Gene therapy is revolutionising the field of molecular medicine and the capabilities of therapeutic approaches. Recent developments demonstrate the potential for gene therapy to address some of mankind’s most devastating diseases, unlocking previously unfathomable solutions which could transform people’s lives. As innovation accelerates, strong patent protection is essential to navigate rising IP disputes and safeguard gene therapy advances.

Introduction to gene therapy

Gene therapy is a medical technology which mitigates or eradicates the symptoms of diseases by transferring genetic material to a patient or correcting genetic defects. It can be achieved in several ways.

• Gene replacement delivers a functional copy of a gene to compensate for a defective one, making it especially useful for recessive monogenic diseases.
• Gene silencing reduces the expression of harmful genes, often through RNA interference or CRISPR–Cas13 targeting of pathogenic mRNA.
• Gene editing directly modifies endogenous DNA using tools like CRISPR-Cas9, zinc-finger nucleases, TALENs, or newer base and prime editors. These technologies allow targeted correction or disruption of disease-causing genes with increasing precision.

The genetic material can be delivered to the patient via viral and non-viral systems. For example, viral vectors such as adeno-associated virus (AAV) are preferable for in vivo use due to their safety and tissue specificity. Non-viral systems (such as lipid nanoparticles and polymer-based carriers) usually offer improved safety and flexibility but typically lower delivery efficiency.

Today, gene therapy is applied to an increasingly wide set of diseases. An analysis of patent activity shows that oncology accounts for roughly 32% of the gene therapy market, followed by rare genetic disorders (27%), cardiovascular diseases (15%), and neurological disorders (12%).

Recent innovation in the field

Whilst gene therapy is still predominantly limited to research and clinical trials, with over 250 clinical trials running in Europe and only around 20 therapies on the market, broader clinical adoption is getting closer.

The UK’s Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approved the world’s first CRISPR-gene therapy in November 2023 and it is now available on the NHS in England. Named CASGEVY®, the drug (exagamglogene autotemcel) uses CRISPR-Cas9 to alter human stem cells to produce functional rather than defective haemoglobin, treating sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia.

Other advances are also setting the field into motion, such as innovations in delivery methods. Among these, AAVs are emerging as a major force in the gene therapy market. In June this year, Barcelona-based startup, SpliceBio, secured €118 million in a series B finance round to fund their development of AAVs with refined capabilities, able to carry longer genes.

The rapid rise of AI in biomedical research is also transforming how scientists design and test new therapies, including in gene editing. Stanford Medicine researchers have introduced CRISPR-GPT, an AI “copilot” that draws on extensive scientific literature and lab records to propose experimental designs, predict off-target risks, and justify its recommendations.

The patent wars

There are currently over 14,000 patent families related to gene therapy worldwide. Early patents mainly targeted basic delivery mechanisms and methodological approaches, but the focus has grown more specific over time, covering specific disease indications, vector designs and genetic modification techniques.

CRISPR-Cas9 in particular has been the topic of a major dispute over the last decade and the contest for the foundational patent rights is still ongoing. CRISPR-Cas9 was introduced as a programmable gene-editing tool in 2012 by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, a discovery that later earned them the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Around the same time, Feng Zhang and the Broad Institute demonstrated its use in mammalian cells, triggering a long-running patent battle. This leads to uncertainty and legal risks which impede those who wish to use CRISPR.

CVC

In Europe, one of the two leading CRISPR patent portfolios is held by the team behind the Nobel-winning discovery, collectively known as “CVC” (the University of California, the University of Vienna and Emmanuelle Charpentier). Their core rights are based on the fundamental patent family originating from parent application EP2800811, along with a series of divisional filings. The patents EP2800811 and EP3401400 (one of the divisional applications in the family) were originally maintained by the EPO Opposition Division, but these decisions were appealed. In its preliminary opinions, the Board of Appeal found that neither patent could rely on the earliest priority date because the earliest priority document failed to disclose the essential PAM sequence required by the CRISPR-Cas9 technology, rendering the claims not novel over the Science publication from the same inventors.

