Following the release of her album ‘The Life of a Showgirl’, Taylor continues to demonstrate that intellectual property (IP) is not just a legal asset, it’s a keystone of brand power and control. Taylor has relentlessly protected her IP through several trade mark filings and reclaiming control over her master’s by re-recording her albums and branding them as ‘TAYLOR’S VERSION’. She has turned IP protection into both a business strategy and a form of artistic empowerment, but it doesn’t stop there.
Just days before announcing The Life of a Showgirl, her company, TAS Rights Management, LLC, filed a series of US trade mark applications including ‘THE LIFE OF A SHOWGIRL’, ‘TLOAS’, and ‘T.S’. These applications span a wide range of goods and services, from music and live entertainment to merchandise like jewellery, stationery, bags, and even fan clubs. It’s a clear indication that a larger rollout likely including a tour, extensive merchandise, and fan experiences is already in the works. By securing these marks early, Swift ensures she has full control over the commercialisation of her new era, while simultaneously safeguarding her brand from unauthorised use. This level of foresight highlights the strategic value of IP in the entertainment industry, not just for protection, but for monetisation and brand integrity.
This offers a timely reminder of how critical IP awareness is in any commercial venture. IP filings aren’t just a box to tick after launch, they’re part of the launch. Timing is everything as filing too early can tip off competitors, but filing too late can leave valuable assets exposed. Strategic trade mark control therefore allows artists to own their narrative, manage market timing, and prevent exposure and unauthorised use. For Taylor Swift, it’s not just about music, it’s about owning every piece of the story.
Click here to read our first article following the IP protection of Taylor Swift.
In the rapidly evolving world of cosmetics, biotherapeutic molecules, which were once confined to medical and pharmaceutical settings, are now making their way into skincare products, reshaping the landscape of anti-ageing treatments, skin repair and regenerative aesthetics.
Recent trends include the use of stem cell extracts, exosomes, polynucleotides, collagen and endonucleases in skincare products to stimulate the body’s natural healing processes. Moving beyond traditional fillers and Botox, new treatments are harnessing the body’s own biological pathways to restore skin vitality, volume and health. The credibility of using biotherapeutics in cosmetic applications has been bolstered by the formation of the Royal Society of Medicine’s Section of Aesthetic Medicine and Surgery (SAMAS), which was formally established on 1 October 2024. This development signals a growing acceptance of aesthetics within the wider medical community.
In this article, Partner Samantha Moodie and Associate Clare Pratt look at some of the key biotherapeutic molecules gaining traction in cosmetics and provide guidance on effective strategies for protecting these innovations in Europe through the patent system of the European patent office (EPO).
What are the latest trends in biotherapeutic cosmetic products?
Stem Cells
Stem cells have become a buzzword in premium skincare. They are used in cosmetics primarily for their regenerative and anti-ageing properties, although the products typically contain stem cell-derived ingredients such as conditioned media or extracts, rather than live stem cells. Stem cell therapies are being explored for skin rejuvenation, scar reduction, hair restoration and breast reconstruction, among other areas. Stem cell extracts and conditioned media can be applied topically (either alone or in combination with other treatments such as microneedling or laser ablation) or delivered via injection to achieve targeted regenerative effects.
Exosomes
Exosomes are extracellular vesicles, typically 30–150 nanometres in diameter, secreted by a range of cells including adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), immune cells, epithelial cells and even plant cells, referred to as plant-derived extracellular nanoparticles (PDENs). These vesicles carry bioactive cargo such as proteins (e.g. growth factors and cytokines), peptides, lipids, RNA (including mRNA and microRNA), and DNA. Crucial to intercellular communication, aesthetic medicine is increasingly harnessing exosomes as a natural means of restoring skin volume and promoting regeneration to rejuvenate the skin, reduce inflammation, enhance elasticity and hydration, and diminish fine lines, wrinkles and pigmentation. Typically administered via topical serums or creams, they are often combined with microneedling or laser treatments to enhance transdermal penetration and support post-procedural recovery.
Polynucleotides
Polynucleotides (PNs) are increasingly being used in aesthetic dermatology and high-end cosmetics. PNs are long chains of nucleotides derived from DNA or RNA and when injected or applied topically, are thought to promote tissue repair, increase hydration, and improve skin elasticity by stimulating fibroblast activity and collagen synthesis. Originally developed for wound healing and orthopaedics, polynucleotide technology has expanded into aesthetic dermatology.
Collagen
Collagen is the most abundant protein in the skin and connective tissues, providing structure, firmness and elasticity. Its natural decline with age leads to wrinkles, sagging and thinner, drier skin. To address this, topical collagen is often used to hydrate the skin and form a moisture-retaining film, creating a smoother, plumper appearance. Some products use collagen fragments (peptides) or compounds that stimulate collagen synthesis, such as retinoids, vitamin C and peptides (acetyl hexapeptide-3). A growing trend known as “collagen banking” promotes early intervention through skincare, treatments and lifestyle habits to build and preserve collagen reserves, aiming to delay the visible effects of ageing.
