Contact
Contact

Did you know that the use of beetroot juice in increasing an individual’s VO2 max has been patented, or that a patent is pending to the use of a probiotic for improving training endurance? Or have you heard that there’s a patent application directed to a broccoli sprout extract which reduces blood lactate accumulation during exercise?

World IP Day falls on 26th April and this year’s theme belongs to sports tech. This article seeks to provide a brief snapshot of the contribution sports nutrition makes to the innovation landscape, and what kind of innovation is patentable in this space.

A hotbed for innovation

It is common knowledge that the pharmaceutical industry is underpinned by research and innovation which is constantly pushing at the boundaries of what is possible in providing therapeutic solutions to the diseases and disorders afflicting society. However, the nutraceutical and functional food sector is proving that it too is a hotbed for research and innovation, as well as competition. Indeed, as it currently stands,food chemistry patents have the highest opposition rate before the European Patent Office (EPO), followed by pharmaceutical and polymer patents.

This reflects the rapid growth within the market of functional foods, providing health benefits beyond basic nutrition. The European Functional food market size is projected to nearly double to USD 111.13 million by 2034. A strong driver of this growth is in the soaring popularity of sports nutrition. Attitudes towards health and fitness are continuously shifting and previously specialist products are now breaking into the mainstream market, expanding the pool of target customers.

In an increasingly crowded market, where the innovation landscape is constantly evolving, protecting an innovative product and its potential future market share is vital. Whilst trade secrets and know-how can be very useful, they do not prevent competitors reverse engineering the products of innovation. Companies with registered IP rights, like trade marks and patents, and other intangible assets that can be accounted for more easily in company valuations, tend to attract more investor attention. Registered rights can also open up licencing opportunities or help formalise collaboration agreements with bigger players. Patents can also be of marketing value in and of themselves by highlighting a company’s innovation credentials.

What can you patent in sports nutrition?

Patents can protect almost all inventions that are novel and provide a non-obvious solution to a technical problem, and sports nutrition is no exception.  This may cover new products or formulations, as well as new methods of preparing products. However, it also extends to new uses of (even known) substances, such as new sports-related uses.

For example, Velositol® and Nitrosigine® are both patented complexes used as nutritional supplements to improve sports performance. Velositol® (a complex of chromium and amylopectin) enhances muscle protein synthesis, while Nitrosigine® (a form of inositol-stabilised arginine silicate) has been shown to increase nitric oxide levels after regular consumption. Nitric oxide relaxes and widens blood vessels, allowing more blood to flow to the muscles. A dietary source of nitrate may instead be used to increase the body’s nitric oxide levels by consuming, of all things, beetroot juice (Beet It®), the use of which has also been patented for increasing VO2 max levels.

Given the growing understanding of the extensive impact of the gut microbiome on health and wellbeing, it is perhaps not surprising that probiotics may also offer a source of innovation that can be of relevance to sports performance. V·Nella, a supplement formulated by FitBiomics, contains Veillonella atypica and is the subject of a patent application at the EPO directed to its use in increasing training endurance by metabolizing lactic acid.  Meanwhile, the sports drink Nomio – derived from a broccoli sprout extract containing highly bioavailable isothiocyanates (ITCs) – has been shown to activate NRF2 (which regulates cellular antioxidant, detoxification, and anti-inflammatory responses) and shift lactate metabolism beneficially to improve exercise performance. Nomio is also the subject of a pending patent application at the EPO.

Patentable sports nutrition does not even have to be related to physical sports. nooLVL is a patented bonded arginine and silicon complex with inositol, which has been found to improve focus and concentration. nooLVL is marketed towards gamers, showing how nutrition for E-sports can be the subject of patentable innovation too. Indeed, functional foods incorporating cognitive enhancers (so called “nootropics”) are commonplace in sports nutrition (and not just limited to caffeine!).

Advancements in technology such as wearables, AI-driven data, microbiome assessments and the integration of multi-omics mean that sports nutrition-related patents are also moving beyond pure biochemical-based innovation. Wearables and microbiome assessments can track important biomarkers of metabolic health, whilst AI can analyse large amounts of data to facilitate the personalisation of nutrition. Sports nutrition seems set to evolve further to integrate these additional technology advancements, opening up entirely new categories of patentable invention.

