When Brooklyn Beckham published a series of statements on Instagram on 19 January 2026, much of the public’s attention focused on the emotional details of his rift with parents David and Victoria Beckham. But among the allegations of wedding-day tensions, cancelled dresses and family disagreements, one claim in particular caught the attention of trade mark professionals: Brooklyn’s allegation that he was pressured in to “signing away the rights to my name” in the weeks leading up to his wedding.

While the family dispute is still unfolding, the situation offers a timely opportunity to examine how trade mark rights, personal names and commercial control intersect, especially within celebrity families where names are valuable global brands.

Brooklyn alleged that his parents attempted to pressure and “bribe” him into signing over the rights to his name before his wedding – the statements form part of a larger narrative – but regardless of the personal dynamics involved, the idea of “signing away rights to a name” raises important discussions around how celebrity names are protected and monetised.

Under trade mark law, personal names can function as trade marks, and can be inherently distinctive, provided the name is capable of indicating trade origin. The registrability of a sign made up of a famous name depends on both the goods and services applied for and the extent of their fame, as consumers may sometimes view such names as describing the subject matter rather than indicating trade origin – such as in relation to posters and books for example.  The names really need to be assessed in relation to the goods and services applied for.

Brooklyn Beckham as a trade mark

Brooklyn’s situation is not unusual in the celebrity world, where personal names frequently evolve into powerful commercial brands. From Victoria and David Beckham to global figures like Beyoncé, Rihanna (Fenty), and Kylie Jenner, many public personalities have turned their names into trade mark‑protected assets underpinning major business ventures. Historic examples such as Disney, Chanel and Ferrari show how a surname can become synonymous with entire industries. Against this backdrop, it becomes easier to understand why control over the name “Brooklyn Beckham” carries both commercial value and strategic importance, and why disputes over such rights can become so sensitive.

The Beckham name is already a globally protected brand, used across fashion, sports, endorsements and commercial ventures. In such families, the name operates not just as an identity but as intellectual property. So if a dispute arises over control, licensing or ownership, trade mark agreements may be involved.

Brooklyn’s allegation suggests pressure to assign rights or enter a licensing arrangement regarding the commercial use of “Brooklyn Beckham” as a brand.

In practice, this could involve:

• Agreeing to not file or use the trade mark “Brooklyn Beckham”
• Signing exclusive licensing agreements
• Giving a third party control over brand management
• Agreeing to restrictions on how he uses his name commercially

These mechanisms are common in celebrity brand management, particularly within families that manage joint portfolios of trade marks. If Brooklyn’s name appears in existing applications or registrations owned by Beckham-related companies, it would not be unusual, but consent and formal agreements are essential.

That said, the UK and EU trade mark registrations for BROOKLYN BECKHAM remain recorded under the name “Victoria Beckham, as parent and guardian of Brooklyn Beckham.” Both registrations are due to expire this year, and it will be interesting to see whether they are renewed, whether fresh applications are filed in Brooklyn Beckham’s own name, or perhaps even whether a new US filing is pursued.

What does this mean for Brooklyn?

Brooklyn Beckham is building his own commercial identity through his food venture: he is the owner of Buster Hot Sauce Inc., the company behind his Cloud23 hot sauce brand, and the business has already secured trade mark registrations in the UK, US and EU. There is even a US application for “Beck’s Buns”. This naturally raises the question of whether the wider Beckham brand would consent to such use, as ‘Becks’ could be considered objectionable, particularly given that David Beckham has long been known by the nickname ‘Becks’ making the mark potentially problematic from both a trade mark and brand protection perspective.

From a brand management perspective, consolidating control helps ensure greater consistency by preventing conflicting or potentially damaging uses of the brand. It also strengthens protection by centralising enforcement under a single rights holder, while supporting a clearer commercial strategy by aligning all brand activities and ventures within the family.

For globally recognised families like the Beckhams, name rights can be worth millions in endorsements and commercial deals. But such control can also create tension where multiple individuals share the same surname yet pursue separate careers, business ventures or personal branding.