Endonucleases and genome-editing enzymes
Endonucleases and genome-editing enzymes, including CRISPR-associated nucleases, are a class of enzymes that can cut DNA strands at specific sites. While primarily known for their gene-editing potential in medicine, certain DNA repair enzymes are now being explored in cosmetics to correct UV-induced DNA damage in skin cells, positioned as anti-ageing or post-sun exposure treatments. Commercial products using liposome-encapsulated endonucleases claim to support DNA repair mechanisms, although the field remains nascent and scientifically complex.
Why is patent protection important in the cosmetic industry?
Research and development in the cosmetics industry can be costly, especially research relating to the use of biotherapeutic molecules. Patents play a crucial role in helping companies recover these investments by granting them the legal right to prevent others from making, using, selling or importing their inventions without permission. In addition to protecting innovation, patents offer a competitive advantage, discourage imitation, and can generate commercial value through licensing agreements. Securing intellectual property is often a prerequisite for attracting investment. Recent trends indicate that cosmetic companies are increasingly relying on patents to safeguard their innovations. The number of active patent applications filed globally in the field of cosmetics has grown year on year in the period between 2006 and 2023 (see Figure 1), and there has been a recent surge in the number of active patent applications relating to biotherapeutic cosmetics (see Figure 2).
Figure 1: Active published patent filings, including granted patents, in the field of cosmetics worldwide. The bar chart displays patent families between 2006-2023 for IPC codes relating to “cosmetics” (see methodology).
Figure 2. Active published patent filings, including granted patents, relating to biotherapeutic cosmetics worldwide. The bar chart displays patent families between 2006-2023 for IPC codes relating to “biotherapeutic cosmetics” (see methodology).
What aspect of biotherapeutic cosmetics can we protect in a patent?
Patents can be obtained to protect various aspects of biotherapeutic cosmetics, including the products per se, and their formulations, manufacturing processes and cosmetic uses. The incorporation of biotherapeutics into cosmetics blurs traditional boundaries between medicinal and cosmetic products. This grey area requires careful consideration during patent drafting and prosecution. Therefore, a key question for inventors working in these developing areas of technology is how best to gain patent protection. The optimal patent strategy will depend on whether a product, its formulation or the process for its manufacture is new; whether a new use for a known product has been discovered; and whether the intended use is purely cosmetic or also has a therapeutic effect.
Product claims
Product claims protect the composition or structure of a novel cosmetic product, such as a newly identified plant extract or a newly developed stem cell extract. Product claims are useful in a patent because they grant the Applicant the right to prevent others from making, using, selling or importing the claimed product. To obtain a product claim, the Applicant must demonstrate that the product is novel and inventive. Sufficient information should be provided in the patent application to enable preparation of the claimed product. For example, a product claim may be directed towards an anti-wrinkle cream containing a novel plant-derived molecule that achieves an improved anti-wrinkle effect.
Process claims
Process claimsprotect the method of making a cosmetic product, using, for example, a chemical, biotechnological or mechanical procedure. A process claim in a patent grants the Applicant the right to prevent others from using the claimed process and from using, selling or importing a product obtained directly by the claimed process. To obtain a process claim, the Applicant must demonstrate that the process is novel and inventive, and sufficient information should be provided in the patent application to enable the claimed process to be carried out. For example, a process patent may cover a new method of extracting a natural compound from a plant and incorporating it into a cosmetic product, or a new process for preparing a stem cell extract with improved cosmetic effect.
For many biotherapeutic cosmetics, innovation often stems from discovering new uses for known biological molecules. In this situation, the molecules themselves are not novel and the best approach for obtaining patent protection is to seek protection for the newly identified use. Use claims, therefore, protect a new or improved effect of a cosmetic product, and they grant the Applicant the right to prevent others from using the product for the claimed use.
To obtain a use claim, the Applicant must demonstrate that the claimed use is novel and inventive. Furthermore, sufficient information should be provided in the patent application to enable preparation of the product and use of it to achieve the desired cosmetic effect. The Applicant may also be required to demonstrate that the claimed cosmetic use does not involve an inextricably linked therapeutic effect, which would be considered unpatentable at the European Patent Office (EPO). (See Appendix 1)
To prove infringement of a use claim, the Patentee must demonstrate that an alleged infringer is using the product for the claimed cosmetic use. Use claims can therefore be more challenging to enforce than product or composition claims.