A number of products are likely to be joining creatine, rehydration beverages, and protein bars on the shelves as sports enthusiasts increasingly look to newer functional products for increasing physical performance, aiding recovery or even improving mental acuity for sport. Biohacking no longer looks like just a fad. Will beetroot juice be on your breakfast table any time soon?   

This year’s theme for World IP Day is “IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate.” We are publishing a series of articles highlighting the multifaceted role that intellectual property plays in the sports industry.

There are many registered sports-related trade marks, from brands that sell sports gear to sports teams selling branded merchandise. Many famous players have also registered their names as trade marks for commercial purposes, such as David Beckham and Lionel Messi. However, a recent development in the sports world gives rise to interesting questions surrounding trade mark law, and whether the protection offered is sufficient to safeguard the identity and brand of sportspeople and celebrities more generally.  

Last month, Luke Littler, 19-year-old darts World Champion from Cheshire, applied to trade mark his face. Is this a new phenomenon in the sports world?

Athletes’ trade mark strategy

It is not uncommon for athletes to think outside the box when it comes to trade marks. Professional athletes are not always building brands in a traditional sense by selling products under their name, rather, their identity is a valuable asset in itself that can be leveraged for merchandising and endorsement opportunities.  

Athletes are also known not just for their name and image, but for key moments on the pitch or the track. Therefore, instead of just obtaining trade mark protection for their name with a word mark registration, they have sought to gain ownership of their idiosyncrasies which are directly related to their sport.

For example, various athletes have rendered their celebration poses as still images, enabling them to be registered as figurative marks. In 2018, Kylian Mbappé trade-marked his cross-arms celebration pose in the EU and in 2024, Usain Bolt, registered a US trade mark for his post-run gesture. Bolt’s trade mark is described as “the silhouette of a man in a distinctive pose, with one arm bent and pointing to the head, and the other arm raised and pointing upward.” Crucially, however, these marks are registered as figurative logos as opposed to representing movement. These registrations protect only the figurative logo as a specific iteration of the celebration in relation to the registered goods and services, and not the general idea of the celebration itself.

Cole Palmer went one step further in protecting his signature celebration by registering not a figurative mark, but a motion mark. He secured a UK trade mark for his shivering motion in 2024, marking the first time a footballer has registered a motion mark for a celebration. The trade mark entry consists of a video of Palmer performing the motion.

This approach is likely preferable to registering a figurative design, as it could potentially prevent third parties from using Cole Palmer’s image to a greater extent, given that he is personally depicted in the motion mark. However, protection for the celebration itself remains limited, as a third party could simply use another individual to perform the motion to advertise goods and services, which would likely fall outside the scope of the registration.

In a similar vein, Luke Littler is experimenting by registering his own face as a trade mark to obtain some protection.

AI and deepfakes

Why is the protection of his image, or any sportsperson’s or famous person’s image, so important? 30 years on from the birth of the internet, celebrities have learnt to be careful about the way they present themselves. However, with the rise of AI, celebrities can no longer control the way they are portrayed online.

Generative AI can manufacture or manipulate images exactly according to user prompts. Advances in technology mean that AI-generated images are now highly realistic, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between real and generated content. AI-generated or manipulated media that convincingly depict events that never occurred and often involving real people are known as deepfakes.

The emergence of deepfakes has raised serious ethical concerns, as there are few limits to what can be portrayed, and such capabilities can be abused for harmful or inappropriate purposes. Beyond the risk of reputational damage, generative AI also facilitates the unauthorised commercialisation of a celebrity’s likeness.

Concerns are not limited to visual likeness. Scarlett Johansson, for example, has raised concerns that an OpenAI chatbot voice sounds eerie similar to hers after she declined to collaborate with the company.

Can you trade mark a face?

In light of deepfakes, it is understandable why Littler wants to protect his face from misuse, but will it work?