CVC decided to withdraw their approval of the granted texts in 2024, effectively revoking both patents to possibly avoid an adverse final decision that could negatively affect their broader CRISPR portfolio (see our relevant article here). The patent family still includes other active members including EP3597749, EP4289948 and EP4570908, with EP3597749 and EP4289948 already facing opposition. We can expect further disputes as the CRISPR patent landscape continues to evolve.

The Broad Institute

On the other hand, the Broad Institute (together with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard College as co-applicants) also obtained early patent rights in Europe based on the patent family originating from parent application EP2771468. The patent was revoked in 2020 on the basis of intervening art that only became citeable due to invalid priority (in which one of the opponents was represented by Mathys & Squire). In this regard, the Board of Appeal held that a priority claim was deemed invalid if a proprietor was unable to show, when challenged, that the applicants for the subsequent application included all of the applicants for the priority application or their successor(s) in title at the time the subsequent application was filed (see our earlier articles here and here).

Interestingly, the recent decision G1/22 issued by the Enlarged Board of Appeal has significantly relaxed the EPO’s approach to “same applicant” priority. The EBA decided that there is a “rebuttable presumption” that the priority applicants approve of the subsequent applicants’ entitlement to priority, regardless of any difference in names (see our earlier article here). The divisional patents EP2784162 and EP2896697, and the relevant patent EP2764103 were originally revoked by the Opposition Division under similar reasons as with EP2771468, but the Board of Appeal have decided to return these cases back to the Opposition Division as the priority entitlement is now considered valid. Opposition proceedings are ongoing, and it will be interesting to see how these cases ultimately unfold.

Recent developments

Other companies have also been entering the legal battlefield in recent years. ToolGen, for example, filed an infringement suit against Vertex’s CASGEVY® therapy in April 2025 in the UK. The ongoing wave of disputes illustrates that the CRISPR and gene therapy patent landscape remains highly competitive. Thus, securing robust patent protection is crucial for companies seeking to commercialise their technologies.

How to protect innovation in gene therapy

Protecting gene therapy technology in Europe requires an early, well-structured patent strategy.

The foundation of any successful patent strategy is a comprehensive freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis, which should be conducted as early as reasonably possible in the development pipeline. FTO searching allows innovators to identify third-party patents that may block research or manufacture of a gene therapy product. This is especially important in fields such as CRISPR-Cas systems, where multiple parties hold overlapping rights. An FTO review not only helps avoid infringement but can also inform strategic design-arounds, licensing decisions, and the scope of future patent filings.

Equally critical is the issue of valid priority filing, an area that has been at the centre of some of the most high-profile European disputes in gene editing as discussed above. The EPO is well known to be very strict on added matter, and it extends to the assessment of priority validity. The priority filing should include all essential features of the invention and the way for performing the invention that are later claimed. Omissions can result in the loss of the earliest filing date and, consequently, exposure to intervening prior art. Although the recent decision G 1/22 appears to have relaxed the “same applicant” priority rule in Europe, the underlying requirement of adequate technical disclosure remains stringent and fundamental.

Patent drafting

When drafting the patent application itself, a successful strategy typically involves pursuing multiple categories of claims. For gene therapy inventions, this may include:

• Composition of matter claims for the drug product, which might include specific nucleic acid, Cas enzymes, engineered cells, viral vectors, lipid nanoparticles or other delivery vehicles
• Sequence-specific claims for novel nucleic acid sequences
• Medical use claims for using the gene therapy product as a medicament or to treat specific diseases.
• Formulation claims for the specific solutions, buffers or excipients used to stabilise and deliver gene therapy components
• Dosage regimen and administration-route claims for optimised therapeutic windows and dosing approaches
• Manufacturing and process claims for nucleic acid production, cell-expansion protocols, vector-production methods, or purification steps involved in the production of the gene therapy product.

In view of the complexity of gene therapy patents, it is important to seek professional support. The application must be drafted effectively to secure appropriate breadth of protection, while also facilitating a smoother path to grant.