Composition claims
Composition claimsare another useful claim category for protecting a cosmetic product when thebiological molecule itself is known, but the formulation of the product is novel. Composition claims grant the Applicant the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or importing the claimed formulation. To obtain a composition claim, the Applicant must demonstrate that the composition (or formulation) is novel and inventive, and sufficient information should be provided in the patent application to enable preparation of the claimed composition. Composition claims may need to include reference to the specific concentrations or ratios of the components that are required to achieve the desired cosmetic effect to be considered patentable. Composition claims are easier to enforce than use claims because infringement can be determined based on the composition of the alleged infringing product, rather than how it is used.
Conclusion
Hence, there are a range of ways in which innovations in the field of biotherapeutic cosmetics can be patented. In addition, current trends in patent filings indicate that cosmetic companies are increasingly leveraging the patent system to safeguard their inventions.
In our next article, we will take a closer look at ‘cosmetic use’ claims. As noted in this article, such claims must be drafted with particular care to avoid falling within the EPO’s exclusions relating to therapeutic methods. We will explore the relevant EPO case law on cosmetic use claims and provide practical guidance for drafting robust and compliant patent applications in this evolving area.
Appendix
- (Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), patents cannot be granted for methods of treating the human or animal body by surgery or therapy, or for methods of diagnosis practised on the human or animal body (Article 53(c) EPC). The exclusion under Article 53(c) EPC does not apply to cosmetic uses or treatments. When a compound is identified as having a new cosmetic use, non-therapeutic method claims can be pursued at the EPO. For example, claims may be directed towards: “Use of compound X in the cosmetic treatment of Y”, “cosmetic use of X for purpose Y” or “non-therapeutic use of X for purpose Y”. In such claims, the “cosmetic use” or “non-therapeutic use” language serves as a disclaimer to exclude any effect that may be therapeutic in nature and would otherwise fall under the exclusion from patentability set out in Article 53(c) EPC. However, this disclaimer language is only permissible if the claimed cosmetic effect is not inextricably linked to a therapeutic effect that is achieved when the molecule is used as specified in the claim. In Part 2 of this article, we will further consider the relevant EPO regulations and case law governing cosmetic use claims, offering practical drafting guidance for patent applications in this area.)
Methodology
The data presented in this article was obtained using Patsnap by comparing active patent “simple patent families” between 2006 and 2023 related to specific IPC codes. A simple patent family is a collection of patent documents that are considered to cover a single invention. Patent applications that are members of one simple patent family will all have the same priorities, and continuations and divisionals will be placed in a patent family with the parent application. The IPC codes used to filter the searches were: “field of cosmetics” A61Q and A61K 8/00 in comparison with “biotherapeutic cosmetics”: A61Q and A61K/8/02, A61K/8/03, A61K/8/04, A61K/8/06, A61K/8/11, A61K/8/14, A61K/8/18, A61K/8/64, A61K/8/65, A61K/8/66, A61K/8/67, A61K/8/72, A61K/8/73, A61K/8/88, A61K/8/97, A61K/8/98, and A61K/8/99.
On the 15th of July 2025, the UK Government released a consultation on SEPs (Standard Essential Patents). With the aim of facilitating innovation for UK businesses in the digital technology industry, the government issued the consultation to better understand implementers and holders’ attitudes towards the SEP ecosystem and what changes will be the most effective in tackling current obstacles to innovation.
Standard Essential Patents
Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) are patents which are essential to a technical standard, e.g. standards developed by IEEE, 3GPP and the like. Technical standards set out how devices interact with one another, such as during the process of wireless communication. The use of these standards enables all devices to seamlessly communicate with one another, regardless of their manufacturer or where they are located in the world. Hence, holders of SEPs must make their patents easily available by adhering to the terms of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing. A transparent framework for and access to SEPs is vital to facilitate innovation in such technological fields, as well as ensure that different products and services produced by different companies are all safe and compatible.
The use of devices which can wirelessly communicate with other devices is continuing to rise, as Internet of Things (IoT) devices and vehicular wireless communications become more prevalent. Therefore, a greater number of industries and businesses are relying on technical standards so that their devices can communicate with other devices, resulting in an increased interest in SEPs.
Challenges in the SEP ecosystem
The consultation notes that the current ecosystem is somewhat challenging, particularly for smaller enterprises. As the importance of and need for SEPs in more industries rise, any limitations in the SEP framework could significantly impede innovation in technology.
For example, the consultation remarks that there is lack of transparency during SEP licensing processes, especially with regards to pricing, as business privately negotiate license rates (although there is more transparency in markets with developed SEP practices, such as in the field of cellular communications). The nature of these private negotiations leads to license rates remaining private, e.g. through NDAs. There is also no fixed procedure for establishing the rate, and this can result in unnecessarily lengthy timeframes for license agreements, as well as potential overpricing.
