Mathys & Squire is delighted that Partners Sean Leach, Anna Gregson, Dani Kramer and Martin MacLean have all been identified in the 2025 edition of IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists.

The IAM Strategy 300 highlights a select group of individuals recognised for their leadership in IP through innovative strategic approaches. Representing a diverse range of sectors, including service providers, corporations, research institutions, and universities, these professionals are shaping the future of IP management and value creation.

These professionals are acknowledged as top authorities in the field and are chosen through an anonymous nomination process, followed by in-depth interviews with senior figures across the global IP landscape. This includes corporate IP leaders in North America, Europe, and Asia, as well as external IP service providers. Those that demonstrate an exceptional expertise and a deep understanding of IP value creation, management, and commercialisation earn a place in the IAM Strategy 300.

The 2025 rankings are available on their website here.

We would like to thank our clients and contacts who took the time to provide feedback to the research team at IAM Strategy 300. 

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are firmly integrated within modern diets, with factors such as convenience, store availability, cost, food waste and time impacting consumer purchase decisions. However, influences in media and government action have recently drawn attention to the potentially harmful impact of overconsuming UPFs. So, as interesting behavioural changes start to emerge for both consumers and retailers, we can look to the future to see how this shift might influence intellectual property.

What are ultra-processed foods?

Understanding the chemistry behind UPFs is crucial in understanding both sides, and the reason to their great popularity. Food groups can be divided into four groups, referenced as the NOVA classification: Unprocessed or minimally processed foods, Processed culinary ingredients, Processed foods, and Ultra-processed food and drink products.

From a manufacturing perspective, such ingredients that are included in UPFs (e.g. preservatives, antioxidants and fats) are often to increase the flavour and appearance to the consumer, whilst simultaneously decreasing costs and minimising waste. A common differentiating factor is that they often contain ingredients that would not be utilised in home cooking, and therefore are not as recognisable to the consumer.

So, why now?

The apprehension is that the overconsumption of UPFs has been found to be associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, a finding that has become a hot topic of conversation. Government action, following the outline of ‘Towards a Good Food Cycle’ on July 15, popular publications, trending social media content, and daily news articles have all contributed to the increased awareness of these potential consequences, instigating consumers to reflect on their dietary decisions.

Consequently, some manufacturers are now following this trend within their food production strategy, attempting to cut down on the ingredients list to demonstrate themselves as a healthier, more transparent choice. A current example is the ‘Only…ingredients’ range from popular high street shop Marks & Spencers, which aims to highlight the simplicity of ingredients in their products, exemplified best by their famous cornflakes which solely contain corn.

For those trying to restrict their diet, either due to medical needs such as allergies or for personal preference, this transparency can be a good thing that was not always easily available in the past.

However, advocates of this practice as a general improvement have faced criticism for misinforming the public on the reality of food nutrition. In some cases, extra vitamins or supplements can be a positive addition to the nutritional value of a product. Innovation and sustainability director of vegan food brand THIS expressed his frustration regarding this misunderstanding, arguing that whilst their products are categorised as UPFs, this diminishes other benefits of their products (based on nutritional properties such as protein and fibre levels, and limiting saturated fat and sugar).

How might this impact IP?

The initial assumption might be that technical innovation within the food and beverage industry might be reduced, as producers interested in this trend attempt to strip back their recipes and reduce the ingredient list on their products, and, at least by appearance, avoid the use of “technology” in their food products.

However, the technical challenges in trying to maintain desirable properties in food products (such as, texture, flavour, shelf life, etc.) whilst limiting ingredients is, and will be, technically challenging. This may require different processes to be developed, or inventive ways to combine fewer ingredients to achieve the desired function and a comparable or improved product. It is within these processes and formulations used in the manufacturing of food that innovation can emerge, as the processes themselves may become more crucial in achieving comparable results whilst minimising ingredients. Whenever investment in technical innovation is used to provide new and advantageous products, this opens the door to obtaining patent protection for such innovations, and so IP protection can play a crucial role in staying ahead of competitors and adding value to a business.

This is not to suggest that the majority of food products will follow this path, as for many consumers and manufacturers this is not an influencing factor above cost or properties of the product. Instead, there could be a developing space for additional innovation in the sector which could influence IP trends in the future.

Our attorneys at Mathys & Squire have extensive experience protecting food-related innovations and assisting companies in carving out an advantageous position in the highly competitive food industry. If you would like to find out more or reach out, visit our food-specific sector page.