SPCs

Finally, as products approach regulatory approval, innovators might also consider Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs). SPCs extend protection for medicinal products beyond the standard 20-year patent term. This compensates for the time lost during regulatory review. Gene therapy products authorised in the EU may be eligible for SPC protection, provided they meet the regulatory and patent linkage criteria. Our professional team can guide applicants through SPC strategy and the application process (see here for further information).

Gene therapy is advancing rapidly, but its patent landscape remains complex and highly competitive. Careful strategy including strong priority filings, thoughtful claim drafting and early FTO analysis is essential. Robust IP protection allows innovators to focus on advancing therapies rather than defending their inventions.

Three Mathys & Squire Partners, Anna Gregson, Dani Kramer, and Martin MacLean, have been recognised in the 2026 edition of IAM Strategy 300 Global Leaders.

The guide acknowledges those that have showcased their strategic expertise in IP, which has been recognised by clients and colleagues across a range of sectors. Those that have been selected to feature in the prestigious directory have earnt their place through their consistently exceptional work and industry knowledge.

IAM says: Anna Gregson is a recognised leader for strategic IP advisory, leveraging her deep technical expertise in biotechnology to deliver specialised guidance across diverse sectors, including plant biotechnology and diagnostics. Her approach ensures that clients’ IP portfolios are not only technically sound but also commercially resilient.

Read Anna’s full interview here.

IAM says: Dani Kramer is a seasoned expert in internet television, software, and AI, with specialised knowledge in semiconductor devices and communication technologies. His career includes securing key patents in the internet television space and managing a portfolio of standard-essential HEVC MPEG patents, underscoring his impactful contributions to this field.

Read Dani’s full interview here.

IAM says: Martin MacLean is a distinguished legal practitioner with a robust background in biotechnology and intellectual property. With over 100 EPO hearings under his belt and a remarkable success rate of approximately 90%, he excels in areas such as protein therapeutics, antibodies, and vaccines.

Read Martin’s full interview here.

We would like to express our thanks to every client, contact, and peer who dedicated their time to engage in the research process. 

The full 2026 edition of the guide is available here.

Partner Samantha Moodie and Associate Clare Pratt have been featured in Life Sciences IP Review and Aesthetic Medicine providing commentary on the increased use of biotherapeutic molecules in the cosmetics industry, following from their own two-part article series.

In the article, they provide insights into the number of international patent applications for ‘bio-cosmetic’ products from 2020 to 2024, highlighting this growing trend and the close relationship between innovation and intellectual property.

They also share expert guidance on how best to utilise IP in this increasingly competitive industry, including best practice advice on drafting ‘use’ claims for cosmetics containing biotherapeutic molecules.

Read the first and second instalments of their related article series titled ‘The Line Between Beauty and Therapy’ in the relevant links.

Read the extended press release below.

Patent applications for ‘bio-cosmetic’ products have doubled to 12,130 in 2024 from 6025 in 2020, says leading intellectual property law firm Mathys & Squire. Bio-cosmetics are a rapidly growing market of consumer cosmetic products containing biological molecules that promote tissue regeneration and repair.

The number of bio-cosmetic applications also grew 9% to 12,130 from 11,130 last year.

Biological molecules, previously used in complex medical procedures, are increasingly finding novel and unique applications in cosmetics aimed at consumers. Examples include:

• The use of stem cell extracts in high-end anti-aging, scar reduction and hair restoration products
• DNA repair enzymes, including genome-editing enzymes, used to correct UV damage in skin cells
• Stimulating collagen production in the body to delay signs of aging
• Exosomes carrying bioactive cargo such as proteins, peptides, lipids, RNA, and DNA used to restore skin volume, rejuvenate the skin and reduce wrinkles.
• Polynucleotides (long chains of nucleotides derived from DNA or RNA) used in high-end cosmetics to promote tissue repair, increase hydration, and improve skin elasticity.

Samantha Moodie, partner at Mathys & Squire, says, “These innovations were previously developed for use in complex medical procedures. However, innovation in the cosmetics industry has begun to use treatments which harness the body’s own biological pathways to boost skin repair and regeneration.”’

“Carrying out research and development in the cosmetics industry can be costly, especially when developing cutting-edge technologies. Patents play a crucial role in helping companies recover these investments by protecting their innovations – as well as helping firms maintain their competitive advantage.”