The possibility of knowledge and information gaps between implementers and holders of SEPs also extends to the definition of essentiality. Licensees and implementers may not have access to the information needed to determine which patents are truly essential to a standard. The consultation notes that more patents are declared to be SEPs than are actually needed for a technological standard, with the percentage of truly essential declared SEPs being potentially as low as 25-40%. This could be because patent holders have to divulge essentiality very early in the technical standard development process, pushing them to make assumptions. Again, this increases potential costs for licensees as they need to conduct extensive searches to understand which SEPs they must license to implement a standard. Moreover, the legal uncertainty may discourage businesses from entering the market at all.
The consultation and its proposals
Driven by a goal to boost and facilitate innovation in the UK, the consultation focuses on how the SEP ecosystem in the UK can operate more effectively and more transparently to support UK businesses. In releasing the consultation, the government’s main objective is to ensure implementers, especially SMEs, can successfully navigate the SEP ecosystem and FRAND licensing. They hope to explore ways of improving transparency, in terms of both pricing and essentiality, as well as procedures which could enhance efficiency in dispute resolution.
Transparency
The government proposes two main new mechanisms which attempt to address the national challenges mentioned in the previous section.
The Rate Determination Track (RDT) is one such mechanism which the government suggests introducing to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC). The RDT, if initiated, would be a simpler and more efficient approach to the process of determining the correct license rate. The system would act as a supplement to the existing Small Claims and Multi Claims track.
Another mechanism referred to in the consultation is the provision of searchable standard-related patent information. At present, information on SEPs, including information regarding ownership of those SEPs, is often reported and updated inconsistently, and divulged in a fragmented fashion over multiple sources. To consolidate this information, the consultation proposes the introduction of an additional search function to the One IPO Search service for SEPs. The government is also gathering opinions on whether an essentiality assessment service through the UKIPO would be necessary to further improve transparency in what constitutes an SEP.
Litigation
Finally, the government is also seeking input on various suggestions which they believe will reduce the likelihood of litigation and improve dispute resolution. One such proposal is the implementation of a specialist pre-action protocol for SEP disputes which would potentially reduce information asymmetry, preventing disagreements during licensing and the need for litigation. In addition, the government is requesting feedback on the efficacy of current remedies offered in SEP litigation and on the level of awareness of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services.
Author’s comment
It is positive to see the government take steps to consult with users of the SEP ecosystem. However, it remains to be seen whether the steps proposed in the consultation will result in meaningful change, particularly for small enterprises as intended. Specifically, IPEC trials, which small enterprises are most likely to favour, are already extremely efficient in respect of the time and costs involved. It is not clear how the proposed RDT could be more efficient in either respect.
A centralised repository of searchable standard-related patent information could be useful, but it remains unclear who will decide which cases are essential and added to the repository (and which cases are not), and how that difficult and subjective decision will be made.
It will be interesting to see what the government proposes once the responses to the consultation have been reviewed. The deadline for responding to the consultation is the 7th of October 2025 and, therefore, further announcements are expected next year.
You can read the full consultation here.
Mathys & Squire is delighted that Partners Sean Leach, Anna Gregson, Dani Kramer and Martin MacLean have all been identified in the 2025 edition of IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists.
The IAM Strategy 300 highlights a select group of individuals recognised for their leadership in IP through innovative strategic approaches. Representing a diverse range of sectors, including service providers, corporations, research institutions, and universities, these professionals are shaping the future of IP management and value creation.
These professionals are acknowledged as top authorities in the field and are chosen through an anonymous nomination process, followed by in-depth interviews with senior figures across the global IP landscape. This includes corporate IP leaders in North America, Europe, and Asia, as well as external IP service providers. Those that demonstrate an exceptional expertise and a deep understanding of IP value creation, management, and commercialisation earn a place in the IAM Strategy 300.
The 2025 rankings are available on their website here.
We would like to thank our clients and contacts who took the time to provide feedback to the research team at IAM Strategy 300.
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are firmly integrated within modern diets, with factors such as convenience, store availability, cost, food waste and time impacting consumer purchase decisions. However, influences in media and government action have recently drawn attention to the potentially harmful impact of overconsuming UPFs. So, as interesting behavioural changes start to emerge for both consumers and retailers, we can look to the future to see how this shift might influence intellectual property.
What are ultra-processed foods?
Understanding the chemistry behind UPFs is crucial in understanding both sides, and the reason to their great popularity. Food groups can be divided into four groups, referenced as the NOVA classification: Unprocessed or minimally processed foods, Processed culinary ingredients, Processed foods, and Ultra-processed food and drink products.
From a manufacturing perspective, such ingredients that are included in UPFs (e.g. preservatives, antioxidants and fats) are often to increase the flavour and appearance to the consumer, whilst simultaneously decreasing costs and minimising waste. A common differentiating factor is that they often contain ingredients that would not be utilised in home cooking, and therefore are not as recognisable to the consumer.
So, why now?