Many celebrities do contractually assign elements of their intellectual property, including name rights, to management companies. However, any such assignment must always be voluntary, based on informed consent, and must not interfere with an individual’s fundamental right to use their own name for personal identification.

It is important to note that Brooklyn is not automatically prevented from using his name in trade. UK trade mark law recognises the own‑name defence under Section 11(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which allows individuals to use their personal names provided the use is in accordance with honest commercial practices.

However, the defence has limits. It does not apply to businesses or companies, and it cannot protect dishonest or opportunistic conduct. Crucially, it can also be overridden by contract: if someone has signed an agreement assigning or restricting the commercial use of their name, those contractual terms take precedence. In this context, Brooklyn’s suggestion that he was pressured into signing away rights in his own name is significant, as any such agreement could prevent him from relying on the own‑name defence at all.

Lessons for trade mark strategy

The Beckham situation, regardless of where the truth ultimately lies, illustrates several broader lessons for trade mark strategy, particularly in families or groups that share commercially valuable names.

• First, families managing joint brand portfolios need clear governance structures. Celebrity families often rely on shared trade marks, and it is essential to have transparent agreements setting out who controls what, and for what purpose.
• Second, early discussions can prevent conflict further down the line. When younger family members begin developing their own brands, establishing clear parameters around the use of surnames and personal names can minimise the risk of disputes later.
• Third, trade marks are not purely legal or commercial tools, they can be emotional ones. Control over a name can feel deeply personal, and Brooklyn’s statement highlights how issues surrounding name ownership can carry significant emotional weight in a family context.
• Finally, public disputes can damage the value of a brand. High‑profile conflicts, such as the widely reported Beckham feud, risk diluting the perceived unity and stability of a family brand, potentially impacting public perception and commercial value.

Brooklyn Beckham’s recent public statements have sparked widespread discussion, not only about family dynamics but also about the question of who ultimately controls a name when that name operates as a global brand. His allegation that he was pressured to sign away “the rights to my name” brings into sharp focus the overlap between personal identity and commercial identity in celebrity life.

Regardless of the accuracy of the claims, the situation serves as a clear reminder of the importance of trade mark agreements and brand management, and an appreciation of the fact that names hold both emotional and economic significance. In short, the Beckham dispute is more than tabloid drama, it stands as a case study in modern brand governance, personal rights, and the intersection between family relationships and IP.

We are pleased to share that Partner Nicholas Fox is one of three new General Editors for the next publication of The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) Guide to the Patents Act.

The CIPA Guide to the Patents Act, colloquially known as “The Black Book,” is a highly esteemed resource which offers a comprehensive review of the recent developments in patent law. It consists of the full Patents Act of 1977, accompanied by a detailed analysis of its application, drawing on the expertise of over 30 professionals. CIPA has announced that the 10^th edition of The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys Guide to the Patents Act will be published in 2026.

Nicholas Fox is a qualified solicitor, and a qualified European and Chartered British patent attorney with full rights of audience to appear in IP proceedings at all levels in the English High Court. In addition, he is qualified and admitted as an Attorney-at-Law in the State of New York.

Nicholas is the author of A Guide to the EPC 2000 (CIPA) and has been a contributing author to the CIPA Guide for a number of years, responsible for writing the sections relating to the regulation of the profession. He has lectured on litigation and IP matters for the European Patent Academy and has been a guest lecturer at Queen Mary. Previously, Nicholas was a CPA member of the IPReg Board.

You can keep up to date with CIPA here.

Partner and Head of Trade Marks Claire Breheny has been featured in ‘UK IPO still grappling with surge of trademark filings from front companies’ in MLex.

The article discusses how applications from China played a significant role in another record year for trade mark filings at the UK IPO, many of which are submitted via front companies, which has prompted concern following prior worries in 2023 regarding applications from unregulated representatives.   

