Partners Nicholas Fox and Dylan Morgan have been featured in ‘Biggest UK and EU Patent Developments of 2026 So Far’ in Law360.
In the article, Nicholas Fox comments on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Emotional Perception, discussing the monumental impact of the ruling on case law and whether this impact will be reflected in upcoming legal decisions regarding the patentability of AI and software.
Dylan Morgan shares his insights on the Amazon v InterDigital case in the telecoms space, suggesting that we may be moving towards an outcome where licensors are able to bring separate actions in different courts, with one court rejecting orders determined by other courts.
Click to read the full article in Law360 here.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents marks the most significant change to UK computer-implemented invention jurisprudence in two decades. In adopting an approach aligned more closely with EPO jurisprudence and G 1/19, the Court held that the four-stage Aerotel test should no longer be followed. Instead, the analysis focuses on the technical character of the claimed invention, including an intermediate assessment of which features contribute to that technical character before substantive patentability requirements are considered.
As the UKIPO’s updated examination guidance recognises, the question is no longer whether a claimed contribution passes the Aerotel framework, but whether the invention, considered as a whole, contains features that contribute to technical character in a manner recognised by Article 52 EPC jurisprudence.
The obvious starting point for the new intermediate step, namely identifying features capable of contributing to the technical character of an invention, is the existing EPO Board of Appeal jurisprudence. In practice, the Supreme Court’s endorsement of G 1/19 appears likely to bring UK law much closer to the COMVIK approach applied by the EPO. The focus therefore shifts to identifying which features contribute to technical character and which instead relate to non-technical aims, such as commercial, administrative or cognitive requirements.
In general, EPO case law indicates that the following are considered “technical”:
Conversely, EPO case law generally treats applications directed to the following matters as non-technical:
Notably, none of the EPO categories is technology-specific. AI, simulation, modelling and data analysis appear on both sides of the technical/non-technical divide. What matters is not the technology being used, but whether the claimed features contribute to a technical purpose. The same machine-learning technique may therefore be technical in one context and non-technical in another.
Under the COMVIK approach, the decisive question is not whether a claim contains technical features, which most computer-implemented inventions inevitably do, but whether the features relied upon for inventiveness provide a technical solution to a technical problem. It is against that background that the historic UKIPO decisions become particularly interesting.
Previous UKIPO decisions were decided using the Aerotel test, whereas the post-Emotional Perception analysis focuses on identifying features that contribute to the technical character of the claimed invention. Although the analytical framework has changed, the underlying enquiry is often directed at similar questions. In Emotional Perception itself, the Supreme Court noted that, although Aerotel was no longer to be followed, there was likely to be little change in what was and was not patentable, and no examples of a change in outcome had been identified to the Court. That observation provides an important reason for examining historic UKIPO decisions: while they were decided under a different legal framework, they may nevertheless offer useful evidence of the types of problems that the Office has historically regarded as technical.
Against that background, it is instructive to compare EPO jurisprudence with UKIPO decisions made under the Aerotel framework to determine whether similar patterns emerge.
Perhaps the clearest category of cases to succeed before the UKIPO comprises inventions operating directly within industrial environments.
An example is Fisher-Rosemount Systems (O/141/21), which concerned the management of maintenance activities within a process plant, including identification of suitably qualified personnel, provision of process diagrams and automated verification of completed work. In that case the hearing officer considered the interaction with the process plant itself to provide the necessary technical contribution.
Similarly, in General Electric (O/029/19), the invention analysed generator sensor data to identify faults and anomalies. The hearing officer concluded that the invention went beyond a computer program as such and remitted the application for further examination.
Applications involving the processing of measurements derived from the physical world also fare well.
In Accipiter Radar Technologies (O/390/17), the invention concerned a three-dimensional radar system capable of real-time tracking and analysis of airborne targets. The hearing officer found that the contribution lay not merely in the presentation of information but in the operation of the radar system and associated database architecture for generating previously unavailable information in operational timeframes.