Under trade mark law in the UK, EU and US, a natural face cannot generally be registered as a trade mark, although a stylised likeness may qualify. The key hurdle is distinctiveness, as it is not considered possible for a photorealistic image of a human face to function as a trade mark or brand indicator. An important consideration here is whether a consumer would perceive the face as a brand in and of itself, the registry usually finding in the negative. Over the past decade, the EU IPO has received at least 80 applications for faces, but the majority were rejected due to a lack of distinctive character.

In 2020, Dutch model Maartje Verhoef’s application to register a figurative mark of her face was accepted, albeit this consisted of a simple black and white stylised representation of her face, rather than a photograph or full likeness. However, it was later successfully opposed by a third party due to a lack of distinctiveness based on the argument that her face was not a sign that could be used to distinguish her as a business for modelling services. Although Verhoef got further than most, the registry took quite a strict view here that even the stylised representation of her face was not sufficiently distinctive.

More recently, Matthew McConaughey filed clips of his voice, also with the intention to protect himself from manipulation by generative AI and unauthorised distribution. The clips have been registered at the US Patent and Trademark Office, and include his signature catchphrases.

Littler’s application is currently under examination at the UK IPO but will likely face the same distinctiveness issue, his application being a straightforward headshot. If objected to, Littler may also struggle to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness through use if his face has not already been used commercially as a badge of origin for particular goods and services, with his application covering a wide range of goods including jewellery, beverages and baked goods. If granted, the same issue would arise after five years when the registration becomes subject to proof of genuine commercial use.

Littler is also unlikely to be able to enforce widespread control over the use of his face. The scope of infringement is relatively narrow: the use must be identical or highly similar to the registered image. A figurative or stylised rendering of his face or even a photograph of him in a different context would likely fall outside of the scope of protection. In addition, trade mark infringement only arises when a mark is used in a commercial context as opposed to in a deepfake context where no products or services are being sold.

Image rights: is there another way?

Image rights refer to the ability to control how one’s image is used. They enable individuals to prevent others from using their name, likeness or distinctive personal features without permission. Littler’s application highlights the absence of a unified image rights regime in the UK and raises the question of whether legal reform is needed.

In the US, the “right of publicity” protects individuals against the unauthorised commercial use of their identity, including their name, likeness and other recognisable attributes. However, this right primarily protects economic interests and does not extend to reputational harm or derogatory use.

Last year, Denmark made history by becoming the first country to specifically protect’s one’s image and voice, challenging traditional concepts of intellectual property. By amending its copyright law, Denmark extended protection to individuals’ physical likeness. From 31 March 2026, all citizens have the right to request the removal of AI-generated content, seek compensation, and impose fines on platforms facilitating such use. It remains to be seen whether other European countries will follow suit, but this development may have a broader influence on jurisdictions such as the UK.

Trends in trade mark activity demonstrate that sportspeople are increasingly aware of their personal brand and the need to protect it, much like other celebrities. A carefully planned trade mark strategy is not limited to those who have launched separate commercial brands; it is relevant to any individual whose public profile may expose them to commercial exploitation.

The growing accessibility of generative AI and the rise of deepfakes complicate issues of consent and ownership, bringing the legal protection of likeness into sharper focus.

At present, athletes and celebrities have limited means of controlling how their image is used outside commercial contexts. However, trade marks remain one of the most effective tools for protecting their interests at least on a commercial level. While it remains to be seen whether Luke Littler’s application will succeed, it is a wise branding decision to look to obtain at least some trade mark protection within the existing system.

Wearable technology sits at the intersection between sensor hardware, advanced computing and health monitoring. The smart devices, designed with portability at the forefront, allow users to track their activity levels, sleep quality, heart rate and more, helping to inform their fitness routines, record their sports performance and monitor their general health.

The wearable technology market has expanded significantly throughout the twenty-first century, with new applications and technologies continuing to emerge. Estimated at $92.90bn in 2025, the market value is projected to reach $229.70bn by 2033. One of the industry’s biggest players, WHOOP, recently raised $575 million at a $10.1 billion valuation, demonstrating the popularity of wearable tech, as well as the potential for growth. WHOOP not only provides a fitness tracker, but also a comprehensive personal health platform, and other large companies and startups are following similar trends.