The apprehension is that the overconsumption of UPFs has been found to be associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, a finding that has become a hot topic of conversation. Government action, following the outline of ‘Towards a Good Food Cycle’ on July 15, popular publications, trending social media content, and daily news articles have all contributed to the increased awareness of these potential consequences, instigating consumers to reflect on their dietary decisions.
Consequently, some manufacturers are now following this trend within their food production strategy, attempting to cut down on the ingredients list to demonstrate themselves as a healthier, more transparent choice. A current example is the ‘Only…ingredients’ range from popular high street shop Marks & Spencers, which aims to highlight the simplicity of ingredients in their products, exemplified best by their famous cornflakes which solely contain corn.
For those trying to restrict their diet, either due to medical needs such as allergies or for personal preference, this transparency can be a good thing that was not always easily available in the past.
However, advocates of this practice as a general improvement have faced criticism for misinforming the public on the reality of food nutrition. In some cases, extra vitamins or supplements can be a positive addition to the nutritional value of a product. Innovation and sustainability director of vegan food brand THIS expressed his frustration regarding this misunderstanding, arguing that whilst their products are categorised as UPFs, this diminishes other benefits of their products (based on nutritional properties such as protein and fibre levels, and limiting saturated fat and sugar).
How might this impact IP?
The initial assumption might be that technical innovation within the food and beverage industry might be reduced, as producers interested in this trend attempt to strip back their recipes and reduce the ingredient list on their products, and, at least by appearance, avoid the use of “technology” in their food products.
However, the technical challenges in trying to maintain desirable properties in food products (such as, texture, flavour, shelf life, etc.) whilst limiting ingredients is, and will be, technically challenging. This may require different processes to be developed, or inventive ways to combine fewer ingredients to achieve the desired function and a comparable or improved product. It is within these processes and formulations used in the manufacturing of food that innovation can emerge, as the processes themselves may become more crucial in achieving comparable results whilst minimising ingredients. Whenever investment in technical innovation is used to provide new and advantageous products, this opens the door to obtaining patent protection for such innovations, and so IP protection can play a crucial role in staying ahead of competitors and adding value to a business.
This is not to suggest that the majority of food products will follow this path, as for many consumers and manufacturers this is not an influencing factor above cost or properties of the product. Instead, there could be a developing space for additional innovation in the sector which could influence IP trends in the future.
Our attorneys at Mathys & Squire have extensive experience protecting food-related innovations and assisting companies in carving out an advantageous position in the highly competitive food industry. If you would like to find out more or reach out, visit our food-specific sector page.
Investment Surges in AI-Driven Drug Discovery
Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as one of the most transformative technologies in recent years. The European Medtech sector saw a surge in investor interest in early 2025, dominated by AI-powered solutions. In Q1 alone, AI startups secured 25% of all European venture capital funding, with AI for drug discovery emerging as one of the leading segments.
Earlier this year, the UK government announced a £82.6 million investment into cancer research using AI, showing a dedication to harnessing the power of AI for cancer care and drug discovery. In June, the Nuffield Department of Medicine announced a new consortium, based in Oxfordshire, which will generate the world’s largest trove of data on how drugs interact with proteins for training AI models. 20 times larger than anything collected over the last 50 years, this collection will allegedly cut drug discovery costs by up to £100 billion.
Confidence in the potential of AI to solve healthcare’s greatest problems is growing, especially in areas like small-molecule drug and antibody design. With pressure to deliver faster, more targeted therapies, AI is becoming a central engine of biomedical innovation.
AI’s Transformative Role in Drug Discovery
AI is revolutionising how we discover new drugs by unlocking speed, scalability and novel insight. Traditionally, identifying new drug targets relies on a mix of intuition, laborious experimentation and trial-and-error. Pharmaceutical companies typically take 10 to 15 years to bring a single drug to market, which can cost up to $2 billion. Despite this effort, only about 10% of candidates entering the trial pipeline eventually succeed.
These are concerning statistics, but AI’s ability to sift through vast biological datasets and carry out predictive modelling could be the answer. AI can assist at virtually every stage of the small molecule drug discovery pipeline, including target identification and validation, hit discovery, lead optimisation, and preclinical assessment.
Reshaping structural biology with AI
The use of AI in structural biology has become crucial for modern drug discovery. AlphaFold, developed by DeepMind, represents one of the most groundbreaking achievements of AI. Its creators, Demis Hassabis and John Jumper, were awarded one half of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry “for protein structure prediction” in recognition of their work on AlphaFold.
Traditionally, tertiary protein structures have been determined through complex and time-consuming techniques such as X-ray crystallography. In contrast, AlphaFold enables the prediction of protein structures based on amino acid sequences, which are readily available in different databases. AlphaFold has been widely adopted by the scientific community and has become an indispensable tool in structural biology since its public release. It enables medicinal chemists and structural biologists to identify binding pockets, model ligand interactions, and perform in silico docking studies, even for proteins previously considered “undruggable” due to lack of structural data.