Likewise, in Hitachi (O/809/18), a construction-site management system used laser-scanned three-dimensional representations of a site to identify congestion and safety issues. The hearing officer accepted that the claimed alerting system produced a technical contribution.
These decisions suggest that the processing of measurements obtained from physical systems remains one of the strongest indicators of technical character.
A further category of successful cases concerns simulation linked to physical systems.
In Landmark Graphics (O/112/18), seven applications concerning visualisation and manipulation of subterranean geology were found not to relate merely to excluded subject matter. The hearing officer considered that the inventions addressed technical issues arising in the modelling of subsurface formations.
A second group of applications from the same applicant in Landmark Graphics (O/138/18) concerning computer-implemented geological modelling similarly resulted largely in success, with three of four inventions being held non-excluded.
These decisions are notable because they demonstrate that software modelling can be technical where it is sufficiently connected to physical reality.
Business methods remain among the least successful categories.
In Google (O/0115/23), a privacy-preserving system for gathering store visit analytics was refused because the contribution was characterised as a business method implemented by conventional computing means.
Likewise, in Reaux-Savonte (O/0722/25), a distributed ledger system involving transaction validation and reward mechanisms was found to relate to a business method and computer program as such.
Notably, neither privacy features nor blockchain architecture were sufficient to transform the inventions into technical solutions in the eyes of the hearing officers.
The UKIPO also consistently rejected inventions directed primarily to deriving information for human decision-making.
In IBM (O/0528/25), an invention for identifying molecular dynamic states from large datasets, potentially useful in drug discovery, was refused because the hearing officer found no technical effect beyond analysis of information.
Similarly, healthcare decision-support systems predicting patient treatment requirements have struggled where the outcome is ultimately information for a clinician rather than an improvement in a technical process.
The most informative decisions are often those where similar technologies appear on both sides of the line.
Landmark Graphics provides a striking example.
As noted above, in O/112/18 and O/138/18, geological modelling inventions were largely allowed because they addressed technical issues associated with modelling subterranean formations.
However, in a later case, O/1058/23, Landmark’s application for a seamless geological model spanning scales from planetary down to pore level was refused as a computer program as such.
The distinction appears to lie in whether the invention is directed to solving a technical problem associated with modelling physical reality, or merely providing a more sophisticated representation of information.
Medical inventions also divide sharply.
Where inventions relate to the processing of physical image data or operation of imaging systems, they tend to be viewed as technical. By contrast, where machine learning is used to predict outcomes, allocate resources or assist clinicians in decision-making, UKIPO decisions have often treated the contribution as lying in the provision of information to a clinician rather than in the solution of a technical problem.
Viewed through the post-Emotional Perception framework, the principal lesson from these UKIPO decisions is that the decisive issue was rarely the technology itself. AI, simulation, data analytics and modelling all appear in both successful and unsuccessful cases.
Instead, the recurring question even under the Aerotel test was whether the invention addresses a technical problem in a technical context.
Applications that improve the operation of industrial systems, process physical measurements, control equipment or solve engineering problems have always generally been successful, regardless of whether those applications are pursued before the UKIPO or the EPO. Conversely applications that organise information, support decision-making, optimise business activity or provide recommendations have generally failed.
UK practice will undoubtedly develop as the UKIPO applies the approach mandated by Emotional Perception. Nevertheless, given the lack of any significant change in subject matter which is considered patentable by the office, these older decisions may provide useful indicators of the types of features likely to be regarded as contributing to technical character at the new intermediate assessment stage. While Emotional Perception has changed the legal framework, it may not dramatically alter the types of inventions that succeed in practice. The historic UKIPO decisions discussed above suggest that inventions directed to technical systems, technical measurements and technical processes are likely to remain on the right side of the line, whereas inventions directed primarily to human decision-making, business activity and information processing may continue to face significant challenges.
We are proud to share that we are sponsoring the ELRIG Innovation Award at Drug Discovery 2026, taking place in London, UK, from 14th to 15th October. Drug Discovery 2026 is Europe’s leading drug discovery and life sciences conference, offering attendees access to the most cutting-edge innovation and knowledge in the field.
