Mathys & Squire Partner Edd Cavanna has been featured in Practical Law with an article on the restrictive nature of the UK’s patent assessment framework in the field of AI and quantum computing.
Read the article below.
This article first appeared in the June 2025 issue of PLC Magazine.
In recent years, the IT sector has grown rapidly, with two strong drivers being AI and quantum computing (see box “What is quantum computing?”). In June 2017, PwC’s Global Artificial Intelligence Study estimated that AI could boost the world economy by $15 trillion by 2030 (www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/analytics/assets/pwc-ai-analysis-sizing-the-prize-report.pdf). In April 2024, McKinsey & Company’s Quantum Technology Monitor reported that the quantum computing industry alone could add around $2 trillion to the world economy within a decade (www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/steady-progress-in-approaching-the-quantum-advantage).
While it is easy to view this growth solely through a financial lens, the implications reach much further. It is no exaggeration to say that the IT sector is on the cusp of a paradigm shift. The UK needs a robust strategy to capitalise on its strong academic sector. Driving innovation in the IT sector is important both for national security and to position the UK as a world leader. Part of this strategy will involve ensuring that innovators are able to corner the market in their respective fields.
While there are many social and political factors that may contribute to this strategy, this article focuses on the interplay between intellectual property law and the IT sector. In particular, the ability to patent technological inventions is a core factor in the attractiveness of both investment in, and the operation of, innovative technology solutions.
The current UK framework for patenting AI and quantum computing inventions risks falling out of date and making the UK less attractive for innovators. The UK must take steps to update the patent assessment framework in order to realise the benefits of these exciting technological advances.
A historical view
The present situation can be traced back to 1977, when the UK was heavily involved in negotiating the European Patent Convention (EPC), which is the legal text that provides for patents to be granted centrally by the European Patent Office (EPO) and validated across Europe. The EPC required each signatory to harmonise its law so that there could be no disagreement regarding the national validity of the centrally granted patents.
Patent law in the UK was last substantially updated by the Patents Act 1977 (1977 Act), a large part of which was intended to harmonise UK patent law with the EPC. It was also at this time that the question arose of whether, and to what extent, software should be patentable. Essentially, the 1977 Act sought to delimit generic software, which was intended to be excluded from patentability, from software that is directed to some technical purpose, which could be protected.
At that time, it was not possible to predict that the IT boom of the 80s and 90s was just around the corner, let alone foresee the more recent progress made in AI and quantum computing. Software was reasonably perfunctory and seemed to be adequately protected by copyright law. Nevertheless, the drafters of the EPC did consider that there might be future developments and included a proviso that software would only be excluded from patentability to the extent that the patent application related to software “as such” (see feature article “Artificial intelligence: navigating the IP challenges”, www.practicallaw.com/w-015-2044).
Over the following years, both the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and the EPO developed case law to try to delineate the boundaries of the “as such” clause. While each body went through periods of greater or lesser enthusiasm for software patents, and each developed its own framework for assessing compliance, the two systems remained in remarkably close agreement on what should be allowed at any given time. This was crucial in order for patent holders and their competitors to have reasonable certainty in the validity of patents in the UK, irrespective of whether they were granted by the IPO or the EPO.
The current situation
From the perspective of patent attorneys using the system, it has felt like the IPO and the EPO have been diverging on their approach for the past few years. This divergence came into sharp focus with the explosion of innovation in the fields of AI and quantum computing.
When a new technology causes rapid developments, it is understandable that patent offices become more conservative, as has happened in this case. In short, they are concerned that patents will become too easy to obtain if patent offices become dazzled by shiny new technology which, as it achieves what was previously impossible, can seem more technical at the time of invention than it may later seem with hindsight.
As each new technology gains importance, it is vital that patent offices play their core role in encouraging innovation. Both the IPO and the EPO have, in essence, attempted to fit these new technologies into their existing frameworks for assessing software. They are necessarily bound not just by their (nominally harmonised) legislation, but also by the nearly 50 years of case law interpreting the legislation. In each case, the view appears to be that inventions in AI or quantum computing can be protected. However, the European framework has seemingly led to a more receptive system where it appears that, for the time being at least, there is better engagement with new technologies from the patent examiners.