Over the past four weeks, we have been joined by students Mubarak Ahmed, Ejiro Williams and Mahfuz Ahmed in our London Office, the Shard, through our partnership with Career Ready.

Throughout their time at Mathys & Squire, they have shadowed multiple of our departments, learning from our fee earners, IP support, marketing and consulting, to gain a full understanding of the inner workings of our firm, and all the possible career paths available in IP. Alongside this, they were tasked with analysing real-life cases, presenting an invention of their own, creating a graduate brochure and much more, concluding today with a final presentation on what they have learnt about Mathys & Squire during their internship.

Mubarak Ahmed writes: “My time at Mathys & Squire has been incredibly eye-opening, insightful, and rewarding. Over the course of my experience, I’ve gained a deeper understanding for the world of IP and the vital role patent attorneys play in protecting innovations. From day one, I was welcomed in a supportive and friendly environment. I had the opportunity to work with professionals across various departments, shadowing associates, technical assistants and IPSS, every single one of them offering a unique perspective of the patent process. Beyond the technical learning, I appreciate the office culture at Mathys & Squire as its collaborative, approachable and genuinely invested in helping each other. I’m truly grateful to the team for their time, guidance and encouragement throughout my time here.”

Mahfuz Ahmed writes: “In Mathys & Squire I got to do many shadowing sessions with the teams within this company, for example learning about marketing, the records team, IPSS, and trade marks. I learned many valuable skills that I can take into other work environments which will help me significantly. Skills like close attention to detail, listening and taking in information quickly, and communicating more confidently with new people I meet.”

Ejiro Williams writes: “I really enjoyed my 4 weeks internship at Mathys & Squire. The staff were so friendly and always willing to help at any time.  I developed many essential skills which I feel will be of good use such as:  public speaking, collaborative working and close attention to detail. Thank you for having me! I would 100% recommend to future graduates who are currently studying a science or computing degree!”

Elijo Williams, Mubarak Ahmed and Mahfuz Ahmed in our London Office.

All our departments were thoroughly impressed with the work of all of the students, and we look forward to watching them prosper in their future careers.

Career ready is a UK-wide charity working to increase accessibility into professional workplaces for young people, giving them the chance to understand the opportunities available across different workplaces.

Read more about our CSR and D&I initiatives in the relevant links.

Partners Hazel Ford and Alexander Robinson have been featured in the Life Sciences IP Review (LSIPR) providing insights on the latest developments impacting the European Patent Office Boards of Appeal, following their discussion held at LSPN Spring North America 2025.

In their talk, they analyse the evolving legal landscape in the life sciences sector in light of recent decisions prompted by the Unified Patent Court, offering a valuable perspective on how these changes may affect patent strategies across Europe.

To watch the full video click here.

How can you keep track of innovations made by your competitors? Do you even know who all your competitors are? Monitoring patenting activity can help, but there are limitations. Surprises can still happen, sometimes from unexpected quarters.

June 2025. Another week, another news article with a colourful photograph of a rocket exploding. But as news feeds were focussed on the latest ‘Starship’ blow-up as SpaceX doubled down on its fail fast, learn fast methodology, the attention of much of the space industry was elsewhere. To northern Japan, where a day earlier a prototype rocket had risen some 300m into the air and, a minute later, redeployed its landing gear and landed flawlessly a short distance away. The technology was undoubtedly impressive, but the most newsworthy aspect was the identity of the company behind it.

Since the first commercial launch system was offered by Arianespace in the 1980s, arguably the greatest advances have come from SpaceX, who first demonstrated the result of a decade of development by launching a reusable rocket in 2015. Since then, SpaceX has become by far the dominant player with currently over 100 orbital launches a year. It has also inspired numerous start-ups. But the new rocket was not from any of those. The unexpected new entrant in the reusable rocket space was the venerable Japanese car manufacturer: Honda¹.

What was ostensibly a car company doing launching a reusable rocket? And could anyone have seen this coming?

The monitoring of patents – and in particular the filing of new patent applications – is often presented as a key tool for competitor intelligence. What areas are your competitors working on? What new innovations have there been in your field? Have there been any new entrants? Patents are by design a good source of technical information; to secure a patent monopoly requires full disclosure of the workings of the invention, which nowadays is readily available on free public databases.

However, patent monitoring is an imperfect tool. The language can be obscure, a dense mix of technical and legalese, sometimes deliberately so. Subject classifications are not always appropriate. The ultimate corporate owners can be difficult to determine. And patent applications typically only publish 18 months after the initial filing, so any such monitoring is inevitably somewhat behind the curve.