The ELRIG Innovation Award is a celebration of the exciting new companies making tracks in drug discovery and development. The winner will gain the opportunity to present their innovation to an audience at the conference. In sponsoring the award, Mathys & Squire will be part of the judging panel and also provide winners with dedicated follow-on patent attorney support as a component of the prize.
The deadline to apply for the award is 28th August. To apply and learn more, click here.
In addition, we will be delivering a workshop focused on the importance of IP for attracting investment, as part of the event’s Breakthrough Zone.
Mathys & Squire is a leading intellectual property firm with unrivalled expertise in patents, trade marks, design protection and litigation. The firm’s agile team of attorneys, scientists and strategists are steeped in experience, working with IP-rich and high-growth industries to leverage complex technologies and sophisticated commercial models. In particular, we have a dedicated life sciences group whose attorneys combine their knowledge of IP with a strong academic foundation in a varied range of areas, including small molecules, biologics, advanced therapeutics, antibodies, vaccines, drug delivery systems and diagnostics.
Preventing your competitors from taking advantage of your innovation is a crucial step for any business. Building a strong IP strategy will not only provide protection, but also vital fuel for commercial growth. At Mathys & Squire, we support you at every stage of the innovation cycle to maximise the potential of your IP and underpin the commercial success of your business.
ELRIG is a not-for-profit organisation that brings together the global life science and drug discovery community through free-to-attend events. With a network of over 12,000 professionals, it is dedicated to promoting inclusion and accessibility whilst encouraging innovation across the sector.
To learn more about Drug Discovery 2026, click here.
Partner Claire Breheny has been featured in television program, 60 Minutes Australia, sharing her insight on the interplay of brand protection, trade mark law and identity in the Beckham dispute.
In her commentary, Claire emphasises the importance of celebrities having measures in place, when their name is also a commercial asset, to ensure the name is not misused and protect its value.
You can read more about how trade mark law comes into play when celebrity names become valuable global brands and the background of the Beckham dispute in our article here.
Watch the full episode below:
Managing Associate Richard Jaszek has been featured in IAM with commentary on Elon Musk’s IP strategy in the article, ‘Patents for Starlink, secrets for rockets: SpaceX’s IP playbook’.
In his commentary, he breaks down what we can learn from SpaceX’s IP portfolio, compared to other key players such as Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin and the New Zealand-founded Rocket Lab. He also discusses Musk’s focus on trade secrets, what his international patent strategy implies about his level of confidence, and whether his approach is sustainable in a competitive market.
Click to read the full article on IAM here.
Mathys & Squire is delighted that Partners Sean Leach, Anna Gregson, Dani Kramer and Martin MacLean have all been identified in the 2026 edition of IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists.
The IAM Strategy 300 directory recognises a distinguished group of leading IP strategists whose expertise, achievements and forward-thinking approaches have made a significant impact on the IP landscape. The individuals selected come from a wide range of organisations and sectors, demonstrating the breadth of specialism and experience within the global IP community.
Those included in the IAM Strategy 300 are recognised as leading authorities in the field and are selected through a confidential nomination and research process. This involves in-depth interviews and discussions with senior members of the global IP community, including IP leaders from North America, Europe and Asia.
Individuals featured in the guide have demonstrated outstanding skills in developing and implementing effective IP strategies, as well as a strong track record in managing, commercialising and maximising the value of IP.
We would like to extend our thanks to all of our clients and contacts who contributed to the research process.
The 2026 rankings are available on their website here.
Mathys & Squire is proud to share that our firm has been featured in the World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) UK Patent Rankings 2026.
The firm has been ranked as ‘Recommended’ in the Non-contentious category, with Partner Chris Hamer also featured as a recognised individual in this year’s guide.
Now in its second edition, the WIPR UK Patent Rankings 2026 showcases some of the leading firms and practitioners across a range of patent practices in the UK. The guide provides an independent reference point for organisations seeking specialist patent advice, as the firms and individuals featured are selected through an objective research and selection process.
