As part of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO)’s endeavours to encourage innovation, they have published a survey requesting feedback on the current UK designs system. Launched earlier this week, the survey is particularly aimed at people who do not consider themselves IP experts, and is described by the UKIPO as “an opportunity for designers, design-led businesses, and manufacturers to have their say on the future of how designs are protected in the UK”.
Registered Designs offer effective, quick and cost-efficient IP protection, and we encourage our clients to take part in this survey to ensure any changes to the UK designs system meet your business needs – whether you already have a large portfolio of Registered Designs or have an interest in using Registered Designs in the future.
The survey can be found here. All responses are anonymous, and it should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. The survey closes on 7 February 2022.
We are delighted to see the UK Government dedicating its time and attention to promoting innovation in the UK using IP frameworks. If any clients or contacts have views on any of the questions the survey seeks answers on, we would be happy to hear your thoughts – please get in touch.
The first article in our ‘IP trends for 2022’ series on innovation and technology focuses on ‘Biology 2.0’ and how it is impacted by deep tech and artificial intelligence (AI).
You may have heard of ‘Industry 4.0’ as being the ‘fourth industrial revolution’, relating to the digital transformation of manufacturing, production and related industries, as well as value creation processes. Looking to the year ahead, the term you should become familiar with is ‘Biology 2.0’ –where biology and technology unite in deep tech companies.
As summarised by Eroom’s law (a clear contradiction of Moore’s law), to date advances in biology, such as drug discovery, are becoming slower and more expensive over time, despite improvements in technology – with the costs of bringing a drug to market now amounting to about $2.5 billion and taking over 10 years. Now, 20 years since the human genome project, things finally look set to change. Over recent years we have heard of – and previously reported on – British Research Lab DeepMind’s AI ‘AlphaFold’ programme (owned by Google parent company Alphabet), which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to perform predictions of protein structure. Due to advances in engineering and computer science, and in particular AI, we are now starting to see fundamental changes to the way in which problems in biology are addressed, making use of these advances in AI technologies. This has been referred to by some in the field as ‘Biology 2.0’ – where engineering and computer science principles are applied to biological problems.
Examples of applications where advances are already taking place include:
Companies such as Foundation Medicine develop, manufacture and sell genomic profiling assays based on next-generation sequencing technology for solid tumours, hematologic malignancies and sarcomas, that can be used to match patients to targeted therapies, immunotherapies and clinical trial options. They also partner with the biopharma industry to help discover, develop and distribute the next breakthrough treatments for patients.
The Medicines Discovery Catapult, is testing an in silico (i.e. on a computer) pipeline for identifying new molecules for cancer treatment, for example, applying AI to find new disease ‘drivers’ and candidate drugs for lung cancer. Backed by Innovate UK, it is hoped that this will derisk future research and development projects and also demonstrate new cost and time-saving approaches to drug discovery.
It has been found that neural networks (used in AI) in particular are great at applications that depend on sequential data such as DNA sequence data. Biofacturing companies, such as Zymergen, are exploiting protein structures, such as those produced by DeepMind relating to microbes (e.g. organisms like E. coli), and using them to make products with biology. It is hoped that such data generated by DeepMind can be used for ‘synthetic biology’ – for example, to create microbes that better produce breakthrough chemicals and materials.
Companies such as Brainomix specialise in the creation of AI-powered imaging biomarkers that enable precision medicine for better treatment decisions.
Making use of advanced AI techniques, scientists in the US have developed a tiny camera the size of a coarse grain of salt that takes full-colour images that are as good as ones taken with camera lenses 500,000 times larger in size – which may have real world use, for example in diagnostic imaging (as well as potentially improving the quality of selfies in your smartphone!).
CoMind is working on next-generation non-invasive brain-computer interfaces which will help to develop and improve understanding of the human brain and neurological disorders.
It is clear that there are numerous opportunities to explore within ‘Biology 2.0’ and we are excited to already be working with many innovators in this field. Of course, as with many deep tech companies, those involved in ‘Biology 2.0’ are very IP-rich, however, they often need significant capital investment before they can begin generating revenue. Once a specific milestone is reached and such organisations do start generating revenue, progress can be very significant and. This requires a different model and mindset from investors and those involved in the field, as well as an effective IP strategy to match that can be used to monetise the IP assets.