Claire provided commentary on this jump in trade mark filings, stating that the IPO is struggling to stay on top of them, and shared how the aftermath of filings by unregulated representatives usually unfolds.

Read the article in full here.

We are proud to share that we have successfully passed the ISO 9001 and 14001 audit for the 9^th year.

The British Assessment Bureau leads the ISO certifications to evaluate businesses on their commitment to excellence in work processes and management systems.

ISO 9001 (Quality Assurance) showcases the firm’s dedication to delivering an excellent standard of customer service which is both consistent and constantly improving, and signifies that we meet the globally recognised benchmark.

ISO 14001 (Environmental Management) demonstrates the firm’s adherence to environmental guidelines, recognising the care we take to use resources in an efficient way and reduce waste. This certification clearly shows the meaningful progress we are making in reducing our carbon footprint.

We are proud of our environmental awareness as a firm, and are delighted to be able to formalise our progress and gain recognition for our dedication to providing a first-class service to our clients.

To find out more about ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, click here.

As of the 1st of January 2026, regulations in Chinese intellectual property law are shifting to impact the measure of patentability for AI-related inventions.

Key takeaways

• China has introduced stricter examination standards for AI-related patent applications, with a strong emphasis on legal compliance, ethics, inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure.
• AI inventions involving unlawful data use, algorithmic discrimination or violations of public interest will not be patentable.
• Merely applying existing AI models to new scenarios without substantive technical modification is unlikely to satisfy the inventive step requirement.
• Applicants are expected to provide more detailed technical disclosure of AI models, training processes and data relationships.

Background

On 10 November 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued Order No. 84 amending the guidelines for patent examination, with effect from the 1^st of January 2026. The amendments follow a public consultation process and build upon the Guidelines for Patent Applications Related to Artificial Intelligence (Trial) issued in December 2024.

AI is a major focus of the amendments, reflecting both rapid technological development and increasing regulatory attention to ethical and governance concerns.

Key changes affecting AI-related patent applications

Ethical and legal compliance as a patentability requirement

CNIPA has explicitly introduced examination standards under Article 5(1) of the Patent Law, pursuant to which inventions that violate laws, social morality or public interests are excluded from patent protection.

In practice, this means that AI inventions involving:

• unlawful collection or use of personal data (e.g. facial recognition without consent); or
• algorithmic decision-making based on discriminatory criteria (such as gender or age),

may be refused on public policy and ethics grounds, regardless of their technical merits.

Inventive step: substance over application scenario

The amended Guidelines clarify that:

• changing only the application scenario or target object of an existing AI algorithm or model, without substantive technical modification, will generally be insufficient to establish an inventive step; whereas
• meaningful changes to model structure, parameters, training methods or technical effects, even within a similar application field, may establish an inventive step.

This reinforces CNIPA’s expectation of a genuine technical contribution, rather than a repackaging of known AI techniques.

Higher disclosure threshold for AI inventions

Applicants must now pay closer attention to sufficiency of disclosure, particularly where AI models exhibit “black box” characteristics.

Specifications should generally disclose:

• model architecture (modules, layers and connections);
• training steps and key parameters; and
• the technical relationship between input and output data, especially where AI is applied to specific industrial or medical scenarios.

Refinement of the examination object for AI and big data-related applications

The first sentence of Section 6.1 “Examination Principles” has been amended from:

“Examination shall be conducted with respect to the solution for which protection is sought, namely the solution defined in the claims,”

to:

“Examination shall be conducted with respect to the solution for which protection is sought, namely the solution defined in the claims, and, where necessary, with respect to the contents of the description.”

This amendment enables a more comprehensive and thorough examination of AI- and big data–related patent applications.

Practical implications for applicants

• Early compliance review: assess data sources, training logic and decision rules for legal and ethical risks.
• Drafting strategy: emphasise technical improvements to AI models, not merely new application contexts.
• Disclosure discipline: balance protection scope with sufficient technical detail to meet CNIPA standards.