Our inclusion in the guide reflects our expertise in IP and our strength in patent prosecution and transactional IP work, as well as our continued commitment to providing commercially focused, high-quality IP advice and support for our clients.
The rankings can be viewed in full on the WIPR website here.
Partner Oliver Parish has been featured in “Patent Pools Must Brace For Litigation After Tesla Ruling” in Law360, sharing his insight on the recent decision in Tesla v InterDigital & Avanci.
The decision was in relation to Tesla’s previous challenge to the terms of the global Avanci 5G platform license, through which InterDigital licenses their standard essential patents (SEPs), with the Supreme Court allowing Tesla’s appeal, meaning that their claims may now proceed before the English court. His commentary underscores the significance of this judgement for SEP owners, cautioning that joining a patent pool may not necessarily release a licensor from their FRAND obligations.
Click to read the full article here.
The recent decision in T 892/24 is the latest contribution to the ongoing debate concerning the application of Article 12(6) RPBA 2020 and, in particular, the admissibility of claim requests filed for the first time in appeal proceedings. The decision has already attracted commentary suggesting that the Boards of Appeal have adopted irreconcilable approaches, turning admissibility into a matter of chance rather than principle.
A closer examination of the emerging case law suggests a more nuanced picture. While there are undoubtedly different strands of jurisprudence, the decisions may be better understood as reflecting differing views as to when a party is under an obligation to preserve fallback positions during first-instance proceedings. Rather than demonstrating a fundamental inconsistency, the recent decisions may be asking a common question: When does a party’s failure to file a fallback request become a procedural choice that it must live with on appeal?
The patent in suit concerned an illuminated vehicle emblem. Claim 1 as granted required an emblem that was “preferably” suitable for both interior and exterior automotive use. The Opposition Division rejected the opposition and upheld the patent as granted, including finding that the patent’s priority claim was valid.
On appeal, however, the Board reached a different conclusion. The Board held that the priority document disclosed an emblem suitable for both interior and exterior automotive use, but did not disclose that this characteristic was merely preferred. As a result, claim 1 as granted was not entitled to priority. The priority document therefore became prior art under Article 54(2) EPC and destroyed the novelty of the granted claim.
The proprietor responded to the priority objection on appeal by filing an auxiliary request deleting the word “bevorzugt” (“preferably”) from the claim. This amendment restored entitlement to priority and thereby overcame the novelty objection arising from the priority document. However, the opponent argued that the request was prevented from being admitted into the appeal proceedings under Article 12(6) RPBA because the priority objection had been raised in the notice of opposition and the proprietor could and should therefore have filed the request making that amendment during the opposition proceedings.
In contrast, the proprietor maintained that there had been neither any reason nor any procedural need to do so. According to the proprietor, an intention to file auxiliary requests had been raised during the oral proceedings before the Opposition Division, but the matter was not pursued because the Opposition Division considered the priority claim valid and ultimately rejected the opposition. Ultimately, the Board admitted the request and upheld the patent. In doing so, the Board expressly stated that it followed the reasoning of T 141/20, which held that the mere existence of an objection during opposition proceedings does not automatically mean that a corresponding auxiliary request necessarily should have been filed at first instance. The decisive question was whether there had been a genuine procedural need to file the request. Since the Opposition Division never questioned the validity of the priority claim, the Board concluded that no such need had arisen.
To understand the significance of T 892/24, it is useful to compare it withT 217/23 and T 45/22.
In T 217/23, objections of insufficiency and inventive step had been raised from the outset in the notice of opposition. The proprietor chose to address those objections through argument alone and filed auxiliary requests only in relation to a separate Article 123(2) EPC issue. On appeal, however, the proprietor sought to introduce new auxiliary requests directed specifically to the insufficiency and inventive-step objections that had existed throughout the opposition proceedings.