Our team of patent, trade mark and design attorneys have considered the legal landscape, recent technical developments and inventions, as well as the marketplace, to predict the likely trends that businesses should look out for in the next 12 months.
To kick off our ‘IP trends for 2022’ series, we will be marking National Technology Day (today, 6 January) by looking at emerging trends in the technology space, covering deep tech, blockchain and cleantech. Mathys & Squire is delighted to support researchers, engineers and entrepreneurs in identifying and protecting the intellectual property in their technological inventions. On National Technology Day, it is important to not only spotlight existing innovations that have impacted the world we live in and celebrate their inventors, but also to look to the future and how further developments in technology will shape its course.
Snippet versions of the three articles, written by Partner Andrew White and Associates Dylan Morgan and Oliver Parish, can be found below, with extended versions of each article available throughout January.
Looking to the year ahead, the term you should become familiar with is ‘Biology 2.0’ – where biology and technology unite in deep tech companies. As summarised by Eroom’s law, advances in biology, such as drug discovery, are becoming slower and more expensive over time, despite improvements in technology. Now, 20 years since the human genome project, things finally look set to change.
Due to advances in engineering and computer science, and in particular AI, we are now starting to see fundamental changes to the way in which problems in biology are addressed, making use of these advances in AI technologies. This has been referred to by some in the field as ‘Biology 2.0’ – where engineering and computer science principles are applied to biological problems.
It is clear that there are numerous opportunities to explore within ‘Biology 2.0’ and we are excited to already be working with many innovators in this field. Of course, as with many deep tech companies, those involved in ‘Biology 2.0’ are very IP-rich, however, they often need significant capital investment before they can begin generating revenue. This requires a different model and mindset from investors and those involved in the field, as well as an effective IP strategy to match that can be used to monetise the IP assets.
Click here to read the full article
An increasing number of patent applications for blockchain related inventions have been filed around the world. Despite the large number of patent filings, there is still a dearth of blockchain-specific case law and some lack of clarity over exactly what is patentable, and to what degree.
Patent applications of course go hand in hand with developments in technology and in commercial focus. In this regard, we expect that a particular area of interest in the coming year will be non-fungible tokens, which have moved into the spotlight in the past year.
Click here to read the full article
During the COP26 summit held in October – November 2021, hundreds of governments, cities and businesses signed a declaration to work towards making all new vehicles release zero emissions by 2040 at the latest. In 2022, we can therefore expect to see a focus on innovation in battery technology, particularly energy storage solutions and fast charging inventions, to make electric vehicles (EVs) practical and affordable for all consumers.
During the climate change conference, there was also a renewed emphasis on the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. With power generation making up a significant proportion of total greenhouse gas emissions, we can expect to see further inventions and innovative developments in renewable energy technologies in 2022.
Click here to read the full article
The 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) consisted of 12 days of discussions and debates between climate activists, governmental representatives, and politicians. As per the Paris Agreement, the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius has been high on the agenda, with this year’s summit working to transition this from a mere target to an actionable plan. A few weeks on from the COP26 summit in Glasgow, we take a look at some of the agreements.
The topic of clean technologies has been consistently mentioned throughout the summit and has encouraged over 40 world leaders to sign and commit to the ‘Glasgow Breakthroughs’ and the Glasgow Climate Pact. The overall goal of the initiative is to strengthen climate action and speed up the development of clean technologies, allowing the signatories to meet the 2030 targets and 2050 net zero goal.
This set of leader-led commitments aims to accelerate innovation and the deployment of clean technologies in five sectors: power, road transport, steel, hydrogen and agriculture, with a target deadline of 2030. The specific aims include:
Power: To make clean power the most affordable and reliable option to all countries to meet their power needs efficiently by 2030. Despite the official target only being set in November 2021, many companies have already been working on inventions to help implement clean power across the world. For example, OXTO Energy, as mentioned in our earlier COP26 article, has developed flywheel batteries for stabilising the intermittent supply of energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar.
Hydrogen: To make affordable, renewable and low carbon hydrogen globally available by 2030. There are already such initiatives and inventions in place to achieve this goal, Including the work of Enapter, which develops technology to turn renewable electricity into emission-free green hydrogen gas.
Road transport: To make zero-emission vehicles the new normal by making them accessible, affordable and sustainable in all regions. There has already been a shift in this area, with many car brands developing and producing carbon neutral vehicles.