At Mathys & Squire, we have patent attorneys who specialise in AI and the patentability of AI-related inventions, as well as patent attorneys with experience filing patents in China. Please get in touch with a member of our team here if you are seeking advice.

AI is becoming more and more rooted in everyday life, making tedious tasks easier and more efficient. However, using AI for tasks which require rigorous diligence and involve confidential information, such as patent drafting, could be fatal. SMEs and inventors must carefully consider when AI is appropriate and when it will cause more harm than good.

The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) recently published their guidance on using AI tools as an SME or inventor. The guidance stresses the importance of being aware of the risks which come with using AI in patent work. AI undermines two core pillars of the patent system: human invention and absolute confidentiality. AI errors in a poorly drafted application could cause problems for years to come, whilst the unintended disclosure of information, such as inputting your invention into non-confidential AI tools, could render your patent application wholly unviable.

The risks

CIPA underlines several key risks behind using AI tools for patent work:

• Confidentiality breaches: Once you input material into AI, you cannot guarantee what will happen to it. The information may be treated as disclosed to the public, meaning the invention can no longer be patented and trade secrets become public domain.
• Hidden inaccuracies: Errors produced by AI may not be easy to notice but could emerge during enforcement or litigation later down the line.
• Patentability failures: There are very strict requirements for patent applications which determine whether an invention meets the patentability criteria. For example, “sufficiency of disclosure” requires that the invention is described completely, allowing other skilled people to replicate it. AI may not describe an invention to the necessary extent.
• Human inventorship requirements: The named inventor(s) of a patent must be human. Depending too heavily on AI can overshadow human contributions.
• Data training risks: AI tools may use your input material as training data for future AI models which could benefit competitors.

What to do

It is vital to never input a description of an invention into AI tools before you have filed a patent application. AI tools with guaranteed data isolation and which promise confidentiality can be considered, but care should still be taken to thoroughly check the accuracy of the output and provide clear evidence of human contribution. You can monitor evolving AI regulations through ongoing guidance from the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the UK Intellectual Property Office.

It is recommended to seek counsel from a patent attorney who has knowledge of the technology and legal landscape, and can advise you on your use of AI. Patent attorneys are also vital sources of information regarding what constitutes a complete and viable patent application, and will be more attuned to AI errors.

At Mathys & Squire, we have patent attorneys who specialise in AI and have a deep understanding of the legal implications for both AI-based inventions and the use of AI tools. Please get in touch with a member of our team here if you are seeking advice.

To read the full guidance from CIPA click here.

Partner Andrea McShane has been featured in the World Intellectual Property Review, the Daily Express, London Loves Business and Business Money following her commentary on the UK’s ‘Patent Box’ scheme which provides tax breaks on inventions which are patented, encouraging businesses to keep and commercialise intellectual property.

Andrea McShane argues that it should be more simple for SMEs to take part in the patent scheme, as high compliance costs and complex requirements for claims prevent them from reaping the benefits.

Read the extended press release below.

SMEs received only 5% or £100m of the £2bn in tax breaks claimed last year that are intended to encourage businesses to file more patents, says intellectual property (IP) law firm Mathys & Squire [Source: HMRC].

The UK’s patent box tax relief can save companies tens of millions of pounds by reducing corporation tax on profits from patented inventions to 10%, down from the standard 25%. It was introduced to encourage business to invest in R&D and then patent their inventions and bring them to market.

SMEs are estimated to generate 52% of the turnover of all UK businesses [Source: Department for Business and Trade].

Mathys & Squire says SMEs face higher barriers to claiming the tax break because of high compliance costs and uncertainty over whether their claims will be approved by HMRC. This can even deter them from investing in R&D in the first place.

Andrea McShane, Partner at Mathys & Squire, says: “Patent box can save businesses very significant amounts of corporation tax but in our experience only few smaller companies pursue this tax break. For many SMEs the costs and uncertainties of getting into the patent box regime simply outweigh the benefits.”