Another reason to be wary is that the incentives to file patent applications differ; what works for start-ups is not always appropriate for more established companies. The former tend to file early in the innovation process to indicate commercial potential, secure investment, and to protect their key innovation ahead of any public demonstration. We can see this with the large number of reusable rocket start-ups with a handful of patent filings, perhaps some successful ground-based test firings, but as yet no successful launches. Large companies (or those with more secure funding) tend to have a broader technological base and no need to engage in such market signalling.

Leaving aside ideological reasoning (Elon Musk once famously quipped that patents are “for the weak” and claimed SpaceX was a patent-free company; a position since evidently revised), for some companies, the very requirement to disclose in full details of the invention is seen as a drawback, allowing competitors an unwanted innovation leg-up. Instead, development is undertaken largely in secret, with intellectual property being protected through corporate culture – or in case that fails, formally buttressed via strict non-disclosure employment contracts and the potential for litigation.

Honda seems to be adopting this secrecy approach, at least initially. Since first declaring an interest in developing space technologies in 2019, they have kept a low profile. Footage of an earlier rocket test firing was only shown in grainy black-and-white, possibly to avoid disclosing details of the propellant.

They evidently take patents seriously, however. Established in the 1940s, Honda is one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the world, with vast experience in combustion technology, fluid handling, etc., and a large R&D department with a reported willingness to allow young engineers opportunities to work on projects of their own. For the past two decades, Honda has filed over 1,000 patent applications a year.

Honda also has prior form in diversifying into other technology areas, whether done primarily as a proof-of-concept and public-relations exercise (as with the ASIMO humanoid robot programme, since discontinued) or commercially. Honda has, for example, a successful side line in business jets and a small portfolio of aviation-related patents.

That said, Honda seems unlikely to be aiming to compete with SpaceX as a commercial launch provider. Rather, this may be a case of vertical integration, a company looking to support its core business by moving into adjacent technologies. Honda may in time provide its own satellite links for ‘connected vehicles’, avoiding over-reliance on the present dominant supplier (Starlink again).

Whatever the reason, Honda could well become a major force in the intellectual property of space, following similar industrial giants such as Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Hyundai, all of which have been building space-related patent portfolios.

So if your company is warily eyeing existing competitors and wondering where the next threat might come from, how can you anticipate competition arising from established companies crossing over from other sectors?

• Be aware that innovation and competition not only come from smaller companies and startups. Not all large companies are dinosaurs.
• Appreciate that patent monitoring is important but also imperfect and so must be part of a wider analysis.
• Take public pronouncements seriously. Whereas start-ups seek to make headlines, larger
  companies may be indicating a deliberate strategy.
• Identify companies with the means, motive, and opportunity to vertically integrate or diversify.
• Note when unexpected new entrants move into your technology area and consider whether there are similar companies which might do likewise.

You may also wish to consult with your patent attorney. Despite the drawbacks with patent monitoring, there are sometimes faint signals which a patent attorney might identify. A couple of years ago, a Honda patent application was published with the intriguing title “Landing gear for flight vehicle”. There was no mention in the patent specification of space or the launching of rockets. But a remarkably similar landing gear was seen deployed a few weeks ago in northern Japan.

¹ https://global.honda/en/topics/2025/c_2025-06-17ceng.html

We are delighted to be ranked as a leading European patent law firm by the Financial Times (FT) in their 2025 report.

The Financial Times Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms list identifies the most recommended firms in Europe for services related to patent prosecution and strategic advice, and is compiled by the FT’s research partner Statista.

As well as featuring as a leading patent firm, we have also been recognised in five specialist areas of industrial expertise this year: ‘Biotechnology, Food & Healthcare‘, ‘Chemistry & Pharmacy‘, ‘Electrical Engineering & Physics’, ‘IT & Software‘, and ‘Mechanical Engineering.’

We are greatly appreciative of all of our clients and contacts who have taken the time to recommended our firm as part of the FT’s research.

To access the full report and rankings tables, please visit the FT website here.

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has published a new guidance following the pivotal ruling in SkyKick UK Ltd and another v Sky Ltd and others (SkyKick). The updated Practice Amendment Notice 1/25 refines the examination practices at the IPO and outlines the implications of the judgement for new applicants when filing specifications of goods and services. Such changes are to come into effect immediately.

