Many growing businesses now recognise the value of an outsourced or fractional General Counsel: senior legal expertise, often with years of practical in-house experience, embedded in the business, but without the cost, risk or long-term commitment of a full-time senior hire. It is a model that gives ambitious companies access to experienced judgement at the point they need it most.
For many SMEs and businesses looking to improve their IP position, there is a strong case for applying the same model to intellectual property.
IP is often central to the value of an innovation-led business. It can protect technical advantage, strengthen brand position, support investment, underpin partnerships, improve negotiating leverage and increase value in a sale or exit. Yet despite its importance, IP is often managed reactively or in a fragmented way, with advice sought only when a problem arises or an opportunity is missed, such as disclosing innovation without protection, encountering a trade mark issue, an ex-employee setting up in competition, investor questions or contract negotiations.
That approach can leave value on the table, create costly delays and expose the business to avoidable risks.
Good IP management is not just about registering rights. It is about making informed, commercial decisions that will shape the future of the business: what to protect, how to protect it, what not to spend money on, how to manage risk, how to structure ownership, how to deal with collaborators and contractors, and how to ensure the IP strategy supports the wider business plan.
The challenge for many SMEs is that they do not need, and often cannot justify, a full-time senior IP hire. But they do need access to experienced IP leadership that can support them through the broad range of real-world IP matters that impact their business now and in the future.
An experienced external IP advisor can provide senior-level strategic, legal and operational support without adding permanent headcount. The support can flex as the business grows: light-touch guidance at an early stage; more regular input during product development, investment rounds or international expansion; and deeper support when preparing for due diligence, licensing, acquisition or exit.
This scalability is one of the model’s key advantages. Businesses can access the right level of expertise at the right time, while maintaining control over cost and avoiding the overhead of building an internal IP function too early.
Our clients work with a dedicated IP advisor who gets to know the business, its technology, its commercial objectives and its key stakeholders. That continuity matters. The best IP advice is rarely given in isolation; it depends on understanding the commercial context, the competitive landscape, the internal priorities and the long-term direction of the company.
At the same time, the dedicated advisor can seamlessly call upon the wider expertise of Mathys and Squire whenever required. That may include specialist patent drafting, trade mark protection, designs, freedom to operate, licensing, due diligence, disputes or valuation support.
For founders and management teams, this provides a practical middle ground: senior IP leadership without senior headcount; strategic continuity without building an internal IP function too early; and access to specialist expertise as needs evolve.
For many SMEs, IP is too important to be left to chance, but a full-time senior hire may not yet be the right answer.
Outsourced IP management offers a scalable, commercial and effective alternative.
Our fractional IP advisor service gives you access to senior strategic, legal and operational IP support on a flexible basis. Click here to learn more.
If you are looking for senior IP input but are not ready for a full-time hire, get in touch here.
On 4th May, the UPC revoked the ‘remdesivir’ anti-viral drug unitary patent owned by Chinese research institute AMMS and rejected all limitations proposed by the patentee (case ID UPC_CFI_552/2025).
Granted on 18 June 2025, the patent EP 3854403 claimed the use of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19, threatening the commercial operations of Gilead Sciences – the original developers of remdesivir. Gilead brought revocation action on the day of grant on the grounds that the claimed second medical use of remdesivir for treating COVID-19 was not inventive and lacked sufficiency.
Remdesivir is a prodrug that is metabolised within cells after it is administered. Once within cells, it is processed into a nucleotide analogue that mimics adenosine (an RNA building block). This nucleotide analogue halts viral replication of RNA viruses by disabling a key viral enzyme, the RNA polymerase, which is required for copying the viral RNA genome. Prior to 2020, remdesivir had not been clinically proven to treat any viral infections, but preclinical research had shown that the drug appeared to be promising for treating infections by coronaviruses SARS and MERS.
Gilead has patents for the compound and for the use of the compound for treating coronavirus infections, the latter of which was filed in 2016, years before SARS-CoV-2 (SARS2) was identified. However, AMMS managed to file an application for the second-medical use of treating viral infections by the newly identified SARS2 before the pandemic was even declared by WIPO and shortly before clinical trials began in China in early 2020.
Narrow second medical use claims are routinely accepted by the EPO, even if an identical treatment for the broader class of a disease (the “first medical use”) has been disclosed before the priority date of the second medical use patent application. However, the requirement for an inventive step still applies and this can be undermined if the skilled person has been provided with some reasonable expectation of success.
In the case of EP 3854403, the Court dismissed the claimant’s sufficient objection but revoked the patent on the grounds that the second medical use lacked an inventive step. The decision issued by the Central Milan Court states that the treatment of COVID-19 with remdesivir was an obvious choice for the skilled person at the application date because the viral genome had been made publicly available before the priority date and it was therefore known to the skilled person that SARS2 was highly similar to SARS1.
The Court further noted that experts had speculated publicly that remdesivir would be a good candidate anti-viral treatment due to the positive results from pre-clinical experiments on SARS1 and MERS. The decision highlights how the UPC applies a strict approach to assessing the inventive step of second medical use and indicates that patentees must be wary of any ‘hints’ to the treatment’s effectiveness published prior to the applications priority date.
Gilead is also pursuing an Opposition against the patent at the EPO. The UPC and EPO are distinct entities so the outcome of the opposition could differ from the UPC’s recent decision, but it seems likely that the EPO will take a similar approach since parallel decisions to date have remained broadly uniform. While the reasoning for decisions occasionally differs, the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G1/24 regarding claim interpretation demonstrated an intent to bring EPO case law in line with UPC rulings.
While the commercial significance for these technologies is huge, several pharmaceutical companies publicly pledged not to enforce their patent rights to allow mass production of life saving drugs and vaccines at a time of global crisis. These allowances were short-lived, ceasing in May 2023 when the pandemic was officially declared to be over, and contentious proceedings are ongoing for a number of critical patents.
The disputes have largely been centred around patents for the widely distributed COVID-19 mRNA vaccine filed early in the pandemic. The most high-profile cases revolve around ongoing infringement and invalidity proceedings between Moderna and BioNTech/Pfizer.
In the wake of the pandemic, applications of thousands of patent families directed to Covid-19 related technologies were filed in the space of a few short years. While many patents filed in 2020 following the characterisation and subsequent proliferation of SARS-COV-2 have been granted, many divisional applications and later developments are still pending prosecution, and may yet be the subject of new infringement and revocation proceedings.
The impact of these patent disputes extends further than the ownership of the IP itself; as the decisions handed down by the UPC and European Boards of Appeal shape the case law on inventive step, plausibility and medical use claims.
Mathys & Squire is proud to share that a selection of our Partners have been featured in the 2026 edition of World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) Leaders.
Partners Claire Breheny, Anna Gregson, Christopher Hamer, Dani Kramer, Alan MacDougall and Andrew White have all been recommended in this year’s guide.
WIPR Leaders is a reputable point of reference providing an insight into the top intellectual property (IP) practitioners who are spearheading the future of IP across six continents. The entrants are chosen based on highly credible peer-to-peer endorsement, as well as their individual credentials. Inclusion in the guide highlights our attorneys’ innovative approach to IP legal practice, and comprehensive ability to advise clients on complex, interdisciplinary IP matters.
The 2026 guide is available on the WIPR website here.
We extend our congratulations to the attorneys who have earned a place in this year’s ranking.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.”
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hazel Ford – Partner | [email protected]
Stephen Garner – Partner | [email protected]
Philippa Griffin – Partner | [email protected]
Alexander Robinson – Partner | [email protected]