“Some SMEs develop genuinely exciting inventions but give up on protecting them, potentially making it easy for competitors to imitate them, but also losing out on their patent box opportunity.”

McShane says patent box claims can be very complex, making it disproportionately costly for SMEs to pursue them.

“Patent box claims can be challenging to prepare, which puts smaller businesses at a clear disadvantage compared to larger ones,” she says.

“Larger companies can afford more extensive protection of their IP, more sophisticated tax advice and accountancy tools to set up systems to track income relating to relevant patent rights. Small businesses working on tight budgets may not be able to afford that.”

McShane says the government must do more to help smaller companies benefit from the relief if it wants to improve the UK’s low level of R&D spend. Currently, spending on R&D in the UK is estimated to be 2.9% of GDP [Source: World Bank], behind countries such as the US (3.6%), Japan (3.4%) and Germany (3.1%).

McShane says this could be achieved by removing requirements on SMEs specifically. It can also be more generous, for example through subsidies. SMEs could for example receive help in covering the costs of patenting inventions so smaller innovators are not discouraged by the expense of developing and protecting inventions.

The valuation of patent assets is rarely straightforward. While clients often ask, “What is my patent worth?”, the underlying question is, “What is my patent worth for this specific purpose and to this specific party?”

Unlike tangible assets, patents derive value from economic potential, which involves broader considerations than solely the inherent qualities of the patent assets. That economic potential may vary significantly depending on who is assessing the asset and why.

Value to the Owner and Value to Others

For existing owners, patents may be valued in relation to their ability to support a commercial strategy such as protecting market share, enabling higher margins, licensing opportunities, or deterring competitors, and the impact these various factors have on their potential to generate future revenues. A patent covering a core technology may be worth many times the cost of its development if it preserves exclusivity in a key market segment.

However, to a potential acquirer or licensee, the same patent may hold a very different value. A buyer with a complementary product line may see far greater commercial synergies than the current owner, translating into a higher valuation. Conversely, an acquirer lacking manufacturing capability, distribution channels or market presence may attribute less value, even to a robust patent family. Put simply, context shapes utility, and utility drives value.

Valuation Purposes

Patent valuations are commonly required for transactions, fundraising, litigation, tax planning, financial reporting and internal strategy. Each of these contexts calls for different methodologies and assumptions:

• Transactional valuations often emphasise the price a willing buyer would pay today, incorporating competitive dynamics, freedom-to-operate considerations, and the acquirer’s potential use cases.
• Litigation valuations focus on quantifying lost profits, possibly an account of the defendants profits, reasonable royalties or damage apportionment, resulting in values tied to infringement scenarios.
• Accounting valuations for IFRS reporting or transfer pricing must follow strict standards and tend to be more conservative.
• Internal strategic valuations may prioritise long-term value, including future applications of the technology or defensive benefits.

The resulting figures can differ dramatically, even for the same patent portfolio.

Key Drivers of Patent Value

Across contexts, certain core factors consistently influence value:

• Legal strength: claim scope, validity, jurisdictional coverage and remaining term.
• Commercial relevance: size of the addressable market, competitive landscape and stage of product adoption/technology readiness level.
• Enforceability and risk: likelihood of detecting infringement, cost of enforcement and availability of alternatives.
• Strategic utility: whether the patent blocks competitors, enables licensing revenue or forms part of a wider IP strategy.

As each stakeholder may assess each of these drivers differently, valuations often diverge, sometimes significantly.

A Practical Takeaway

Businesses should avoid treating patent valuation as a one-time, one-number exercise. Instead, it is an evolving economic assessment shaped by the interests and capabilities of each party involved. As companies consider licensing, investment or sale, understanding how different stakeholders perceive value can make the difference between capturing full commercial potential and leaving money on the table.

For clients preparing for transactions or strategic planning, a well-reasoned, context-specific valuation is one of the most powerful tools for informed decision-making and in understanding the drivers underpinning the value of patent assets in the relevant context.