The Board refused to admit those requests. In that case, the Board emphasised that parties are expected to present their complete case as early as possible and rejected the argument that a favourable preliminary opinion from the Opposition Division justified withholding fallback requests until appeal. The Board regarded the requests as ones that could and should have been submitted during the first-instance proceedings and therefore concluded that Article 12(6) RPBA required that they not be admitted.
The decision reflects a strong commitment to procedural front-loading and to the principle that parties should present their complete case before the Opposition Division. Once a relevant objection has been raised and the proprietor has a realistic opportunity to formulate fallback positions, the proprietor may be expected to place those positions on file rather than reserve them for appeal.
T 217/23 can be understood as a case where the proprietor chose to rely on argument rather than fallback requests. T 45/22 presents a slightly different factual situation.
In T 45/22, some of the independent claims originally pursued by the proprietor were found to contain added matter. In response, during oral proceedings before the Opposition Division, the proprietor filed a single auxiliary request deleting the offending claims from the proprietor’s main request, which was subsequently found to be allowable by the Opposition Division. On appeal, however, the proprietor sought to combine that successful amendment with other auxiliary-request structures that had existed during the opposition proceedings but had not previously been pursued in that combination.
In contrast to T 892/24, in T 45/22, the Board considered that additional fallback positions, later filed for the first time on appeal, could and should also have been filed during the first-instance proceedings and were not admitted into the proceedings.
What makes T 45/22 particularly significant is that the proprietor had already begun constructing a hierarchy of fallback positions before the Opposition Division. The Board’s criticism was therefore not merely that a request was absent, but that the proprietor had effectively chosen where to stop.
Viewed this way, T 45/22 is arguably not simply a front-loading case. Rather, it is a case about procedural choice. The Board considered that the proprietor had already been required to make strategic decisions regarding fallback requests and later sought to revisit those decisions on appeal.
Viewed together, T 217/23 and T 45/22 suggest that Article 12(6) RPBA is increasingly being used to police procedural choices made during opposition proceedings. Once a proprietor has decided either not to file a fallback position at all, or to stop at a particular level of fallback protection, Boards increasingly consider that such a choice cannot be revisited on appeal.
The reasoning in T 45/22 also finds support in T 1456/20. In that case, the Board held that a proprietor could not reintroduce on appeal subject-matter the examination of which had been deliberately foregone during the opposition proceedings. The proprietor had chosen a particular route for overcoming a novelty objection before the Opposition Division and later sought to pursue a different route on appeal. The Board considered this to be inconsistent with the judicial review function of appeal proceedings and concluded that the alternative amendment route should already have been pursued at first instance. In doing so, the Board emphasised that reintroducing subject-matter whose examination had been deliberately avoided in the proceedings below is generally contrary to Article 12(6) RPBA.
An interesting feature of T 892/24 is the proprietor’s assertion that it had indicated an intention to file auxiliary requests during the opposition oral proceedings but was informed by the chair of the Opposition Division that this was unnecessary because the patent would be maintained.
The written decision does not suggest that the Board regarded this as an independent legal basis for admission. The formal reasoning remained focused on the absence of any procedural need to file the request before the Opposition Division.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to ignore the practical significance of this factual background. The proprietor’s conduct appears inconsistent with any attempt to reserve fallback positions for appeal. Instead, the proprietor maintained that it had indicated a willingness to file auxiliary requests but had been given no reason to believe that such requests were required.
This helps explain why the Board may have regarded the case differently from T 217/23 and T 45/22. In those cases, the Boards considered that the proprietors had consciously decided not to preserve available fallback positions and then sought to revisit that choice on appeal. In T 892/24, by contrast, the Board was persuaded that no such procedural choice had been made.
The apparent conflict in the case law may therefore be less dramatic than it first appears.
A common thread can be identified if the focus shifts from the mere existence of an objection to the procedural choices available to the party at the time.
An interesting feature of the case law is that Boards often appear to ask an implicit question:
“Would it have been reasonable to expect this exact request to have been before the department of first instance?”