“The strong uptick in patent fillings shows that cosmetic companies are increasingly looking to the patent system to safeguard their inventions.”

The use of biological molecules  in cosmetic applications are a “grey area” between traditional medical and cosmetic uses – careful patent drafting is required to avoid patent law exclusions.

Mathys & Squire add that careful drafting of patent applications, particularly the claims, is required when covering bio-cosmetic technology that often straddles the line between medical and cosmetic applications.

Samantha Moodie says, “Often cosmetic companies have to rely on patent applications that cover a new and innovative use of an already known biological molecule for cosmetic treatment.”

“Uses that have a medical or therapeutic effect are considered unpatentable by many patent offices (such as the European patent office), whereas purely cosmetic uses are allowable.”

“This means that cosmetic companies need to carefully consider the information and data provided in their patent applications as well as the precise language in their cosmetic use claims to avoid unintentionally falling within the scope of patent law that excludes patents for therapeutic or medical uses.**”

Mathys & Squire recommend that companies seeking to protect a new and innovative cosmetic use of a bio-cosmetic product should:

• use clear language to define the “cosmetic” and “non-therapeutic” effects of the product so as to avoid covering any unintended therapeutic or medical applications;
• avoid including statements in the description that relate to or describe any alleged therapeutic benefit of the cosmetic molecule; and
• define the intended user of the bio-cosmetic product as a “healthy individual” to avoid encompassing medical treatment of an unhealthy or sick ‘patient’.

Samantha Moodie adds that, “In some circumstances, it may even be possible to cover cosmetic and therapeutic applications in the same application when a bio-cosmetic product has distinguishable cosmetic and therapeutic effects.”

“In this scenario, a clear definition of the diseases that can be treated should be included alongside data that demonstrates the intended therapeutic effect. In addition, user groups relevant for the cosmetic use and separate data demonstrating the cosmetic effect should also be included.”

*Containing biological molecules such as stem cell extracts, exosomes, polynucleotides, collagen and endonucleases 

**Article 53(c) of the European Patent Convention states that patents cannot be granted for methods treating the animal or human body by surgery or therapy, or for methods of diagnosis practiced on the animal or human body.

On the 13^th of November, author Ruth Leigh came to our London office in the Shard to join us for this month’s book club and give a talk about her career journey.

Ruth previously worked at Mathys & Squire as one of our support staff and we are pleased to see the success she has achieved following her time here. She has published seven books, including her main book series revolving around the life of the main character, Isabella M. Smugge, an influencer who has just moved to the countryside from London.

We had the opportunity to speak to Ruth about her journey as an author, as well as to look back at her experience at the company twenty-five years ago. In the interview, she looks at how the firm has evolved, highlighting the importance of diversity and inclusion, and shares how her rewarding her time at Mathys & Squire was, putting her in good stead for the rest of her career.

To start things off, can you give us a brief introduction?

These days I’m a full-time writer, but I only started that career full-time in 2022, so it’s still quite new. But I’ve been a freelance writer since 2008. I’ve had an interesting range of careers, looking back. I like to challenge myself, so I’ve done lots of different things.

I’ve been writing fiction since 2021. So far, I’ve written four funny, contemporary books about a TikTok and Instagram influencer, and I’m writing the fifth in the series. I’ve also written a collection of short stories around minor characters in Pride and Prejudice, a poetry book and my latest, a selection of my blogs from 2019-2023.

How long did you work at Mathys & Squire and what did you do?

I came to Mathys & Squire in 1998. Before that, I was working for the Head of Department of Psychology at UCL and it felt like it was time to take a leap. I went to an agency and the job supporting Paul was the first one that came up. I’d never worked in the private sector, and I didn’t know anything about law, but I was used to being in a supportive PA role to quite important people, so it seemed like an obvious progression.

Back then, we were all in one quite small office. I was doing admin work for Paul, but very quickly we started doing other stuff as well. Recruitment was very low key at that time, and rather one-note, so with his encouragement, I added the job of recruitment for Mathys & Squire to my list. I’m delighted to see that some of the staff I helped to recruit are still with the firm. One of our biggest clients was involved in a huge court case while I was there too, so a lot of my time was spent helping with that.