Encompassing consumer technology, health and design, wearable technology is a fascinating area for intellectual property (IP) strategy. Innovators in the space should aim to adopt a comprehensive approach to managing their IP, protecting their inventions, designs and brand to keep an upper hand in the increasingly crowded and rapidly developing landscape.

This article forms a series of articles celebrating this year’s World IP Day, on 26th April, for which the theme is “IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate.”  

Changing innovation in wearable tech

In 1998, Canadian engineer, Steve Mann, built what is considered by many to be the world’s first smartwatch. The Linux-powered smartwatch could wirelessly connect with mobile phones and computers, and was patented in 2000 (CA 2275784: “Wristwatch-based videoconferencing system”). Mann was proclaimed the “father of wearable computing” and his technology paved the way for the introduction of fitness-tracking wristwear like Fitbit, Apple Watch and Garmin Forerunner in the late 2000s and early 2010s. Innovation in the field has focused on improving the technology for optimal performance, including the battery life, sensor accuracy and data analytics.

More recently, the wearable technology market has been expanding beyond smartwatches to devices which are even more compact, or which can more accurately measure certain markers. Smart rings; patches which can be worn 24/7; fabrics with embedded sensors; and even “second skins”, designed to blend seamlessly with human skin, are all gaining traction. Engineers have also harnessed the power of AI, which enables the rapid processing of vast amounts of data, and provides an output of easily digestible results and individual insights.

As the form of wearable technology becomes more adaptable, scientists and companies have also been exploring its uses beyond fitness. Wearable technologies are being explored in the realm of medical devices, offering general health insights or dedicated to specific health conditions. For example, there are wearable devices which continuously monitor glucose, streamlining treatment for diabetics or provide information on the user’s metabolic health; wearable ECG and blood pressure monitors; devices which track ovulation or foetal activity; pain management wearables; and many more.

Startup companies leading innovation

We are proud to work with several clients who are pioneering in the wearable technology space.

ORB Innovations, for example, have created a first-of-its-kind, custom fit “smart” mouthguard which unlocks performance insights for contact and combat sport athletes. The mouthguard tracks heart rate, the intensity of the workout, the stress felt by the athlete’s body, responsiveness and mobility of movements, distance and impact, providing an over-arching and detailed analysis of the workout and empowering athletes with the data they need to reach their full potential.

Another client, Flowbio, is enabling users to monitor their sweat. Their sweat sensor is a device worn against the skin, built to analyse sweat as you train, measuring fluid and sodium loss along with other performance parameters. The data is connected directly with an app which transforms this data into clear, personalised hydration recommendations to unlock better performance for endurance athletes.

Navigating intellectual property in wearable tech

As the wearable tech landscape becomes increasingly competitive, it is of upmost importance for companies to protect their intellectual property, as well as ensure they are not infringing on other existing IP rights. Rapid developments in technology often mean that regular surveillance of the market is required. This can be helpful to monitor the activity of competitors, as well as identify under-patented areas which may  signal white space for innovation.  

There are many aspects to a wearable health-tracking device, often combining form and function, computing and physiology, which mean they can be complex to protect. A multi-faceted innovation requires a multi-faceted approach to IP strategy, bringing together different types of IP rights and approaches.

Patents

Patents protect the core technology behind the operation of a wearable device, including sensors, signal processing, calibration, artifact rejection and power management to name only a few. To obtain patent protection, the technology must be new and inventive. Typically, this means that the technology must include at least one new, non-obvious feature that confers an advantage to the device or software. 

The integration of hardware and software is often a key characteristic of wearable technology, and it may be applicable for a company’s patent portfolio to cover both aspects. Despite common misconceptions, protection can often be obtained for AI or software-based inventions in the wearable technology field, for example, where the invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem.

For such computer-implemented inventions, an understanding of the relevant legal frameworks and tests is very important, particularly during patent drafting. Indeed, the law is constantly evolving to address the rapid development of software and AI technologies. For example, in the recent judgement of Emotional Perception, the Supreme Court decided that UK courts should no longer follow the previously used test for assessing whether a software invention is excluded from patentability, opening up the UKIPO to a change in approach for examining such inventions.