The recently released AlphaFold 3 model further advances the field by improving the prediction of protein-ligand interactions, including the binding of antibodies to target proteins. This enhanced capability is expected to significantly accelerate the design and optimisation of therapeutic antibodies, which now represent a critical class of biologic drugs.
AI for target identification and drug design
AI plays a pivotal role in both target identification and drug design. Enabling researchers to identify novel or previously overlooked drug targets, AI algorithms can mine genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic data to prioritise genes or proteins implicated in disease pathways. AI also accelerates the discovery of lead compounds by predicting molecular properties and optimising chemical structures.
One of the most promising recent examples of an AI-discovered drug is rentosertib, which is a small-molecule inhibitor of Traf2- and Nck-interacting kinase (TNIK). TNIK was identified as a potential therapeutic target for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) through AI-powered analysis of gene expression datasets profiling the tissue of patients with IPF. A separate AI platform then designed and optimised the small molecule drug. Remarkably, it took less than 30 months to progress from target discovery to the completion of Phase I clinical trials. In a recently conducted Phase 2a trial, preliminary results showed that rentosertib was well tolerated and led to significant improvements in patients’ conditions compared to the placebo group.
Unlocking the hidden potential of existing drugs through AI
AI can also help identify potential medical uses for existing drugs, and this approach can save time by reducing the need to optimise drug structures and address potential safety issues.
Baricitinib is a Janus kinase (JAK1/2) inhibitor originally developed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. During the COVID-19 outbreak, researchers used an AI-driven knowledge graph platform to explore existing drugs that could potentially be repurposed to combat SARS-CoV-2. Baricitinib was found to have both antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties which could be useful in treating COVID-19, and the FDA approved it for use in patients with severe COVID-19 soon after.
Intellectual Property: The Strategic Imperative
In the rapidly evolving field of AI-driven drug discovery, intellectual property is more important than ever to attract investment and protect your ideas. Securing patents not only protects novel molecules and AI platforms but also increases a company’s value and positions them as a leader in the competitive marketplace of drug discovery.
A 2024 patent landscape report recorded 1,087 global filings related to AI-enabled small-molecule discovery between 2002 and 2024. Recently, patent filings as well as pending applications in this area have surged, reflecting exciting technological progress.
However, unlike patenting new drugs in the traditional pharmaceutical industry, which could be relatively straight-forward, bringing AI into the mix could complicate things.
AI as the inventor
Despite the growing role of AI in research and development, both the European Patent Office (EPO) and UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) clearly stipulate that AI cannot be named as an inventor on a patent application. In the landmark DABUS cases, where Dr. Stephen Thaler attempted to name AI system, DABUS, as the sole inventor, both jurisdictions rejected the applications on the grounds that only a natural person can be legally named as an inventor. Although AI-generated inventions may still be patentable if a human (such as the deviser of an AI model) claims inventorship, AI itself cannot hold legal rights or be recognised as the originator of a patentable invention.
AI-generated inventions
Inventions such as drug molecules and antibodies designed and/or optimised by AI are patentable under UK and EPO law, provided that they meet the standard legal criteria of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. Furthermore, experimental data showing that the AI-designed drugs can achieve specific “technical effects”, such as enhanced efficacy, specificity or binding affinity, is key to securing the grant of a patent.
As with any invention, companies should file early to secure protection, as well as conduct thorough IP searches to avoid infringing on others’ rights. Monitoring existing patent filings in biomarkers and therapeutic targets also allows companies to focus their R&D efforts on drug candidates that can satisfy the patentability requirements of novelty and inventive step.
AI as the invention
In addition, it is advisable to consider obtaining patent protection for any novel AI system which identifies biological targets or designs molecules, not just the output.
Along the same line as algorithms and software, intellectual property law in the UK and Europe views AI models per se as of an abstract mathematical nature and therefore not patentable. However, an AI or machine learning invention may be patentable if it produces a technical effect that serves a technical purpose, either by its application to a field of technology or by being adapted to a specific technical implementation.
In this regard, under EPO practice, AI inventions applied to the specific field of drug discovery may be patentable, especially if such AI models solve clearly defined drug development problems (e.g. improving binding affinity or reducing toxicity). Patent protection may also be available for so-called core AI inventions relying on developments of the fundamental underlying AI techniques, rather than application of an AI model to a particular technical field such as drug discovery. The UK follows a broadly similar approach, with courts applying the Aerotel/Macrossan test, originally devised in the context of general computer-implemented inventions, to assess whether an AI invention is a patentable technical contribution.
Thus, while AI cannot be named as an inventor on a patent application, it can certainly be the subject of patent protection if it contributes to the technical character of an invention. Care must, however, be taken in drafting any patent application directed to such AI inventions.
Conclusion
As AI transforms how we discover and design new medicines, intellectual property becomes a critical pillar for translating technological breakthroughs into lasting competitive advantage.