In terms of recruitment, I was very keen to make it more diverse. We were already seen as one of the more go-ahead patent firms, but more diversity was needed. Throughout my time there, I learnt a lot and met some great people, and it was hard work, but I am proud of the fact that by the time I left it looked very different from when I arrived.

In 2003, I was expecting my first child and became a consultant recruiter, working from home. That wasn’t a thing in 2003, so I was breaking new ground there as well.

What was your favourite part about working at Mathys & Squire?

I would say the social life. Our team ended up as quite a big group, so when we managed to get out and about (usually on a Friday evening), we used to have such a good time and I’m still in touch with some of them now, which is lovely.

 I do love a challenge and, at Mathys & Squire, every day there was a new one and it really helped me grow positively as a person. 

What motivated you to change to a career in writing?

It’s what I’ve always wanted. Apparently, when I was a little child, if anyone said to me, “What are you going to be when you grow up, Ruth?” I would always say, “I’m going to be a writer.” And I think it’s interesting how I worded it. I didn’t say, “I quite fancy being a writer,” or “I might be a writer;” I always said, “I’m going to be a writer.”

And I read all the time. I mean literally all the time. I’d read 15 to 20 books a week if work didn’t get in the way, that’s just my thing. It was the one subject I was naturally good at so it made sense to think that writing would be my career.

My early life wasn’t very happy. When I was 18, I ran away from home to Exeter and I thought, “Ruth, other people have dreams, but that’s not for you. Crush it underfoot and just get on with living your life, that will have to do for you.” So, I put the idea of being a writer to one side and though I would never come back to it again.

I’m glad I did things the way I did and that I didn’t plan it all out, because everything I have done has fed into my writing, including working at Mathys & Squire. I think in book five I’m going to make one of the couples my heroine knows patent attorneys. Why not?

How would you summarise the books you have written?

The main character is called Isabella M Smugge (her name spells out “I Am Smug.”). When I wrote the original blog about her, it was just for fun, creating this ludicrous woman inspired by people I’d seen on social media during lockdown. I’d see these women who were bragging about living their best lives and making banana bread and doing Joe Wicks every morning and I was so sick of it.

I created this character who lives in an incredibly privileged bubble: lots of money, perfect husband, perfect children, perfect house, babbling on Instagram and TikTok about her wonderful life. But I knew that couldn’t be the whole story. So, when I sat down to write the first book, I thought, right, she’s going to have to move out of London to a little village in Suffolk.

She’s narrating it, but she’s an unreliable narrator. She’s telling you how perfect her life is and how everyone loves her, but that’s not the case, and you start to see it through somebody else’s eyes and the cracks start to show. She changes throughout the books, but not too much, because I’m not a fan of books where someone starts off absolutely horrible and by the end, they’re everyone’s best friend. That’s not how it works. Isabella is a lot nicer, but she is still a snob by the time we get to book four.

What is the worst and best part of being a writer?

The worst part is the self-doubt – when you sit there and look at a blank screen and think, “Ruth, you’re a complete fraud. What makes you think anyone’s going to like your stuff?” You spend so much time by yourself, sitting with your own company, and those voices come in and that is hard.

The best bit is when you meet someone or you get an e-mail from a reader telling you that they loved your book and that it touched them. It really matters to me that I can make someone’s life better. People often write to me  to say that they’re in a bad place, but that my books are really helping them.

Do you think there are any similarities between your work when you were at Mathys & Squire and your work now?

I’ve never thought about that before, that’s a great question. I think that I often do difficult things in my job now – things that I thought I never could, such as going into a classroom full of 15-year-olds to deliver an inspirational workshop. I can see them thinking, “Great, another boring middle-aged woman banging on about something we hate.” But within five minutes I’ve cracked them. It’s going in and doing something that no one thinks you can do, and that’s what it was like at Mathys & Squire. Within my team, we were doing things we’d never done before, and we were looking at things which seemed unachievable or stupid to even try and trying anyway.