Agriculture: To make climate smart and sustainable agriculture the most attractive and widely adopted option for farmers everywhere by 2030.
Steel: To make near-zero emission steel the preferred choice in global markets, with efficient use and production established in every region by 2030.
Most signatories have already made some progress in the five sectors mentioned above as part of their attempts to meet the Paris Agreement targets and net zero goal by 2050. The ‘Glasgow Breakthroughs’ will contribute to the success of all international climate change plans through a range of international initiatives to drive innovation and scale up the green industry. The commitment – and ideally completion – of these breakthroughs over the next eight years will place signatories on track to reaching all other long-term climate change tackling plans.
Alongside the ‘Glasgow Breakthroughs’, world leaders have signed the Glasgow Climate Pact, with a common theme of technology transfer and its role in the mitigation of, and adaption to, the adverse effects of climate change. The Standing Committee on Patents at WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) has considered the role of patents in the effective transfer of technology and found that the “fundamental elements of the patent system play an important role in the dissemination of knowledge and the transfer of technology”. The ability of the patent system to crystalise a technological development or invention makes it the ideal vehicle to transfer technology internationally. The patent system is also well placed to reconcile the interests of the technology-rich parties and the requirements of those looking to benefit, by balancing a limited monopoly with sufficient disclosure.
Aside from the ‘Glasgow Breakthroughs’ and the Glasgow Climate Pact being signed, COP26 delegates have also addressed the global net zero target by mid-century, producing measurable goals to protect communities and habitats most impacted by adverse effects of climate change, through raising $100 billion every year and finalising the implementation rules for the Paris Agreement. The effects of the summit are set to impact the next few decades and shape the future of the green economy; we wait with anticipation to see these proposals materialise.
In a judgment by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) earlier this year, [2021] EWHC 1007 (IPEC) (Claydon), an important question regarding the issue of whether testing a prototype on private property can constitute a prior disclosure was addressed. This decision has important ramifications for how much precaution an inventor must take when conducting tests, especially in sectors involving large commercial equipment. At first glance, this decision seems to run counter to the earlier Court of Appeal decision in [2019] EWHC 991 (Pat) (Hozelock) which had similar circumstances. However, an important distinction is revealed when examining the facts of the two cases.
In Hozelock, the invention in question was an expandable garden hose, that the inventor had developed in his garden which was visible from a nearby road. An important point of contention in this case was whether the inventor’s actions amounted to a public disclosure which rendered the patent obvious.
The judge drew a distinction between the scenario where the public is given access to information, in whatever form, but no one takes up the opportunity to look at it, versus the present scenario of Hozelock, where no member of the public could have got access to the information.
The reason no one could have accessed the information is because it was held that if a member of the public had tried to observe the inventor in his garden, the inventor would have simply ceased his activity and concealed the prototypes. This distinction allowed the judge to reach his conclusion that no public disclosure had been made by the inventor in his garden.
Whilst the Hozelock case concerned a garden hose invention, Claydon involved a tractor pulling a seed drill. This difference in magnitude between the inventions was key to how the decision was made.
In Claydon, the inventor tested the prototype in his farm before filing for the patent. There was a six-foot tall hedge surrounding his farm but it had several gaps, through which anyone could look and take note of his invention. The claimant contended that the prototype could have been seen by anyone from the public footpath, thus gaining enough information to understand the invention.
In his witness statement, the inventor said that he had previous experience of patents and had learned the hard way that public disclosure of his invention would jeopardise the chances of getting a patent granted. With this in mind, he assumed he could prevent anyone who was nearby from seeing it, by simply driving away.
In cross-examination, it emerged that the point of public access from which an observer would have been best placed to witness the testing of the prototype was a point on the public footpath. According to the inventor, the path was very rarely used in 2002, however this statement still implied that the public had access to it.
It was observed in this case that there is clearly a difference between quickly and effortlessly concealing a garden hose in a container versus driving a conspicuous vehicle away from someone whilst on a large flat field. Also of note was the fact that, even if the vehicle had driven away too far for someone to observe, it would have still left behind ‘tines’ in the field which would have given insight into how the seed drill worked.