In commercial negotiations, the articulation of a valuation calculation and the factors driving it can be as important as the valuation figure.

Having acted for a broad range of clients from SMEs to large international companies, and across a range of technologies and contexts, the team at Mathys & Squire Consulting would welcome the opportunity to discuss how best to support your valuation needs.

You can reach out to our team here.

As the use of generative AI becomes ubiquitous, is the patent system ready for an influx of AI generated inventions? And how might it handle AI inventions which are beyond our understanding?

It seems AI is everywhere. If not now, then soon. The patent world is no different. Patent offices are already using AI to improve the subject classification of applications and searches for prior art documents. Patent attorneys are looking to AI to assist with drafting specifications and responses to examiners. As for inventors, the thought of using AI both to assist with the inventive process and to reduce the cost of preparing a patent specification is a tempting prospect.

Earlier generations of AI used deep-learning to discover patterns in existing data and led to some notable (and in the case of DeepMind’s protein structure predictor Alphafold, Nobel-prize-winning) inventions. More recently, generative AI, powered by large-language models (LLMs) and embodied in chatbots such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and others, has taken matters in a more creative direction.

When prompted, LLMs are characterised by fluent, persuasive output, capable of passing the Turing test, confounding users as to whether they are actually interacting with a human. But they can also be notoriously sycophantic and prone to hallucination. In short, there is a fundamental problem: AIs make things up. Convincingly. For an inventor using AI, will it be clear when invention has crossed the line into fantasy?

Almost every patent attorney will at some time in their career receive a call or an email from an inventor who believes they have made a groundbreaking invention. The world’s energy crisis is solved. Interstellar space travel is possible. Machines, once set in motion, operate forever, generating limitless energy with every turn. Often these ‘inventions’ are easily shown to be nothing of the kind; some variant of a perpetual motion machine, violating conservation laws and exhibiting a misunderstanding of basic mechanics or thermodynamics. Others misinterpret more esoteric concepts such as quantum mechanics and relativity.

Occasionally, however, the situation is not so clear cut. Inventors may insist that the accepted laws are incomplete or wrong. And in truth many modern inventions, including much of modern microelectronics, would once have been considered to verge on the magical, contravening the science of earlier times. Might an AI come up with an invention which relies on an incompleteness in an existing physical law or even postulate an as-yet unknown one? If it did, could we understand it? And how would the patent system handle a patent application for such an invention? Whilst the building blocks of LLMs are understood (at least by those who develop them), they are essentially a ‘black box’, with the precise reasoning by which they arrive at much of their output remaining mysterious. How then to differentiate hallucination from insight?

Patent systems long ago formalised their rejections of so-called perpetual motion inventions, as being neither capable of industrial application nor sufficiently disclosed so that they may be carried out. But in most cases these ‘inventions’ were relatively straightforward, in concept if not in detail. Now, as AIs become increasingly powerful, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that at some point an AI will make a conceptual leap to an invention which is at odds with present science. What then?

Patent examiners, at least in the UK, have something of an existing framework to follow. Whilst it predates our current AI era and so does not address them directly, it can be pressed into service to act as a bulwark, sufficient until something better comes along.

The seminal case, albeit an imperfect one, dates from nearly two decades ago, when a US company Blacklight Power were pursuing a pair of patent applications. Both applications claimed inventions which relied on a purported new species of hydrogen. Unlike standard hydrogen, this species required the sole electron to exist in an energy state lower than the lowest possible one as recognised in standard physics. Such “hydrinos” were part of a sweeping new theory – the “Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics” – proposed by Blacklight’s founder and CEO.

The initial patent examiners were unconvinced, refusing both applications. On appeal, a senior examiner was more circumspect, admitting that his understanding of physics was a long way short of what would be necessary to assess the theory on its own merits or to evaluate the voluminous supporting evidence which had been provided by Blacklight. What was clear, however, was that the relevant scientific community had not taken to the new theory; ever since it was first proposed in the early 1990s it had been studiously ignored – which suggested the theory was probably wrong. A further appeal to the high court clarified what has become the current approach.