Background

Section 3(6) of the UK Trade Mark Act 1994 prohibits registration of a trade mark “if or to the extent that the application is made in bad faith.” What constitutes ‘bad faith’ is not legislatively defined, however, has been interpreted by the courts. Most notable is the recent Supreme Court Judgement in SkyKick following a long-running dispute between the parties. While the court confirmed a finding of infringement of Sky’s trade marks by SkyKick, it was found that Sky’s registrations contained excessively broad specifications across a range of goods and services for which there were no genuine intention to use the mark, and therefore, partially invalid on bad faith grounds.

Under the new guidance, examiners will now actively consider whether a specification is “so manifestly and self-evidently broad that a bad faith objection should be raised.” It follows that that certain applications claiming all 45 classes or all goods/services in those classes for example, will now automatically trigger an objection.

Looking Ahead

As a general rule, applicants should ensure that their specifications include goods and services which represent “fair and reasonable claims in the context of their business.” Going forward, applicants should exercise caution when filing a vast number of goods and services across a broad range of classes, or when using broad terms such as clothing, software, entertainment etc. That said, a pragmatic balance needs to be struck to not file too narrowly to restrict opportunities for business expansion.

 Should an objection be raised by an examiner, applicants must be prepared to explain the commercial rationale behind the goods/services concerned. Paragraph 15 of the PAN 1/25 provides a 2-month period for a response. If the examiner refuses to waive the objection, applicants will still have the opportunity to be heard and to appeal.  If the applicant genuinely is going to offer all goods/services applied for and can provide a justifiable commercial rationale and reasoning, we would expect the objection to be overcome.

Finally, opponents and cancellation applicants are also encouraged to be mindful of the changes above. as relying on broad specifications may lead to counterclaims from the other side on bad faith grounds.  This has already been happening since the SkyKick judgement though in practice, but it is worth a reminder that this is possible as part of the proceedings before the UKIPO.

Mathys Comment

This is not an unexpected development by the UKIPO, but it will cause challenges for applicants who are used to filing with broad specifications (both in terms of classes and goods within the same class).  Whilst the UKIPO does have an effective online tool to assist with drafting specifications, given the drafting of such defines your protection (and scope to challenge moving forwards) we would certainly recommend seeking advice from one of the Mathys trade mark team to ensure a) your specification covers you now (and moving forwards) and b) will ideally not trigger an objection.

Between August and October 2023, the UK government launched its Second Transformation Consultation to support the UKIPO in delivering improved digital services. One key proposal is to change, or potentially abolish, the use of series trade marks.
 
Series trade marks are a unique feature of the UK system, allowing applicants to register up to six similar marks (e.g. logos in different colours, differences in capitalisation, minor variations of spelling) in a single application at a reduced cost. This option is not available in other systems such as the EUIPO or the Madrid Protocol. Applicant’s were able to apply for up to six marks in a series, in accordance with Section 41(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994:

”A series of trade marks means a number of trade marks which resemble each other as to their material particulars and differ only as to matters of a non-distinctive character not substantially affecting the identity of the trade mark.”

Series marks are particularly useful when a logo appears in multiple colour variations or has several common adaptations, as they extend protection to all versions. They are also advantageous when a logo includes variations in visual elements, such as differences in colours, icons or stylised text, depending on the context. Overall, series marks offer broad legal protection while allowing for flexibility in how the logo is used across different scenarios. Despite variations in the marks, a series trade mark ensures consistency in the brand identity, protecting the core mark while enabling adaptation for numerous applications.
 
However, on 10 April 2025, the UKIPO published the consultation report and found that many applicants find series marks confusing. Specifically, 65% of applications are filed without professional representation, and in 2022, 39% were objected to for not meeting the legal criteria for registering a series of trade marks. This can lead to additional costs for applicants who need to file new applications. However, applicants would need to at least double filing costs without the series mark being available if they wanted to file more than one variant of their mark, so it is difficult to see how not having the series mark would lead to a cost saving on the whole. Furthermore, the UKIPO is of the opinion that series marks provide limited additional legal protection, reducing their overall value for money.
 
While this is arguable as we have found series marks to be a very beneficial tool for brand owners when used correctly, we do acknowledge that the UKIPO’s approach to assessing the validity of a series trade mark application is strict and any variations as to the distinctiveness of the mark to the point where the overall identity and impression of the trade mark has changed, even due to variations of colour, the application can be objected against or refused.  

Professional representation is key to making the most out of the series system in the UK and it is somewhat disappointing that the UKIPO have decided to phase these marks out.  While existing series marks will remain valid, the UKIPO expects to phase out the option for new applications once its new digital trade mark service launches. A specific date for this change has not yet been confirmed.  If you have any marks which could constitute a series it would be beneficial to file them sooner rather than later.
 