Our patent attorneys have extensive experience working with inventions in these fields and can help to advise on patentability of certain technologies. Please reach out here if you require any guidance.

Confidential information and trade secrets

Confidential information and trade secrets are other forms of IP which help a company maintain a competitive edge. However, both should be carefully managed to ensure they remain secret and retain their value. In wearable technology, examples of confidential information or trade secrets could include proprietary algorithms, machine learning model weightings, un-patented signal processing methods and manufacturing processes, to name a few.

No formal registration is required which means that this approach can be budget-friendly, however businesses should be aware of the risks if their valuable confidential information was to leak. Indeed, if a competitor could reverse engineer aspects of your technology by analysing your product, these aspects are unlikely to be suited to confidential information management or trade secrets, as once these aspects are known, they are no longer protected and their value is lost.

In practice, a blended IP strategy which leverages both patents and trade secrets in a strategic manner is often recommended.

Designs

Wearable devices are not just characterised by their function; the shape and appearance are often also very important, particularly for consumer devices. As users will be wearing them often, the appearance of a gadget may be an important consideration when choosing which device to purchase and can also be an important part of brand identity to the business.

The shape and/or appearance of a wearable device can be legally protected by design rights. In the UK, there are two main types of designs rights: registered design rights and unregistered design rights. Unregistered designs are automatically protected, however they are more limited in duration and only copying of the design is considered to be infringement. In comparison, registered designs require a formal application, but they provide more long-lasting protection and provide a monopoly right to the registered design, meaning they are typically easier to enforce. In addition to the shape and appearance of physical devices, the appearance of a graphical user interface display may also be protectable under registered design protection.

Branding

Another key aspect to wearable technology is the brand behind it. Wearables in the fitness industry are ultimately consumer devices and building a strong brand is an integral step to standing out in the market, as demonstrated by the popularity of WHOOP, Garmin and Fitbit, amongst others. Like the product, the brand also requires protection. This can be achieved through the registration of trade marks; for example, for the brand name and logo, as well as specific device names.

As wearable technology companies continue to grow and evolve, building a robust intellectual property strategy becomes increasingly complex, but also increasingly important. Businesses that take a proactive and strategic approach to IP, integrating patents, trade secrets, designs and trade marks from an early stage, will be best positioned to capitalise on innovation while safeguarding their competitive edge. Where technological advancement is rapid, a comprehensive and evolving IP portfolio is foundational to long-term success.

If you have any questions regarding IP strategy in relation to your business, please reach out to a member of our team.

The UK government’s renewed Women’s Health Strategy published this month is a welcome and meaningful step forward for women’s healthcare. Beyond the benefits this promises for patients, this strategy offers a real opportunity for founders and the wider femtech ecosystem.

More than just policy

For years, femtech has been underfunded and overlooked by mainstream healthcare infrastructure. However, it seems there is now a shift in focus recognising femtech as a high-growth sector worth supporting and investing in. Indeed, a recent report forecasts that the global femtech market will grow to $97 billion by 2030.

A key announcement in the strategy is a £1.5 million Femtech Challenge Fund, designed to accelerate adoption and development of women’s healthcare innovations, particularly those addressing healthcare inequalities. Although details of the fund are not yet known, it is due to be launched within two years and is likely to target technologies such as diagnostic tools, AI symptom checkers, wearables, digital therapeutics and medical devices.

The strategy also commits to establishing a Women’s Voices Partnership to bring organisations together to shape future policy, adding real value for UK-based founders and companies.

The Women’s Health Strategy represents an exciting opportunity through the capital being injected into the sector, as well as through shaping policy and in the procurement relationships and the commercial momentum that NHS-backed adoption can create.

The IP angle

Through our work with early-stage femtech companies at Mathys & Squire, we have seen first-hand the importance of getting an IP strategy in place from the outset. Founders can be taking practical steps now to take full advantage when the fund does launch, in particular to pre-empt two issues that we see too often:

The Women’s Health Strategy is good news for patients and for a sector that has long deserved more attention. As momentum picks up in the sector, founders who get the IP foundations right now will be better placed to compete for funding and NHS partnerships, and to retain the value of their important technologies.