As it turns out, no one saw the inventor’s prototype. Unfortunately for him, in both UK and European patent law, the standard is not whether the prototype was actually seen, but whether it was made available to the public.
The judge found that a skilled person, standing on the public footpath, would have been able to see the prototype in action and been able to deduce from its appearance and from the appearance of soil left in its wake, features of construction of the prototype. Further, the judge did not believe that the inventor could have feasibly taken action that would have prevented the skilled person from seeing or inferring each of those features, including the alignment of the tines. Therefore, the patent was found invalid because of prior public disclosure.
Both of the aforementioned cases involved a prototype invention being tested by the inventor on private property that was within viewing distance of public property. What ultimately led to the different decisions for these cases was the fact that, in the Hozelock case, the invention in question was small and portable, so in theory, could have easily been concealed if a member of the public was observing the inventor during testing. In the Claydon case however, the invention was large, not portable and was situated in a wide open area and in theory, if a member of the public began to observe the inventor testing the invention, the inventor would not have been able to realistically do anything to effectively conceal what they were doing.
This decision raises the practical question of how inventors can confidentially test and develop large inventions outdoors at their own premises. One may even go as far as claiming that this would contravene the principle of non-discrimination based on the field of technology under Article 27 TRIPS, which states that:
“[…] patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the […] field of technology […]”
In other words, inventions incorporated in larger products might de facto be discriminated vis-à-vis inventions related to smaller ones as there is uncertainty as to whether a large invention can be tested in the field without risking loss of novelty. It seems that this decision falls within the definition of de facto discrimination as, whilst the ruling appears neutral, as it is not formally addressed to a particular field of technology, its actual effect is to impose negative consequences on inventors within industries which require large scale tests. For some this finding is likely to be considered unfair and difficult to justify.
In brief, the consultation is designed to seek opinions on the issues SEPs raise in relation to market functionality and the balance the current system strikes for industry and innovators, as well as SEP rights holders. The responses will help the UK Government assess whether intervention is required to optimise the UK intellectual property (IP) framework with the aim to promote innovation and competition.
A rise in the use of wireless technologies (3G, 4G and 5G), coupled with increasing globalisation of commerce and a need for interoperability, has resulted in the increasing importance of technical standards. This call for views on SEPs forms part of the UK Innovation Strategy published in July earlier this year which sets out the Government’s long-term plan for delivering innovation-led growth.
The consultation also comes in response to the Government’s Telecoms Diversification Strategy where SEPs were identified by the Diversification Taskforce as a potential barrier to diversification of the telecoms landscape. This call for views therefore aims to establish whether government intervention is required and seeks evidence to better understand what the intervention could look like to improve market functioning and promote innovation within the SEP system.
The call for views focuses on four specific areas:
The call for views will run for 12 weeks – opening from 7 December 2021 and closing at 11:45pm on 1 March 2022.
Respondents must submit a completed response form available online to [email protected]. The form sets out 27 questions further breaking down the four key areas described above.
After the deadline, the UK Government will consider the responses and we can expect the publication of a formal report summary in due course. The call for views states that the information obtained will inform government’s decision on any potential intervention that is required within the SEP ecosystem.
We are pleased to see the attention the UK Government is dedicating to promoting innovation and creativity within the UK using IP frameworks. If any clients or contacts have views on any of the questions the consultation seeks answers on, we would be happy to hear their thoughts.
Good things come to those who wait. After years of seemingly little to no progress and challenging negotiations, and with the Unitary Patent (UP) being on the verge of introduction several times, the time has finally come. Despite many hurdles, unforeseen detours, and some political headwind, the way now seems clear for the UP.
The Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) seemed set to be on the verge of introduction a few years ago. However, various political imponderables such as Brexit – with the subsequent exit of the UK from the EU and thus also the UP and the UPC – as well as legal hurdles such as the lawsuits against ratification of the UPC before the German Federal Constitutional Court, have delayed its implementation. In July 2021, the long-awaited decision of the Federal Constitutional Court removed the last obstacle to said ratification. Despite federal elections taking place the same year, Germany swiftly ratified, so that the three required states with the highest number of European patents filed – France, Italy and Germany – had thus taken the decisive step towards the UPC and the UP coming into effect. After a range of further national ratifications, the final required national decision is now awaited for 2 December 2021 with the ratification of the UPC being on the agenda of the Austrian Federal Council.