Where a request represents the natural consequence of the case as it emerged from the first-instance proceedings or the decision under appeal, admission may be easier to justify. By contrast, where the request represents an alternative amendment strategy that could equally well have been pursued during the first-instance proceedings, Boards are increasingly inclined to regard its omission as a conscious procedural choice. In those circumstances, the request is more likely to be viewed as one that “should have been submitted” before the department of first instance.
On this view, a request becomes one that “should have been submitted” when the relevant party has reached a point in the first-instance proceedings at which it can reasonably be expected to decide whether to preserve the relevant position, but consciously chooses not to do so.
This rationale provides a coherent explanation for all these decisions. In T 217/23, the proprietor chose to rely on argument rather than fallback requests. In T 45/22, the proprietor chose where to stop building its fallback hierarchy. In T 1456/20, the proprietor chose one amendment path and deliberately forewent examination of another. In T 892/24, by contrast, the Board was persuaded that no equivalent procedural choice had arisen because the priority objection had never become a live issue before the Opposition Division.
Seen in that light, the apparent divergence between T 217/23, T 45/22 and T 892/24 may be less about competing interpretations of Article 12(6) RPBA and more about differing assessments of whether the proprietor had already been required to make, and had in fact made, a procedural choice regarding the relevant fallback position.
T 892/24 does not eliminate the uncertainty surrounding Article 12(6) RPBA. The decision sits within an ongoing debate between a more permissive approach that focuses on whether there was a genuine need to file a request at first instance and a stricter approach that emphasises the obligation to file all fallback positions at the earliest opportunity.
However, the case law may not be entirely incoherent. A more persuasive explanation is that the Boards are increasingly concerned with whether a party made a conscious procedural choice not to file or maintain a fallback position when it had the opportunity and procedural need to do so. Where such a choice can be identified, admission on appeal becomes difficult or impossible. Where it cannot, as in T 892/24, Boards may be prepared to conclude that the request was not one that “should have been submitted” during the proceedings leading to the appealed decision.
For practitioners, the lesson is stark. A proprietor who wishes to rely upon a fallback position should assume that it must actively be filed before the Opposition Division if it is to be relied upon later. Decisions such as T 217/23 and T 45/22 indicate a growing willingness on the part of the Boards to treat the failure to file a fallback position as a conscious procedural choice. Once that choice has been made, an attempt to introduce the omitted request on appeal may be viewed not as a legitimate reaction to the appealed decision, but as an impermissible change of case. T 892/24 demonstrates that exceptions remain where no genuine need to file the request arose at first instance. Nevertheless, the prudent assumption is that any fallback position not filed before the Opposition Division is lost forever.
Artificial intelligence has brought intellectual property firmly onto the boardroom agenda. Businesses are increasingly considering who owns AI-generated content, whether confidential information can safely be disclosed to AI tools and whether AI-enabled innovations can be protected.
However, a more established and often less systematically managed source of IP risk is frequently overlooked: the intellectual property created, accessed and used by employees.
Employees create and handle many of a business’s most valuable assets, including software, product designs, technical data, manufacturing processes, formulations and commercially sensitive know-how. Yet many businesses simply assume that anything created by an employee automatically belongs to the company and will remain protected when that employee leaves.
That assumption can create significant ownership, confidentiality and evidential gaps. These often become visible at the worst possible time: during an investment round, a business sale, a dispute with a competitor or the departure of a key employee.
A robust employee IP framework helps a business identify, capture and protect employee-created innovation, while reducing the risk of confidential information leaving the business or third-party IP entering it.
There is a common misconception that any intellectual property created by someone working for a business automatically belongs to the business.
The reality is much more complex and nuanced.
UK law provides employers with important default ownership rights, but there is no single rule covering every form of IP. The applicable rules depend on the type of asset involved, the duties and responsibilities of the creator, the circumstances in which the asset was developed and the legal relationship between the creator and the business.
For example, for inventions, the question is not determined solely by where or when the work took place. Relevant considerations include the employee’s normal or specifically assigned duties, whether an invention might reasonably have been expected to result from those duties and whether the employee’s responsibilities created a special obligation to further the interests of the employer’s undertaking.