For more information and advice on protecting femtech innovations, please contact us here.

Partner Claire Breheny and Trainee Trade Mark Attorney Tanya Rahman have been featured in The Trademark Lawyer magazine with their article, “No skimming the rules: how the Oatly case reshapes the terminology in a dairy-free and plant-based world.”

In February 2026, the UK Supreme Court ruled to invalidate Oatly’s trade mark, POST MILK GENERATION, after an enduring dispute between Oatly and Dairy UK. The court agreed with Dairy UK’s claim that the phrase violates Part III of Annex VII of EU Regulation 1308/2013 (which is now part of UK law). The Regulation states that dairy terms, such as “milk”, can only be used for products which are animal-derived.

The article analyses in depth the previous developments in Dairy UK Ltd v. Oatly AB, as well as the Supreme Court’s recent decision, and explores how this decision will shape branding strategies among plant-based products in the future.

Read the article in full here.

Partner Anna Gregson has co-authored an article in The Patent Lawyer on “From the seed of an idea to IP: protecting new plant varieties in key markets.”

The article discusses the measures which companies developing new plants can put in place to protect their innovation. It highlights how utility patents have both pros and cons for protecting plant varieties, while a combination of other options may be optimal, including US plant patents and plant variety rights (PVRs).

Read the article in full here.

We are delighted to announce that Mathys & Squire is a Gold sponsor of Life Sciences Patent Network (LSPN) Spring 2026 for the second year running. The event is taking place on the 29th and 30th of April in Boston, Massachusetts.

Partners Hazel Ford, Stephen Garner, Philippa Griffin and Alexander Robinson are attending the event, and Philippa and Stephen are presenting on developments in EPO case law relating to claim interpretation. Our team is looking forward to catching up and sharing knowledge with other leading IP attorneys and life science industry experts from around the world.

Hazel Ford has extensive experience in drafting patent applications and prosecuting them globally. She also has experience with EPO opposition and appeal proceedings, and advises multinational clients on all aspects of patent strategy. Her expertise spans various areas, including antibodies, vaccines, genes, proteins, drug formulation, diagnostics and new administration regimes.

Stephen Garner is experienced in drafting, prosecuting and defending patents across a wide range of pharmaceutical technologies, with a particular focus on those which span the chemical and biological fields. Stephen manages the prosecution of a number of significant global patent portfolios and European SPC portfolios, and regularly advises on SPC matters and EPO oppositions.

Philippa Griffin has a substantial prosecution, opposition, and appeal practice before the EPO, and she is responsible for the coordination and strategic management of complex worldwide patent portfolios covering commercially significant products. She handles inventions in a range of technical areas, including antibodies and immunology, synthetic biology, nucleic acid-based therapies, engineered enzymes, and cardiac diagnostics.

Alexander Robinson has significant experience in contentious inter partes proceedings before the EPO’s Opposition Division and Boards of Appeal. He also manages the prosecution of global patent portfolios relating to authorised medicinal products and drug candidates currently in advanced clinical trials, meaning his practice also extends to SPCs and associated regulatory matters. His work has a particular focus on small molecule pharmaceuticals, antibody-drug conjugates, enzymes, protein production techniques, dosage regimens, dosage forms, biomarkers and diagnostic techniques.

Please reach out to our team if you are interested in arranging a meeting.

For more information on the event, visit the website here.

Contact our team

Hazel Ford – Partner  |  [email protected]

Stephen Garner – Partner  |  [email protected]

Philippa Griffin – Partner  |  [email protected]

Alexander Robinson – Partner  |  [email protected]

London Fashion Week, which took place at the end of February, is one of the most influential events in the global fashion calendar, bringing together designers, brands, buyers and media from around the world.

In recent years, the event has also become an important platform for discussions around sustainability and innovation in textiles, and so it is no surprise that London Fashion Week is taking a leading role within the fashion industry by introducing stricter environmental standards, supporting sustainable designers, and promoting innovative materials and circular fashion practices.

This year was the first year in which the British Fashion Council formally adopted Copenhagen Fashion Week’s Sustainability Requirements for designers supported by NEWGEN, a talent incubator offering the chance to showcase at London Fashion Week. London is the first of the four ‘fashion capitals’ to implement the framework, and it was also the first Fashion Week to ban real fur and animal skins.