With the political hurdles regarding the ratification process thus overcome, implementation of the UPC and the connected UP can finally commence. However, the main effort still lies ahead: administrative structures now have to be created and the required staff must be hired and trained.
Patent owners will now be able, and are in fact required, to do their part as well, as far as considerations and decisions are concerned. Even if the actual UPC start date is not likely before 1 January 2023, the likely advantages and risks of the new system are already known. As the UP is closely interlinked with existing European patent law in terms of its structure, it is advisable for patent owners to take a closer look at this linkage and to consider its effect on existing patent portfolios as well as on the future filing strategy in more detail.
Due to the multitude of possible patent uses, as well as varied market and competitor scenarios, no general recommendation can be made regarding UPC opportunities and risks. Rather, a detailed analysis of the individual business’ entire IP situation is required. This is the only way to ensure that patent owners are fully prepared prior to the introduction of the UP, both with a view to their portfolio and comprehensive overall strategy. This can range from active use of the UP; to a ‘wait-and-see’ approach while requesting to opt-out; to possible avoidance strategies through national applications. Regardless of the approach, at least there is now some clarity around the long-delayed start of the UPC so that patent owners can get prepared.
Click here to read the above article in German.
The UK Government officially launched its consultation on intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI) on 29 October 2021, as part of the National AI Strategy (see our summary here) which aims to ensure the UK continues to be a world-leader in AI development and deployment.
In brief, the consultation is designed to seek opinions on the issues surrounding IP – in particular copyright and patents – and AI as a tool for innovation and creation. The responses will help the UK Government to design and implement solutions that will tackle these issues and pave the way through our increasingly AI-driven world.
This consultation follows the earlier call for views on AI and IP, a response to which was published in March 2021, in which a number of questions were raised regarding the role of copyright and patents to protect inventions and creative works arising from AI.
For example, there was concern that copyright can restrict the development of AI by limiting what sources can be used for developing or training AI. In addition, issues were identified with the patent system that may also act as a barrier to AI innovation or use.
There is also the ongoing debate over whether IP rights can or should be used to protect inventions and creative works partly or wholly arising from AI, and how or to what extent this protection occurs.
The consultation therefore focuses on three specific areas to understand these issues in more detail:
The ambition behind the consultation is to ‘encourage innovation in AI technology and promote its use for the public good’. In addition, the consultation aims to ‘preserve the central role of IP in promoting human creativity’.
Similarly, the UK Government have emphasised that any new measures implemented as a result of the consultation must also meet these goals and be based on the best available economic evidence.
The consultation will run for 10 weeks – it began on 29 October 2021 and will close at 11.45pm on 7 January 2022. Responses must be submitted via a completed response form, available online, to a specially created email address. The form is split into two main sections; one requests information from the responder, and one sets out 21 questions further breaking down the three key areas described above.
Following the consultation, the UK Government will consider the responses and publish a formal response document in due course. The consultation states that the information obtained will be used to inform government decisions on any changes to legislation that appear necessary as a result and will help to achieve the aims of encouraging AI innovation and implementation, whilst still promoting and protecting human creativity.
The UK Government have also published an Impact Assessment, which provides further information about the consultation and indicates there are no preferred options at this consultation stage. It will be interesting to see whether there is a consensus preferred option from the responses to the consultation, and how the UK Government takes the findings into consideration going forwards.
We are pleased to see the attention the UK Government is dedicating to the role of IP in AI and if any clients or contacts have views on any of the questions the consultation seeks answers on, we would be happy to hear their thoughts.
Thanks to technological advancements and innovation driving change at an increasing rate, business owners are realising that intangible assets and registered rights such as intellectual property (IP) contribute significantly to overall business value. This has therefore sparked the need to understand the value of IP, but – as with all intangible assets – can often be challenging. Mathys & Squire Consulting provides clients with insights into the IP valuation process and a clear understanding of the components of value, as outlined below. Although the valuing of IP can be complex, it is an essential stage to prioritise before engaging in any IP transactions.
A crucial consideration in IP valuation is to understand your business model and to evaluate whether it is most likely to lead to a transaction within reasonable timescales, with a party that has a key position in a strong value chain. It can often be the case that several business model alternatives exist, and numerous factors need to be reviewed to determine the optimum approach to take when valuing IP.