This has meant that applicants are more attracted to the European patent system than the UK system. In addition, the European system allows for protection in up to 45 jurisdictions. Furthermore, as highly technical fields such as AI and quantum computing tend to rely on international talent, the conclusion is clear: in order to become a world leader in these technologies, the UK will need to persuade talent to come, and to stay. The UK must provide its businesses with legal certainty and protection.
During 2025, the Supreme Court is due to hear arguments about the patentability of software in the long-running proceedings in Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Ltd ([2024] EWCA Civ 825; see News brief “Artificial neural networks: Court of Appeal examines patentability”, www.practicallaw.com/w-044-2469). In this case, the IPO refused a patent application on the grounds that the relevant technology, which recommended music tracks based on an “emotional similarity” with other music tracks, was mere software.
Emotional Perception is interesting because the arguments presented cast doubt on the meaning of “a program for a computer” in section 1(2)(c) of the 1977 Act. In cases where the invention is, or is implemented in, a neural network, a part of the invention is encapsulated in the weights learned by the nodes of the network. It is not wholly apparent that this is best viewed as either software or hardware. It is encouraging that the IPO has engaged with the judicial process to help bring clarity to the situation.
While no corresponding case is working through the courts for quantum computing, in January 2025, the IPO updated its guidance to simply state that quantum computers should be treated in the same way as classical computers (www.gov.uk/government/publications/examining-patent-applications-relating-to-artificial-intelligence-ai-inventions).
While this may be true in a very broad sense, in that the quantum computing system is performing technical processes to qualify for patentability, it largely discounts the core features that make quantum computing so powerful, such as parallelism and superposition states. In practice, this could result in significant restrictions for patenting quantum computing software.
The difficulty of patenting quantum computing software is demonstrated by some recent Hearing Officer decisions at the IPO in which the special quantum processes were given short shrift (River Lane Research Ltd, BL O/130/22; Odyssey Therapeutics UK Limited, BL O/1193/23; 1QB Information Technologies Inc, BL O/935/22). This is not to say that the IPO is refusing to accept this new technology, but that the patent examiners are just as constrained by the assessment framework as the applicants.
It is not just the EU that the UK is competing with in this field. Major markets, such as the US and China, will also be forming their own pathway. For now, the US appears to be caught in a particular swing of the pendulum to being more restrictive about software in general, following the US Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp v CLS Bank International (573 US 208 (2014)). By contrast, China appears to be a welcoming market for these advanced technologies, at least in terms of patentability.
Where next?
The antidote to this competitive threat lies in ensuring that the IPO’s patent application guidelines are regularly updated in a pragmatic and fair manner. Training patent examiners to assess these new technologies, both from a technical and a legal point of view, is also critical. In addition, as Emotional Perception reaches its conclusion, some clarity should arrive regarding the patentability of software in general in the UK.
However, the UK should go further than this. It is currently operating within a framework in which software is assessed by rules that were created to deal with highly procedural classical software. The changes in the past 50 years in this field have been phenomenal and it is no surprise that the legal framework has struggled to keep up.
This naturally leads to the view that the UK should consider changing how it treats inventions in the fields of AI and quantum computing to make it easier to patent this technology. Such inventions are not mere software in line with the simplistic view that anything running on a computer is necessarily software; they show remarkable ingenuity by performing in genuinely new and technical ways. The existing UK framework is general enough to be interpreted to achieve this change without overturning any case law. The remaining question is whether it is brave enough to go first.
What is quantum computing?
Quantum computing is a technology that is based on the principles of quantum theory. It seeks to harness the subatomic physics of quantum mechanics where particles can occupy more than one value or state. In data processing, binary digits (bits) have one value (0 or 1) or occupy one of two states (on or off). A quantum computing bit (qubit) can simultaneously have more than one value or be in more than one state. Quantum computing increases the number of computations that can be processed concurrently, therefore enhancing the speed of computer processing.