Given the fast-moving nature of the field, a robust, multi-faceted IP approach is crucial. Other things to consider are leveraging trade secrets as well as patent protection and engaging in strategic licensing, open innovation and partnerships to help ease costs, allow broader access to vital data for AI training, and accelerate development. Most importantly, integrating a comprehensive IP strategy into your research and business activities from the outset will position your company to thrive in this dynamic landscape.
Over the past four weeks, we have been joined by students Mubarak Ahmed, Ejiro Williams and Mahfuz Ahmed in our London Office, the Shard, through our partnership with Career Ready.
Throughout their time at Mathys & Squire, they have shadowed multiple of our departments, learning from our fee earners, IP support, marketing and consulting, to gain a full understanding of the inner workings of our firm, and all the possible career paths available in IP. Alongside this, they were tasked with analysing real-life cases, presenting an invention of their own, creating a graduate brochure and much more, concluding today with a final presentation on what they have learnt about Mathys & Squire during their internship.
Mubarak Ahmed writes: “My time at Mathys & Squire has been incredibly eye-opening, insightful, and rewarding. Over the course of my experience, I’ve gained a deeper understanding for the world of IP and the vital role patent attorneys play in protecting innovations. From day one, I was welcomed in a supportive and friendly environment. I had the opportunity to work with professionals across various departments, shadowing associates, technical assistants and IPSS, every single one of them offering a unique perspective of the patent process. Beyond the technical learning, I appreciate the office culture at Mathys & Squire as its collaborative, approachable and genuinely invested in helping each other. I’m truly grateful to the team for their time, guidance and encouragement throughout my time here.”
Mahfuz Ahmed writes: “In Mathys & Squire I got to do many shadowing sessions with the teams within this company, for example learning about marketing, the records team, IPSS, and trade marks. I learned many valuable skills that I can take into other work environments which will help me significantly. Skills like close attention to detail, listening and taking in information quickly, and communicating more confidently with new people I meet.”
Ejiro Williams writes: “I really enjoyed my 4 weeks internship at Mathys & Squire. The staff were so friendly and always willing to help at any time. I developed many essential skills which I feel will be of good use such as: public speaking, collaborative working and close attention to detail. Thank you for having me! I would 100% recommend to future graduates who are currently studying a science or computing degree!”
Elijo Williams, Mubarak Ahmed and Mahfuz Ahmed in our London Office.
All our departments were thoroughly impressed with the work of all of the students, and we look forward to watching them prosper in their future careers.
Career ready is a UK-wide charity working to increase accessibility into professional workplaces for young people, giving them the chance to understand the opportunities available across different workplaces.
Read more about our CSR and D&I initiatives in the relevant links.
Mathys & Squire have published a report on the use of the Unitary Patent system in the field of IT & engineering, sharing the results of a survey on the patents granted to a selected number of applicants in 2023 and 2024 across six technical areas. The report was compiled by Partner Nicholas Fox and Associate Maxwell Haughey.
The Unitary Patent system came into effect on 1 June 2023. Prior to that date, whenever a European Patent was granted, the European Patent automatically became a bundle of national rights for each of the countries designated in the patent. Such national rights need to be maintained separately. In contrast, a Unitary Patent is a unitary right which provides patent protection across all the member states participating in the Unitary Patent system.
Previously, Mathys & Squire sampled a range of applicants in the healthcare sector and investigated their engagement with the Unitary Patent system (view our report here). The analysis revealed that, contrary to popular belief, there was no blanket approach by healthcare companies to engagement with the Unitary Patent system. Rather, widely diverging approaches between different applicants was observed, ranging from almost universal engagement to widespread avoidance.
On the other hand, concerns which may cause diverging approaches to the Unitary Patent system in the healthcare and life sciences field will be different to concerns which applicants in the field of IT & engineering will have.
Applicants in the IT and telecoms field
In contrast to the life sciences where relatively few, but highly valuable, patents are granted, the number of patents in the electronics fields is much larger. Applicants in the IT and telecoms fields consistently appear at the top of the European Patent Office’s list of most frequent filers. However, unlike the life sciences, where patents are normally validated and maintained in a large number of countries, most electronics patents are only ever maintained in the UK, Germany and France. This is more cost effective as due to the London Agreement, applicants do not need to translate their patent into a national language for the patent to have effect in those countries.
For such applicants, engaging with the Unitary Patent system involves a cost, as a full translation of the patent is required. When applicants are obtaining upwards of 1000 granted patents a year, the costs of such translations (typically around €5,000 per patent) will mount up.
Therefore, continuing with the existing approach of only validating patents in the UK, Germany and France, where protection can be obtained without incurring the translation fees, remains attractive.