Did you bring anything you learnt whilst working at Mathys & Squire into your career as a writer?

I think it taught me perseverance. I already thought outside of the box, but it increased that quality.

Finally, we can’t end this without touching on the intellectual property side of things. As a writer, copyright protection plays a significant role in what you do. Did you find that you had more knowledge going into it about copyright after working here?

That’s a very interesting question. Yes, it did help me. When I wrote the novels, I was really careful.

With my Issy Smugge book, I work closely with my publisher, who has a set of house rules. When I co-founded a small press and published the other three books through them, no one was telling me what I could write. I had to really think about that, particularly with the Jane Austen book, because I had to know about the law on intellectual property, copyright and public domain. If an author has been dead for seventy years, you can use their words, but there’s something called fair use, so you can’t just quote an entire chapter, because that’s not fair.

Quite often when I’m working with other authors, they’ll ask me questions like that and I’ll find myself talking about IP, and they say, “Wow, how do you know about that?”

I was driving my teenager daughter to college the other day and she was asking what I used to do, so I started describing Mathys & Squire. And I told her about our slightly eccentric client who used to come in every two years with crazy inventions. She was slightly in disbelief that that’s what I used to do. “You did science stuff, Mum? You?” She had a point. I don’t really do science.

I once heard someone say that the patents and trade mark world is like a secret profession. If you say you work in a law firm, everyone knows what you mean. But the minute you mention patents and trade marks, people have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s niche. So, knowing what I knew about trade marks and copyright and inventive step has actually really helped because I’ve not fallen into the pitfalls that other authors sometimes do.

What advice would you give to an artist, whether they’re producing physical art, books or music, on protecting their creation?

You have to check that you’re not infringing copyright. One of the things that’s key in our industry is that you cannot legally quote song lyrics in your books. I got round that, but I did cause my agent some alarm, because I made up a band which appeared in my third book. The editor said, “ Ruth, you can’t do that,” but I explained that it was fine as I invented the band and their back catalogue (one of their songs will be trending on TikTok in book five). 

We would like to thank Ruth for taking the time to come back to Mathys & Squire. Mathys & Squire would not function without our support staff, from the people here now to those that have gone but left their mark, and Ruth is just one example of the talent and individuality which we are proud to embrace here.

We are delighted to be the Forum Partner for ELRIG’s UK Forum “Outside the norm”, an event at the University of Warwick, Coventry, exploring engineering biology for drug discovery.

Partner Martin MacLean and Managing Associate Lionel Newton will be representing the firm at ELRIG’s UK Forum “Outside the norm”, taking place on the 13^th of November.

Lionel Newton will be delivering a talk that explores how strategic intellectual property (IP) management underpins success in the advanced therapeutics sector. From early-stage spin-outs to clinical development and eventual acquisition, ventures that proactively build and evolve their patent portfolios are best positioned to attract investment, secure partnerships, and sustain competitive advantage. Drawing on real-world experience, including a brief case study, the session highlights how a well-planned IP strategy not only protects innovation but also drives commercial value throughout the therapeutic development.

About ELRIG

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. This event will highlight the use of synthetic biology and engineered biological systems in accelerating drug development, discovering new classes of medicines and unlocking previously undruggable targets.

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

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

IPSS Electra Valentine has co-written an article in response to Black History Month, discussing the notion of ‘professionalism’ at work and how we must separate it from Eurocentric standards.

The article examines the discrimination against Black professionals ingrained in what we deem acceptable and ‘smart’ in the workplace, such as attitudes towards natural Black hair, emphasising the importance of allowing and embracing authentic presentation. It highlights that any rules regarding appearance for client contact or formal settings should be limited to reasons of safety, hygiene or product integrity, not style or taste.

The article also features a quote from IP Support Manager at Mathys & Squire, Christine Youpa-Rowe, outlining our firm’s commitment to the Halo Code. The Halo Code is a statement on Mathys & Squire’s stance against discrimination towards Afro hair and an acknowledgement of our staff’s right to embrace all Afro-hairstyles.

You can read the full article here.