Another aspect to consider is awareness of the assets’ ownership within the value chain (i.e. owned by the customer or sub-contractor). At every step of the value chain, the value of an intangible asset tends to increase, and thus transactions at different levels can yield significantly differing results – both in terms of the level of success of the transaction itself and the ultimate financial outcome.
A further consideration is the reason behind IP valuation in the first place, which could be for the purpose of mergers and acquisitions; securing more funding and investments; asset transfers; infringement-related damage evaluation; or insolvency. All these scenarios call for an IP valuation, but it is likely they will be approached differently. It is therefore crucial to understand the reason for valuation, as it will help determine the most suitable calculation method. Certain circumstances may require a more pragmatic approach than others, and IP valuation should cater to all cases, with the overriding consideration that the IP valuation model is designed to support transaction negotiations.
The flexibility built into the IP valuation process can provide a portfolio’s value at a particular time and market strength. The value of intangible assets and an IP portfolio can fluctuate significantly given changes to the state of the economy, industry trends and market competitiveness. Such valuation should be updated as the business expands or any external changes occur, which could inflate or devalue the asset value.
The industry in which your business operates also has a significant impact on asset valuation. Different industries have varied product development turnaround time, with some being able to market an invention or technology in less than two years, while others may take 15 years to do so. This can directly influence the value of assets in terms of the time to market and market growth. Certain markets also have regulations and de facto standards that businesses must comply with to enter the market. For any new invention, the valuation model needs to take account of ongoing investment required to demonstrate regulatory compliance.
The market context and purpose of intangible asset and IP valuation are key factors in establishing a negotiation position, leading to a successful transaction. Mathys & Squire Consulting has developed a methodology that can be used to enable clients to understand where the key value drivers are within a transaction, which leads to meaningful and efficient negotiations.
8 November marks National STEM Day – a time to celebrate the importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects at school. As a firm that supports technologically innovative clients with IP legal advice, we need attorneys who understand a wide range of different technologies. We acknowledge there are too few young people studying STEM subjects at higher education.
Our commitment to inspiring students to choose STEM careers led us to the UK Electronics Skills Foundation (UKESF), a charity we have now been working with for over four years.
Since 2012, over 600 engineering undergraduates have participated in the UKESF Undergraduate Scholarship Scheme, with work placements being provided by 65 different companies. Of those that have graduated, 91% are engaged in the electronics and technology sector. In addition to scholarships and work placements, UKESF also works with schools and universities to raise awareness, support students during their studies, and promote inclusion and diversity amongst them. To celebrate National STEM Day 2021, together with UKESF we have outlined four examples of the opportunities available to you should you choose to pursue a STEM subject education.
Living in a world full of technology encourages young innovators to keep researching, working, and creating. Our daily lives are increasingly impacted by technological innovations, such as smart phones, electric vehicles, robots and the Internet of Things, which all have one thing in common: they depend on electronics. Having the knowledge and skillset to develop the next ground-breaking technological advancement can equip you with power to shape the future.
Studying STEM subjects can open many doors and introduce you to some of the most rewarding career routes – from saving lives in hospital, to researching vaccines or teaching the next generation. Choosing a career in electronics can enable you to work on the latest technological advances that will solve problems and make people’s lives better or allow you to become a patent attorney who helps to provide the protection for those innovations, and hence encourage the investment required to turn those ideas into products that can make a real societal difference.
Pursuing a STEM education equips you with transferable skills, which you can use to excel in professional and private life, including attention to detail, determination, problem-solving, critical thinking, resilience and communication. Such skills will not only make you an outstanding candidate for a STEM-related role, but also any other career you wish to follow.
The demand for skilled scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians is constantly increasing, as the world relies more heavily on their research and work. With the electronics industry in the UK growing extremely quickly and accounting for more than 6% of the nation’s GDP, electronics is an intellectually stimulating, and financially rewarding, career path to follow if stability, growth and development are important.
The benefits associated with education and careers in STEM go far beyond those mentioned above. In an article for Electronics Weekly, five of our attorneys have shared their experience of studying electronics or physics and how that led them to becoming patent attorneys. Along with the UKESF, our mission is to encourage more young people to consider these careers, by providing them with the skills and support they need to succeed. If a career in electronics is of interest to you, get in touch with UKESF to explore how they can help you take the first steps.