Mathys & Squire Partner Andrew White has been featured in articles by The Financial Times, The Telegraph and the World IP Review with his commentary surrounding the significant global increase in drone patent applications, and the major contribution that China has to these emerging figures.
Read the extended press release below.
The number of patents granted in relation to drone technology has increased globally by 18% to 7,890 in the last year, up from 6,686 in the year previous, shows new research from leading intellectual property (IP) law firm Mathys & Squire.*
Increased innovation in drone technology has partly been driven by greater investment in defence R&D as well as an increasing range of uses for drones in the broader economy.
Manufacturers are rushing to corner as much of this rapidly growing market by registering patents to protect their R&D investments.
Developments in AI have also driven the substantial growth in drone inventions as companies look to integrate the two technologies .
Andrew White, partner at Mathys & Squire says: “There is now an almost universal acceptance that drones are going to be an important part of defence sector investment and defence companies, conventional drone companies and universities are all looking to out-innovate their competition in order to secure part of that market.”
“Innovations within the defence sector are also spilling over into the conventional drone sector – such as the use of AI to allow real-time data analysis, correction to navigation systems and object detection and avoidance.”
6,217 Chinese patents were granted last year relating to drone technology, accounting for 79% of all drone patents granted last year. This was up from 4,859 or 73% of all drone patents the year before.
Notable Chinese filers of drone patents include drone manufacturer DJI, who filed 64 patents in the last year alone. The state-backed People’s Liberation Army National University of Defence Technology also accounted for 73 patents in the last two years.
Russia also remained in the top 4 filers of drone patents (behind China, the US and South Korea), and were granted 239 patents last year, a 78% increase from the 134 patents granted the year before.
Commercial applications continue to drive growth in drone innovation
- Advanced mapping and surveillance capabilities, e.g. for monitoring progress on large-scale construction, industrial or land surveying projects
- Using drones to establish an underwater radio communications system
- Method for drones to recharge from overhead power lines
- An automated, high-efficiency spraying drone for use in agriculture
- The use of drone technology in creating a highly-automated air traffic control system to direct commercial aircraft
*Source: Patentscope data from the Information Commissioners’ Office (year-end December 31)
Mathys & Squire Partner Andrew White was recently featured in ‘Apple’s $502M License Bill May Draw SEP Owners To UK’ by Law360, providing commentary on the impact of the Optis v. Apple SEP decision on further SEP rulings in the UK, and even worldwide.
The article highlights how technology companies may avoid the UK for licensing disputes after Apple has been ordered to pay $502 million for a suite of 4G patents, an increase from the original order of $56 million, but might attract more SEP holders.
To read the full article click here.
This month we are proud to announce the launch of our brand-new podcast, Innovation Unlocked by Mathys & Squire, a new series designed to explore the dynamic intersection of intellectual property, entrepreneurship and innovation.
Hosted by Partner Andrew White, our podcast is designed to offer in-depth insights that resonates with innovators, founders, and professionals across the wider tech and creative communities.
Each episode will examine key topics and emerging trends that are shaping the IP landscape, helping listeners navigate the challenges and opportunities that come with protecting and leveraging one of their most valuable strategic assets.
We will be speaking with experts including renowned innovators, industry leaders, and legal professionals who can bring unique perspectives and real-world experiences to the conversation.
Our first episodes feature high-profile guests such as Lord Paul Drayson (CEO of Freevolt Technologies and former UK Minister of State for Science and Innovation), Joe Warren (founder of Powervault), and several of Mathys & Squire’s own IP specialists, including Partners Sean Leach, Posy Drywood, David Hobson and Nicholas Fox.
Watch the trailer for our new podcast here.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel through this link here.
Since the EU (Community) design system was first introduced in 2002, new technology – in particular new digital innovation – has given prominence to new types of “products” which the EU considers should benefit from design protection.
As part of ongoing efforts to modernise the EU design system, several key changes are being introduced. These changes aim to broaden and clarify the scope of design protection in the EU, while also making the system more accessible and user-friendly.