Like in many industries, the transition to more sustainable practices within the fashion industry presents major challenges, but it also creates significant opportunities for innovation. One exciting area of innovation is in the development of biomaterial-based textiles. Biomaterials offer sustainable and biodegradable alternatives to petroleum-based synthetic fibres, but several challenges must be overcome before their commercial potential can be realised.

The science of biomaterials

Biomaterials for use in textiles are typically made from naturally occurring biopolymers which can be extracted from or synthesised in living organisms, such as bacteria, plants, algae and fungi. Biopolymers often possess inherent properties which make them particularly well suited to the manufacture of fibres and fabrics, such as high tensile strength, elasticity and durability. For example, microbial silk (polymeric amyloid) fibres have been produced which exhibit greater strength than natural spider silks, and these microbial silk fibres have already been used to produce garments, such as silk ties and designer dresses. Fungal-based materials have also been developed which exhibit comparable properties to leather, while also being environmentally friendly and vegan.

The ability to produce biopolymers in biological systems provides a plethora of advantages. Microbial‑based biopolymer production enables rapid and controlled production from renewable starting materials, such as glucose, plant sugars or agricultural waste. Microbes can also be engineered to modify the existing properties and introduce entirely new properties to the biopolymers, e.g. inherent colour properties.

Although biomaterials offer significant environmental benefits, several challenges currently inhibit their widespread adoption. For example, production costs are typically much higher than for petroleum‑based synthetic fibres, such as polyester, which benefit from pre-existing and well‑established petrochemical processing infrastructure. Similarly, while production of small amounts of biopolymer can often be readily achieved in the lab, scaling production processes to the levels required for industrial production can be slow and costly.

These challenges must be overcome before biomaterial-based textiles are widely available, and at costs acceptable to the typical high street consumer.

Biomaterials at London Fashion Week 2026

While scientists and engineers work to overcome the challenges outlined above, top designers are already embracing biomaterials and London Fashion Week provided the perfect opportunity to display their work. A few of our favourites from London Fashion Week 2026 are highlighted below:

Protecting biomaterial-related innovation

For innovators looking to develop new biomaterials or new production processes, patents provide a powerful tool to protect their innovation and support their commercial development. As with any technology, the existence of a patent portfolio can help to attract investors and can provide a commercial advantage over competitors who might be looking to work in a similar area.

The key patentability considerations for biomaterial-related patent applications are the same as for any type of technology area, i.e. the invention must be novel, non-obvious and industrially applicable. Given the wide range of technical challenges in this area, there are a large number of ‘technical problems’ which can be overcome to demonstrate non-obviousness. Data which demonstrate that the newly developed biomaterials and/or processes are superior to those which are already known are very helpful in this regard. For example, a patent application may demonstrate that a newly developed biomaterial exhibits improved properties (e.g. improved flexibility, durability, tensile strength or water resistance) or that a newly developed process can be scaled to an industrial level without sacrificing the quality of the biomaterial.

While the first patent filing is often the most important, it is essential that technical advancements made while developing new biomaterials and processes are well recorded, and that the patentability of these advancements is considered in their own right. It may be commercially astute to retain some of these developments as trade secrets, but it is important that key technical developments which will be published (or which could be derived from the product) are properly protected by registered IP. The continual development of a patent portfolio will ensure that commercial products are robustly protected.

Conclusion

The science behind biomaterials is rapidly evolving, and overcoming existing challenges will involve multidisciplinary solutions which combine biology, chemistry, materials science, biotechnology and industrial engineering to create sustainable textile alternatives. As research advances, biomaterials are likely to play a major role in reducing the environmental footprint of the textile industry and it may not be long before they become a staple of high street fashion brands.

Mathys & Squire have extensive experience working with clients to protect their biomaterial innovations, supporting highly successful sustainable fashion companies, such as Colorifix. If you would like to find out more, please get in touch with a member of our team via our enquiry form.