Patent applications should only be refused if they are “clearly contrary” to well-established laws, not merely probably wrong. Otherwise, providing there is credible evidence that, on the balance of probabilities, there is a “substantial doubt about an issue of fact” which could lead to patentability – and a “reasonable prospect” of the new theory being proved correct when investigated in detail at at a full trial, with expert witness – then the application should be allowed to proceed.

The question of whether, and how much, benefit of the doubt should be afforded the applicant is a finely balanced one. On the one hand, it would be unfair to the applicant if a patent application was refused but the theory turned out to be true; on the other, “it would be completely wrong and against public interest to bestow upon misleading applications the rights and privileges of a granted patent”. The patent system is inherently scientifically conservative, but there is an acknowledgement that there is the danger of of refusing an application which depends on a disputed theory which may subsequently turn out to be correct. The application stage is necessarily “an imperfect tribunal of fact”. Patent examination is not a peer review process. At the application stage, the applicant may need to be given the benefit of the doubt because an incorrect refusal cannot be remedied at a later stage. Only if an invention is required to “operate in a manner clearly contrary to well-established physical laws” is the patent application to be refused from the outset.

In Europe, the EPO has trodden a somewhat similar path, rejecting patent applications which are deemed incompatible with with the generally accepted laws of physics, and yet keeping the door ajar for “revolutionary” inventions which seem, at least at first, to “offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories”. The focus is on practicalities rather than theoretical considerations. To obtain a patent based on such an invention requires the applicant to provide a description “detailed enough to prove to a skilled person conversant with mainstream science and technology that the invention was indeed feasible”.

For Blacklight, the benefit of doubt was not enough. The evidence was unconvincing and the scientific community uninterested. Both applications were referred back to the patent office and finally refused.

The Blacklight cases provide a salutary lesson for both inventors and patent attorneys. We may be entering a new era of AI-assisted inventions, and the patent system may be willing in principle to entertain the idea of inventions which push against or even cross the limits of existing science, but credible evidence is the key. Where examiners may not understand every nuance of an invention, they will look to experimental evidence and in particular whether the new theory has been accepted in the wider scientific community as proxies for assessing “substantial doubt” and “reasonable prospect”. For patent applicants it is important not be to swept along by AI pronouncements. However convincingly an AI may present a seemingly revolutionary invention, and even if no-one seems capable of understanding it, extraordinary claims will always require extraordinary evidence. Whether it will even be possible to collect such evidence if an AI invention is truly beyond our understanding may prove a defining challenge for the patent system.

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has announced proposed fee increases averaging 25% across trade marks, patents, and designs, subject to parliamentary approval. These changes would represent the first adjustment for design fees since 2016, for patent fees since 2018, and the first increase for trade mark fees in nearly 30 years.

According to the UKIPO, the revised fee structure is intended to reflect the 32% rise in inflation since 2016 and to manage future cost pressures that cannot be fully mitigated through efficiency measures or the use of reserves. The additional revenue is expected to support continued investment in digital infrastructure and service quality, while ensuring the UKIPO remains among the most competitively priced intellectual property offices globally.

The proposed average increases are:

• Patents: 33%
• Designs: 24%
• Trade marks: 23%

Full guidance is expected to be published in early 2026 to assist rights holders and applicants whose fees may fall due around the implementation period. Current fees will remain in place until 1 April 2026, when the new fee structure is scheduled to take effect, subject to parliamentary approval.

Trade Mark Fee Increase:

Trade mark application fees will rise under the new structure, with the fee for filing a trade mark application online increasing from £170 to £205, whilst paper applications will rise from £200 to £250.

Renewal fees will see also increases across the board – the fee for renewing a trade mark registration will rise from £200 to £245 for both online and paper applications.