Consider these common friction points:
To eliminate ambiguity and protect corporate value, businesses must move beyond basic, template employment contracts and implement a dedicated internal IP policy with supporting processes and training to give it practical effect. The written policy should sit within a wider governance framework that defines how innovation is identified, captured, recorded and protected.
An effective employee IP framework should address several core operational pillars:
Your employment terms should accurately reflect employees’ innovation responsibilities and the statutory allocation of IP ownership. They should also require employees to disclose potentially relevant innovations, maintain appropriate records and provide reasonable assistance with the protection and registration of company-owned IP.
Innovation cannot be protected or managed if the business does not know that it exists. The policy should establish a straightforward disclosure process requiring employees to report potentially valuable technical solutions, software developments, product designs, datasets and other innovations before they are published, demonstrated, launched or disclosed externally.
The process should enable the business to decide promptly whether to pursue patent or design protection, retain the innovation as confidential know-how or a trade secret, conduct appropriate brand clearance and seek trade mark protection, publish defensively or take no further action.
The policy should explain the distinction between an employee’s general skills and experience, which they will ordinarily remain free to use, and identifiable confidential information, proprietary know-how and trade secrets belonging to the business. Examples may include source code, unpatented formulations, pricing models, customer datasets, research results and non-public manufacturing processes.
Policies, training, access restrictions, classification, monitoring and exit procedures are not merely administrative safeguards. They can also help demonstrate that the business took reasonable steps to preserve secrecy.
The policy should also address employees’ use of generative AI and other external technology platforms. It should identify approved tools, prohibit the unauthorised upload of confidential information or personal data, require appropriate review of generated outputs and establish how the provenance and development of important AI-assisted work will be recorded.
Responsibility for implementing the framework should be clearly allocated across management, HR, legal or IP, IT security and relevant technical teams. The business should maintain appropriate records of innovations, their creators, relevant contracts and assignments, protection decisions and external disclosures. The framework should also establish clear escalation procedures for suspected loss, misuse or unauthorised disclosure of IP, ownership disputes, or the receipt of third-party confidential information.
While establishing clear ownership boundaries is an important asset-ownership control, an internal policy must also perform a vital defensive function: mitigating the risk of IP leakage, misuse and misappropriation.
Whether caused by malicious intent or a simple lack of awareness, the unauthorised removal, use or disclosure of confidential information and other intellectual property, especially during employee offboarding or corporate restructuring, can threaten the business’s competitive position.
To reduce the risk of IP leakage and misappropriation, your framework should enforce practical safeguards:
The same principles apply when onboarding new staff. Businesses should take active steps to reduce the risk of new employees introducing confidential information, source code, proprietary materials or protected technology belonging to previous employers into their development activities. Failure to implement appropriate controls can increase the business’s exposure to breach-of-confidence, copyright, contractual and other IP claims.
New employees should be educated about the risks of bringing or using files, source code, technical drawings, customer information or other confidential or proprietary materials belonging to previous employers. Managers should be instructed not to solicit, receive or use competitors’ confidential information from new employees.
Implementing a defined employee IP framework does not mean stifling the workforce. In fact, a transparent policy can actually foster a stronger culture of collaboration and innovation.
Building an internal culture that respects individual rights while systematically identifying and capturing employee-created IP requires clear processes, regular communication and continuing oversight.
An effective employee IP framework is not simply a clause in an employment contract or a policy stored on the intranet. It is a coordinated set of legal, operational and technical controls that enables a business to identify innovation, establish ownership, preserve confidentiality and reduce exposure to third-party claims.
Our IP specialists can assess your existing employment and consultancy terms, innovation-disclosure processes, trade-secret controls, AI-use rules, onboarding and offboarding procedures, and staff training. We can then help implement a proportionate employee IP framework that protects business value without creating unnecessary barriers to innovation.
To reach out to our IP Consulting team, click here.