In addition to developments at the UKIPO, as part of its digital transformation, the UKIPO will soon make trade mark and design documents, such as examination reports, available online for the first time through the new One IPO Search tool, bringing patents, trade marks, and designs into one unified platform.

Government response to the Second Transformation Consultation report below on series trade marks applications and more here.

This June marks Pride month, a time to celebrate the talent, creativity and innovation demonstrated by members of the LGBTQIA+ community, and reflect on the challenges and discrimination many would have faced particularly in their professional careers.

Whilst there has been progression over the years, it is no secret that we still live in a time where many are unable to feel empowered as their authentic self. Therefore, by acknowledging the following engineers and technical experts, we not only honour their scientific contributions, but also highlight the importance of visibility and representation. The following people serve as powerful role models to the next generation, inspiring and empowering others to pursue their ambitions with confidence and pride.

Frank Kameny (1925-2011)

Frank Kameny had a passion for astronomy from a young age, majoring in Physics in his degree at Queens College and completing his PhD later at Harvard University. He worked for the Army Map Service, working to develop and analyse astronomical maps during the conflict between the Soviet Union and the US. Unfortunately, he was fired shortly after it came to their attention that he identified as gay, and with his security clearance removed, he was no longer able fulfil this passion. In 1961, he became the first to petition the Supreme Court with a discrimination claim based on sexual orientation, and committed to being a LGBTQIA+ activist, organising protests and assisting others with their discriminatory law suits.

Sally Ride (1951-2012)

On 18 June 1983, Sally Ride became the first American woman to travel to space, as she completed her journey on the Challenger’s STS-7 mission. Beyond her vital work at NASA, she founded Sally Ride Science, a non-profit organisation which encouraged women to pursue STEM subjects. Sally had preferred to keep her identity as part of the LGBTQIA+ community private until after her death, in which she posthumously revealed that she had an intimate relationship with her working partner, Tam O’Shaughnessy. In 2013, the year after her passing, she was honoured with the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Obama.

Edith Windsor (1929-2017)

In the 1960s, Edith Windsor was a pioneering computer programmer who exceeded in her career. She famously worked at IBM for 16 years, reaching the greatest possible position as a Senior Systems Programmer, a feat even more impressive as a woman in this era. She was an LGBTQIA+ activist and played a vital role in the Supreme Court case Windsor vs United States, in which she famously argued for a tax refund after the passing of her partner, which led to the court granting more benefits to same-sex couples. People often reference this as a turning point for same-sex couple in the US, and she is therefore remembered with the utmost respect. In 2013, she was a finalist for TIME magazine’s Person of the Year, and was described by TIME as “the matriarch of the gay-rights movement”.

Nergis Mavalvala (1968-)

Nergis Mavalvala is an astrophysicist who played a key role in the discovery of gravitational waves from the collision of two black holes. In his theory of general relativity, Albert Einstein had theorised this phenomenon, but it was Nergis and the rest of her team who were able to confirm this. Nergis has always been thoroughly committed to her education, completing her doctorate degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Astrophysics. She refers to herself as an “out, queer person of colour”, and dedicates herself to challenging discrimination in STEM.

Audrey Tang (1981-)

Audrey Tang is a computer scientist who first brought attention to their technological skill in 2014 during the Sunflower Protests in Taiwan as an open-source hacker, by helping to stream videos of the movement across the country. Tang later joined the ministry at 35, becoming the first ‘Digital Minister’ and Taiwan’s first transgender and non-binary minister. They have since been involved in revolutionary programmes, such as an educational initiative that helped equip young people with skills to identify fake news stories, as well as developing the ‘Mask Map’ during COVID-19, an online application which showed where masks were available to purchase during a national shortage.

At Mathys & Squire, we believe it is essential that everyone feels empowered to bring their full, authentic selves to work. We are deeply committed to fostering a workplace culture where diversity is celebrated, inclusion is prioritised, and everyone feels respected, valued, and supported.

Click here to read more about our Diversity & Inclusion policies.

IPSS Electra Valentine has co-written an article highlighting the meaning of Juneteenth as part of her role on the IP & ME committee at IP inclusive.

Yesterday marked Juneteenth, a significant day commemorating the end of slavery in the United States. It serves not only as a moment to celebrate freedom, but also an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of Black history, culture, and the ongoing journey toward equality.

The article examines the historical context of this day and considers its relevance and significance for IP professionals based in the UK, highlighting how its themes of freedom, justice, and inclusion resonate within the industry today.

Click here to read more.