Partner Claire Breheny has been featured in ‘New non-alcoholic cocktail brands rise by 19% in two years’ by The Morning Advertiser, ‘Sober curious: How no and low alcohol drinks are redrawing legal lines’ by FoodBev Media and ‘Non-alcoholic cocktails trademarks surge 19% in two years’ by MCA.

In the articles, Claire provides commentary on the growing consumer interest in non-alcoholic beverages which is driving innovation and investment in the industry, as well as shaping trade mark filing activity.

Read the extended press release below.

The number of new alcohol-free cocktail brands being launched in the UK continues to rise with UK trade mark filings for non-alcoholic cocktails jumping 19% in two years to 515 from 433, according to Mathys & Squire, the intellectual property (IP) law firm.

This growth reflects how companies are prioritising alcohol-free product development to meet strong demand from Generation Z consumers seeking healthier, socially-inclusive drinking options.

During the same period, the number of new gin trade marks filed fell 9% from 642 to 582, while rum filings decreased 5% from 662 to 627, demonstrating changing consumer preferences toward alcohol-free alternatives.

However, whisky trademarks moved in the opposite direction, growing 7% from 714 to 761. New trademarks are being filed in order to market more budget whisky brands, with shorter ageing periods, without jeopardising existing upmarket brands.

The surge in non-alcoholic cocktail filings reflects a broader growth in innovation and investment across the broader alcohol-free drinks segment.

Leading companies, including Diageo, are investing significantly in new product launches, alongside marketing campaigns and sponsorships, to capture growth in the expanding alcohol-free market.

Claire Breheny, Head of Trade Marks at Mathys & Squire, says:
“The increase in non-alcoholic cocktail trademarks shows how alcohol free alternatives are being developed for all the main drinks categories.”

“Health trends and Generation Z drinking habits are transforming industry innovation priorities and investment strategies.

“Businesses that fail to innovate effectively risk losing out on one of the fastest-growing and most dynamic market segments in the global drinks industry.”

Head of Trade Marks and Partner Claire Breheny has recently been featured in Law360 following the latest Court of Appeal decision between Adidas and Thom Browne in, ‘Adidas Ruling Offers A Warning For Brands On Position Marks’.

The IP dispute involves the sportswear brand and fashion designer brand Thom Browne, who had already brought Adidas to court in 2021 regarding the IP protection of their three stripe design. In the latest edition of the case, the Court of Appeal referenced EU case law to demonstrate that Adidas were not protecting a ‘single sign’, and consequently did not uphold their arguments.

In her commentary, Claire highlights the importance of detail when applying for, and managing, position marks, as evidenced through the case. The example also shows how the court will not overlook ambiguity, and can be treated as a lesson to those considering such IP protection.

To read the full article click here.

As this year’s Nobel laureate Omar Yaghi said, “science is the greatest equalising force in the world.” Yet many communities still face disparities in health, education, connectivity, and economic opportunity. STEM can help close these gaps through robust digital communications that keep people connected and enable rapid relief, voting technologies that make participation easier to trust, cleaner energy systems that use resources more efficiently, interactive tools that enrich learning and public spaces, and accessible health technologies that improve everyday communication and quality of life. With the above in mind, it is inspiring to spotlight black innovators whose patented ideas are already turning this promise of STEM into everyday progress.

Black History Month is as good a time as any to honour and celebrate some of the technical contributions of black people working in STEM to the world we live in, so in this article I explore some modern-day technologies developed by black people solving problems at the core of how we call, vote, hear and play.