Mathys & Squire sponsored the Non-Law into Law Conference for the third year running, with this year’s conference taking place on the 18th of March at the London School of Economics. Partners James Pitchford and Anna Gregson, and Technical Assistant Louis Brosnan all spoke at the event.

The Non-Law into Law (NLIL) Conference is designed for students across a range of academic disciplines, to give the attendees insights into a variety of pathways into legal careers, even though they are not currently studying law.

The conference has been growing every year, with over 300 students now taking part, who engage in a series of panel discussions, presentations and workshops given by experienced lawyers and current trainees in areas such as commercial law, finance law, and Intellectual Property (IP).

Mathys & Squire at the NLIL conference 2026

The team from Mathys & Squire led three events in relation to IP, including a workshop specifically focused on the patent attorney career, aimed at STEM students, and a panel session on careers in IP, for students from all subject backgrounds. The team also ran an interactive IP workshop which provided practical insights into the work of patent and trade mark attorneys, including identifying and capturing IP, and protecting innovations by means of patents, trade marks, registered designs and copyright.

It was a pleasure to attend this year’s event and to highlight the exciting opportunities available in IP professions for graduates and postgraduates. Our team also enjoyed engaging with the enthusiastic attendees and answering their questions on a range of relevant topics, including in respect of developing technical writing skills and the use of AI.

Research from Mathys & Squire on the number of patent applications for anti-drone devices has been featured in the article, “Trial by fire: ‘no training’ to prepare for reforms”, by The Times.

Partner Andrew White has also been featured in a number of publications, following his commentary on the growing demand for technology which defends against drones, as drones become a mainstream security challenge rather than just a niche concern. He notes that the conflict in the Gulf demonstrates a need for anti-drone measures which are not dependent on the use of million-dollar interceptor missiles and will push innovation towards non-traditional approaches.

Publications

Read the extended press release below.

The number of patent applications for anti-drone (counter-UAV) technologies filed globally increased by 27% to 126 last year*, up from 99 the year before, according to new research from leading intellectual property (IP) law firm Mathys & Squire.

The sharp rise in patents filed reflects growing global demand for systems capable of disabling or neutralising drones, whose use has expanded rapidly.

The conflict in the Gulf shows the need for anti-drone measures that aren’t dependent on the use of million-dollar interceptor missiles. Meanwhile, incidents involving suspicious drone sightings in Europe and the US over the past year have raised questions about the vulnerability of both domestic civilian and defence infrastructure to drone attacks.

China dominated the global anti-drone patent landscape, filing 82 applications in the last year alone, far ahead of the US, which recorded just 22 new anti-drone patent submissions. China, the US and South Korea rank as the top three anti-drone patent filers globally.

Top 3 countries by number of anti-drone patent applications

European filers appear to be lagging in anti-drone patent filings, despite the fact that since September, seven major European airports have faced drone-related disruptions, including major hubs such as Brussels and Munich.

Interference and jamming remain the most common area of innovation, recording 49 new patents last year. Signal interference technologies accounting for the largest share of new inventions. This reflects a growing focus on non-kinetic countermeasures designed to disrupt drone communications and navigation systems.

Following recent drone-related incidents – including the temporary suspension of operations in Copenhagen and Oslo airports – technologies that can rapidly disable or disrupt drones, such as signal interference, appear to be in increasing demand.

Number of patents by technology type

However, a notable shift is also underway toward next-generation counter-drone technologies. Laser-related inventions reached 39 in 2025, while microwave systems rose strongly to 24 patents, suggesting increasing interest in directed-energy approaches as part of future airspace security.

Andrew White, Partner at Mathys & Squire says: “Drones have shifted from being a niche concern to a mainstream security challenge and the rise in patent filings reflects that change. With drone disruptions affecting sensitive sites and infrastructure, organisations are racing to develop reliable countermeasures.”

He adds: “We’re also seeing innovation move beyond traditional approaches. Laser and microwave systems are gaining traction in the counter-drone market and this is likely just the beginning of a broader shift in how airspace threats are countered.”

Commercial and infrastructure protection use cases are also growing rapidly, with anti-drone technologies increasingly being developed for use in areas such as airports, prisons, energy infrastructure, ports and large public events.

*Research conducted with a year-end of March 31, 2025