Non-physical “products”
In particular, as of 1 May 2025, the legal definition of the “products” that are eligible for design protection will now not only encompass products that are physical objects, but also products which materialise in a non-physical form such as graphic works or symbols, logos, and graphical user interfaces. The new regulations also explicitly recognise that animations, such as movements or transitions, of the features of a product can contribute to the appearance of designs and will therefore be explicitly eligible for design protection.
The “Locarno Classification”
Another change will be a simplification of how products are grouped together in design filings. Currently, to file products together as a multi-part design, products must fall within the same “Locarno classification.” For example, designs to a mobile device and a household appliance could not be grouped together in a multi-part application. This classification requirement is being removed, meaning that disparate products or features of the same overall system (with different Locarno classifications) can be filed together in a multi-part design filing. This new approach will reduce the complexity of design filings and will also reduce the up-front cost to applicants by consolidating what would previously have been several design applications into a single design filing.
Design rights holders will also be able to mark their products as having EU design protection by using a circled “D” symbol, similar to the symbols “®” and “©” that already exist for trade marks and copyright.
These changes are welcome, broadening the types of products that the EU design law protects to align with advancements in technology and technology commercialisation which have taken place over the last 20 years.
If you have any questions about obtaining design protection for your products, please contact our designs team.
We are delighted to announce that we have received the Committed Badge from EcoVadis, recognising our ongoing efforts toward sustainability and responsible business practices.
EcoVadis is a globally recognised sustainability assessment platform that evaluates companies on their environmental, social, and ethical performance.
The EcoVadis assessment includes 21 sustainability criteria with a comprehensive review of policies, actions, and results across four main categories: Environment, Labor & Human Rights, Ethics, and Sustainable Procurement.
As part of our commitment to society, our people and the environment, at the start of this year we completed a thorough assessment of our business sustainability practices through EcoVadis, and are now proud to share our results.
Why is it important to us?
Receiving the EcoVadis Committed Medal is a positive step in our ongoing sustainability journey. It reflects the foundational work we’ve done to integrate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles into our operations. This recognition provides an external validation of our commitment to responsible business practices, and it encourages us to continue building on this progress.
Click here to read more about our Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives.
Mathys & Squire partners with the Swiss Startup Association as a Legal Partner to support the IP work of startups and small businesses within their network. Partner Andrea McShane, Managing Associate Aymeric Vienne and Associate Danielle Champagne form our contact team.
The Swiss Startup Association (SSA) is a company dedicated to supporting small businesses with a plethora of networks and resources. With over 1600 startup members, they help encourage the sustainability of the latest innovation and creativity in Switzerland.
Regarding the new partnership, Partner Andrea McShane writes: ‘As an ETH graduate the Swiss start up landscape is close to my heart – and it is such a pleasure to be involved, and to be able to give back in this way. Hopp Schwiiz!’
Through the Swiss Startup Association, Mathys & Squire are offering three different start up packages tailored for the different needs of businesses. As well as this, for SSA members, we are offering a free initial patent filing strategy consultation.
Andrea will also be attending the 2025 Founders Day in Zurich on the 15th of April. Taking place at the Google Campus Europaallee, the event is an opportunity for startups to hear from founders and investors who will share their own experiences, knowledge and expertise to the attending audience.
Click the link here to read more about the partnership.
Mathys & Squire is delighted to have been recognised in JUVE Patent’s UK rankings 2025 for the sixth consecutive year in the fields of ‘Pharma and biotechnology’, ‘Medical technology’, ‘Chemistry’, ‘Digital communication and computer technology’ and ‘Electronics’.
As well as a practice-wide recommendation for the firm, four of our Partners have been recognised as Recommended Individuals: Philippa Griffin, Hazel Ford and James Wilding for ‘Pharma and Biotechnology‘, and Chris Hamer for ‘Chemistry‘.
The JUVE Patent rankings are a result of thorough research conducted by an independent team of journalists, who send out questionnaires and conduct interviews with lawyers, clients, legal academics and judges. In the 2025 edition, UK patent practices, solicitors and barristers who, according to the in-depth research, have a leading reputation in the UK patent law market are celebrated.
To see the JUVE Patent UK 2025 rankings in full, please click here.