Series trade mark applications are also set to increase from £50 to £60. While earlier reports suggested that series applications may be abolished, the proposed fee increase indicates that they are likely to remain in place, at least for the time being. This means applicants wishing to file a series of trade marks will still be able to do so, albeit at a higher cost, reflecting the broader trend of rising UKIPO fees across all trade mark services and we recommend filing sooner rather than later to take advantage of current rates and to account for the potential future phasing out.

Opposition proceedings will become more expensive, potentially leading to more selective or strategic use of opposition proceedings. The fee for filing a notice of opposition based solely on Section 5(1) or 5(2) grounds will increase from £100 to £125, whilst oppositions on other grounds will rise from £200 to £250. Fast track opposition fees will increase from £100 to £125, and the fee for adding grounds to an opposition will rise from £100 to £125.

Applications to start invalidation proceedings will increase from £200 to £250, whilst applications to revoke a mark for non-use or other reasons will also rise from £200 to £250.

The increases in opposition, invalidation, and revocation fees mean that parties seeking to challenge a trade mark, or defend against a challenge, will face higher upfront costs.

The table below outlines the current fees alongside the proposed increases:

Designs Fee Increase:

The upcoming increase in UKIPO fees for registered designs will have a range of implications: higher filing and renewal costs will raise the overall expense of maintaining design portfolios, particularly for businesses with multiple registrations. Companies may respond by filing fewer variations, allowing lower-value designs to lapse. Smaller designers are likely to feel the impact most, potentially relying more on unregistered rights despite their weaker protection. While the change could reduce speculative filings and ease administrative burdens, smaller businesses may adjust their approach to registered protection, which could influence innovation patterns across certain sectors. Rights holders should consider filing or renewing designs (if able to) before the fee increase takes effect, reassess the value of their portfolios, and adjust budgets and IP strategies accordingly.

Patent Fee Increase:

The UKIPO is also set to update the patent fee schedule, with all major fees for patent proceedings set to increase. Notably, the total basic fees for filing a UK patent application, including filing, search, and examination, will rise from £310 to £405. In addition, the revised patent renewal fees will range from £90 to £810, depending on the stage the patent lifecycle.

What this means going forward:

Although UKIPO fees will remain at current rates until 31 March 2026, the proposed average increase of around 25% is likely to affect budgeting and the timing of IP activities. Specifically:

• IP Filing strategy: Consider bringing forward planned applications, searches, and filings to take advantage of current fees before the increase. Early awareness allows you to act proactively and protect your brand while avoiding higher costs. We can help assess the impact on your portfolio and provide tailored fee estimates and timeline options.
• Portfolio management: Review the timing of renewals, recordals, oppositions, and cancellation actions that incur IPO fees to determine whether it makes sense to schedule them before 31 March 2026. Businesses that regularly file trade marks, designs or patents should budget for the potential fee rise. The renewal period opens six months before the renewal deadline for trade marks and designs, and three months in advance for patents.
• Decision making/budgeting: This may affect the decision-making process for both potential opponents and respondents, particularly for smaller businesses or individual applicants as they may need to evaluate the merits of a dispute more carefully before proceeding, particularly in cases where the likelihood of success is uncertain. This could alter the overall landscape of IP related disputes in the UK in regard to filing oppositions and invalidity and/or revocation actions.  The same is also true for heavy filers and/or oppositions.  Internal budgets for the following year will already have (or will soon have) been set and therefore whilst the increases are not necessarily problematic per se, given the number of filings/renewals/oppositions they may file could mean substantial overall increases. Heavy filers/larger businesses will need to factor higher fees into trade mark enforcement and defence budgets, prioritising key cases or exploring cost-effective strategies where necessary.

The UK IPO has updated its payment guide and deposit account terms. You can view the payment guide here and the updated terms here.

If you have upcoming filings or renewals, now is an ideal time to review timelines and budgets and discuss your IP strategy with your patent or trade mark attorney. Our team at Mathys & Squire are committed to delivering exceptional client support and tailoring services to your specific needs. For any questions regarding the UKIPO’s fee increase or assistance with future IP planning, please contact us.