoin – What Happens to Bitcoin After Death – Interview With Debbie Hoffman and Anna Mouland – UPC Decisions About Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions – Podcast IP Fridays – Episode 162

5d ago 32:19

MP3•Episode home

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 162 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today’s interview guests are Debbie Hoffman and Anna Mouland and my co-host Ken Suzan talks with them about bequeathing bitcoin, so what happens to cryptocurrency after death?

“Bequeathing Bitcoin, Storing and Transferring Cryptocurrency Upon Death” published in the November/December 2024 issue of the American Bar Association Probate & Property Magazine

URL: https://issuu.com/rptelaw/docs/2024-aba-rpte-v38-06-november-december-issue/s/59716998

Debbie Hoffman

https://www.linkedin.com/in/debbiekhoffman

Anna Mouland

https://www.linkedin.com/in/annam44

https://bequest.com

Before we jump into this interview, I have news for you!

My book “Marken. Recht. Einfach.“ (which can be translated into something like trademarks in laymen’s terms) entered the bestseller charts of manager magazine in Germany for business books on rank 8! I am very proud and thankful for all the support by so many people, who made this happen!

First I want to talk about two recent decisions by the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), where the court issued Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions (AASIs) to prevent defendants from seeking legal orders in U.S. courts that would block European patent enforcement actions. In these cases, the patent holders owned standard-essential patents (SEPs) and had initiated infringement proceedings in Germany. The defendants attempted to obtain U.S. court orders—known as Anti-Suit Injunctions (ASIs)—to halt these European proceedings. The UPC responded by issuing AASIs, thereby prohibiting the defendants from pursuing such U.S. court orders. The court justified its decisions by emphasizing the need to protect the patent holders’ rights to legal recourse under European law and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. It also highlighted the urgency of the matter and proceeded without a prior hearing to prevent potential counteractions in the U.S. courts. These rulings align with existing German case law and underscore the UPC’s commitment to safeguarding the integrity of European patent enforcement.

For laypersons, an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) is a legal measure used to counteract an Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI). An ASI is a court order that prevents a party from initiating or continuing legal proceedings in another jurisdiction. In this context, U.S. courts issued ASIs to stop European patent enforcement actions. In response, the European court issued AASIs to prevent the defendants from obtaining or enforcing those U.S. court orders, thereby ensuring that European legal proceedings could continue without interference from foreign courts.

The president of the EPO has submitted his opinion regarding the case G 1 /24 pending before the Enlarged Board of Appeals of the European Patent Office. The President’s submission supports the view that interveners should have full party status, including the right to bring forward new arguments and requests, as long as this does not put other parties at a procedural disadvantage. This case could clarify important aspects of procedural law at the EPO, especially concerning third-party involvement in opposition and appeal proceedings.

I just found out in Reuters that Chinese automaker Geely plans to open its pool of battery safety patents to the entire auto industry, the company said at a media event at the Shanghai auto show last Wednesday. Geely said it has obtained more than 1,500 safety patents.

153 episodes

#Intellectual Property #Politics #Law #Tech News #Rolf Claessen and Ken Suzan #Ken Suzan #Rolf Claessen #News #Business #Business Disciplines #Tech