On 12th March, Mathys & Squire sponsored the 2025 NLIL conference for the second year running, hosted at LSE. Partners James Pitchford and Anna Gregson , Technical Assistant Louis Brosnan and Trainee Trade Mark Attorney Tanya Rahman all spoke at the event.
The Non-Law Into Law (NLIL) Conference was first held in 2024 and returned last week after their debut success last year. The event was tailored to students from a diverse range of academic disciplines studying a total of 117 different degree subjects, and successfully highlighted the various pathways available for those interested in pursuing a legal career, even though they may not be currently studying law.
Hosted at LSE, societies from various universities including Imperial College, Warwick, UCL, Durham and Queen Mary were in attendance, with over 300 tickets sold to students who actively listened and engaged with a series of panel discussions, presentations and interactive workshops.
Photo from the 2025 NLIL Conference
From our Mathys & Squire team, we led an IP Workshop, which presented an introduction to Intellectual Property to the attending students, covering the various areas of patents, trade marks, registered designs and copyright, as well as a Careers in IP seminar, examining the different professional paths within the field.
It was a pleasure to attend the event and our team was extremely impressed with the engagement and enthusiasm demonstrated by the attending students.
Find more about the NLIL conference on their website here.
Mathys & Squire LLP is delighted to have achieved a significant victory for our client D.W. Windsor Ltd in its patent infringement claim against Urbis Schréder Ltd in the High Court. DW Windsor are a leading British designer and manufacturer of lighting solutions, found in areas such as Tower Bridge, the London Eye, St Paul’s Vista, and the Square Mile in the City of London.
Mathys & Squire LLP is delighted to have achieved a significant victory for our client DW Windsor Ltd in its patent infringement claim against Urbis Schréder Ltd in the High Court. DW Windsor are a leading British designer and manufacturer of lighting solutions, found in areas such as Tower Bridge, the London Eye, St Paul’s Vista, and the Square Mile in the City of London.
The dispute concerned two patents drafted and prosecuted by Mathys & Squire LLP directed to DW Windsor’s Garda AntiClimb® range, a surface-mounted linear lighting system for illuminating walled pathways.
Nearly two years ago, DW Windsor commenced patent infringement proceedings in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court with the aim of enforcing its patents and protecting its technology. Schréder denied infringement and counterclaimed for revocation of the patents. By the time of the trial, the issues before the Court were limited to validity.
The trial took place in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court on 17 and 18 December 2024, and in a judgment handed down on 14 March 2025, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke held that key claims of DW Windsor’s patents were valid and therefore infringed. The defendant was therefore unsuccessful in its attempt to seek to revoke D.W. Windsor’s patents.
Andrew White, Partner at Mathys & Squire LLP commented: “We are delighted to secure the resounding victory for our client DW Windsor. DW Windsor is a highly innovative British business with IP at its core.
While litigation is rarely a first choice for many, sometimes it is necessary to stand up for your IP rights and in this case D.W. Windsor were willing to protect their investment by taking enforcement action through the courts.
This judgement confirms DW Windsor’s position as innovators in the field of lighting solutions and that they are not afraid to stand up for their IP rights. It was a pleasure to work with the client Alan Grant, Lucy Marlow of Fox Williams, and Adrian de Froment of Serle Court on this matter.”
DW Windsor added:“We’re delighted with the result of the Judgment and the knowledge that our patents will continue to provide protection to the business.
Innovation has been at the heart of DW Windsor since the business was founded, and our Garda Anti Climb products exemplify our commitment to creating new lighting solutions that improve the status quo by leveraging our considerable experience, embracing technology and challenging convention through innovative design and engineering excellence.
We invest heavily in research and development and encourage free-thinking in our technical team to push the boundaries in lighting product design and as a result invest in intellectual property and protect and enforce those rights should they be infringed.
I’d like to thank and acknowledge the tireless professionalism of our legal team, including Lucy Marlow of Fox Williams, Adrian de Froment of Serle Court and Andrew White of Mathys & Squire who helped secure this victory.”
The full Judgment can be read here.
Mathys & Squire LLP are a full-service IP firm with unrivalled expertise in patents, trade marks, design protection and litigation.