Dr. Marian R. Croak

The telephone may have slain distance, but the internet now carries the burden of keeping us reliably connected, and Dr. Marian R. Croak’s work is central to that reliability. An important Voice over Internet Protocol invention, covered by patent US 7,599,359, addresses end-to-end performance monitoring in packet networks to keep calls intelligible under real-world conditions. Croak also helped facilitate small-donor philanthropy at scale with US 7,715,368 on text-to-donate, a mechanism that proved its value during disaster relief efforts in 2010. Taken together with a substantial wider portfolio, these patents form part of the infrastructure that underpins remote work, telehealth, and everyday family calls. [1], [2]

Dr. Lonnie G. Johnson

Dr. Lonnie G. Johnson’s inventive arc spans play and power. The Super Soaker (see US 5,074,437) redefined a consumer category through elegant pressure management. More recently, his Johnson Thermo-Electrochemical Converter (JTEC) filings, for example US 10,522,862, US 11,239,513, and US 11,799,116, relate to solid-state architectures that convert heat directly into electricity via membrane-electrode assemblies. The proposition is straightforward but significant: fewer moving parts, higher potential efficiency, and a route to harvesting industrial waste heat that could materially improve energy productivity. [3]

Lanny S. Smoot

In themed environments, the best engineering vanishes into the experience. Lanny S. Smoot’s portfolio exemplifies that principle. His retractable, internally illuminated“lightsabre” (US 10,065,127) pairs clever mechanics with controlled optics to create an effect that is both theatrical and robust. Across more than a hundred patents, Smoot’s work extends to sensing and interactive systems that allow venues to modulate content in response to guest behaviour, technology with clear applications beyond entertainment, including education and public exhibitions. [4]

Dr. Juan E. Gilbert

Trust in elections is built on processes that are easy to use and easy to audit. Juan E. Gilbert’s recent patents, US 11,334,295 for a transparent interactive interface for ballot marking and US 11,036,442 for a transparent interactive printing interface, are designed to make voter intent visible and verifiable at the point of selection. By allowing users to see exactly what is being printed as choices are made, these systems aim to reduce cognitive load, particularly for voters with disabilities, while strengthening paper-based audit trails. [5]

Prof. Fred McBagonluri

For custom hearing aids, small improvements in modelling and manufacture result in large gains in everyday usability. Prof. Fred McBagonluri’s co-invented filings, US 8,096,383 for tapered vents in ultra-small in-ear devices, US 8,135,153 for automatic wax-guard modelling, US 8,224,094 for left and right side detection of 3D ear impressions, and US 7,979,244 for aperture detection in hearing-aid shells, target pain points that historically caused feedback and user discomfort. The outcome is faster production, better fit, and more consistent acoustic performance. [6]

Summary

It is no secret that black people are underrepresented in STEM, which is why it is especially meaningful to me, as a black person with a STEM background, to see black inventors creating tools that work towards solving the problems above. As a patent attorney, it is even more meaningful to me to see those solutions protected by patents, because that recognition helps turn ideas into scalable innovations, attracts investment, and secures credit for the inventors shaping our future.

References

[1] Marian R. Croak – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Croak_
[2] Brooks Kushman profile (Croak & Jackson): https://www.brookskushman.com/insights/black-history-month-dr-marian-croak-1955-and-dr-shirley-ann-jackson-1946/
[3] Lonnie G. Johnson – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Johnson_%28inventor%29?
[4] Black Engineer profile (Lanny S. Smoot): https://www.blackengineer.com/imported_wordpress/1987-beya-winner-receives-100th-career-patent/
[5] Juan E. Gilbert – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
[6] Fred McBagonluri – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_McBagonluri?

We are delighted to announce that Partner Chris Hamer has been featured in the 2026 edition of IAM Global Leaders.

IAM Global Leaders 2026 celebrates some of the finest patent professionals in intellectual property, highlighting those that demonstrate an exceptional understanding of their specialism and the wider IP landscape, as well as consistent, high-quality work for their clients.

Those that have been chosen as IAM Global Leaders were featured in the IAM Patent 1000 2025 directory earlier this year as Recommended Individuals, in which Mathys & Squire were also ranked in the Gold tier as a firm.

IAM writes: “Chris Hamer is a diligent attorney, known for his timely and detailed advice. He has impressive expertise and know-how in the field, and he has navigated numerous challenging patent filings, ensuring crucial protection is achieved. His strategic approach is highly valued, empowering companies to make informed business decisions.”

To mark his recognition in the directory, Chris has featured in an online interview with IAM in which he shares his expert advice on IP strategy, patent portfolios, oppositions and appeals, and emerging technology within the industry.

Click here to read the full interview on the IAM website.