Applicants in the engineering field
Compared with IT and telecoms, engineering is a half-way house. The volume of patents in the mechanical and engineering sectors is far lower than in the IT and telecoms fields. However, engineering patents are normally maintained more broadly than IT and telecoms patents – typically in around 4-6 jurisdictions (often the UK, Germany and France, and in addition 2-3 other major jurisdictions often selected from Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands). As such, engineering patents very much hit the sweet spot for using the Unitary Patent system. Where patents have traditionally been maintained more broadly, the Unitary Patent system potentially provides the means for patentees to obtain broad geographical coverage at a lower cost than was possible in the past.
In addition, although Unitary Patents are always subject to the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court, and as unitary rights they are always subject to the threat of central invalidation, relatively few IT and engineering patents are ever involved in litigation or are the subject of EPO oppositions compared with the life sciences. Opposition rates rarely exceed 3% and for many of these areas of technology opposition rates of less than 1% are common.
Therefore, the Unitary Patent system potentially provides many upsides for engineering applicants with relatively low levels of risk.
Our report on the Unitary Patent system
Whilst the above theorises their approach, the report reveals how applicants in the IT & engineering fields are engaging with the Unitary Patent system in reality. Mathys & Squire’s survey analyses the number of Unitary Patents granted in 2023 and 2024, across six technical areas: digital communication, semiconductors and microchips, civil engineering, transport, defence, and electrical machinery, apparatus and energy. A range of applicants in each area was also sampled to assess the activity of specific applicants.
In summary, the report shows that approaches to the Unitary Patent system vary significantly. However, in general, the percentages of Unitary Patents observed in all IT and engineering fields were lower than the four healthcare fields covered in our previous report, apart from civil engineering, which is perhaps contrary to expectation.
In addition, the percentage of granted IT & engineering Unitary Patents was higher in 2024 than 2023 across all technical fields, which is unsurprising as Unitary Patents were not available for the first five months of 2023. Although applicants had the option of delaying the grant of patents issued in the first half of 2023 until Unitary Patents became available, it seems that relatively few applicants took advantage of this.
Explore the full Use of the Unitary Patent System in IT & Engineering report to uncover changing trends, specific sector insights and the approach of top filers in the industry.
Partners Hazel Ford and Alexander Robinson have been featured in the Life Sciences IP Review (LSIPR) providing insights on the latest developments impacting the European Patent Office Boards of Appeal, following their discussion held at LSPN Spring North America 2025.
In their talk, they analyse the evolving legal landscape in the life sciences sector in light of recent decisions prompted by the Unified Patent Court, offering a valuable perspective on how these changes may affect patent strategies across Europe.
To watch the full video click here.
How can you keep track of innovations made by your competitors? Do you even know who all your competitors are? Monitoring patenting activity can help, but there are limitations. Surprises can still happen, sometimes from unexpected quarters.
June 2025. Another week, another news article with a colourful photograph of a rocket exploding. But as news feeds were focussed on the latest ‘Starship’ blow-up as SpaceX doubled down on its fail fast, learn fast methodology, the attention of much of the space industry was elsewhere. To northern Japan, where a day earlier a prototype rocket had risen some 300m into the air and, a minute later, redeployed its landing gear and landed flawlessly a short distance away. The technology was undoubtedly impressive, but the most newsworthy aspect was the identity of the company behind it.
Since the first commercial launch system was offered by Arianespace in the 1980s, arguably the greatest advances have come from SpaceX, who first demonstrated the result of a decade of development by launching a reusable rocket in 2015. Since then, SpaceX has become by far the dominant player with currently over 100 orbital launches a year. It has also inspired numerous start-ups. But the new rocket was not from any of those. The unexpected new entrant in the reusable rocket space was the venerable Japanese car manufacturer: Honda¹.
What was ostensibly a car company doing launching a reusable rocket? And could anyone have seen this coming?
The monitoring of patents – and in particular the filing of new patent applications – is often presented as a key tool for competitor intelligence. What areas are your competitors working on? What new innovations have there been in your field? Have there been any new entrants? Patents are by design a good source of technical information; to secure a patent monopoly requires full disclosure of the workings of the invention, which nowadays is readily available on free public databases.
However, patent monitoring is an imperfect tool. The language can be obscure, a dense mix of technical and legalese, sometimes deliberately so. Subject classifications are not always appropriate. The ultimate corporate owners can be difficult to determine. And patent applications typically only publish 18 months after the initial filing, so any such monitoring is inevitably somewhat behind the curve.
Another reason to be wary is that the incentives to file patent applications differ; what works for start-ups is not always appropriate for more established companies. The former tend to file early in the innovation process to indicate commercial potential, secure investment, and to protect their key innovation ahead of any public demonstration. We can see this with the large number of reusable rocket start-ups with a handful of patent filings, perhaps some successful ground-based test firings, but as yet no successful launches. Large companies (or those with more secure funding) tend to have a broader technological base and no need to engage in such market signalling.
Leaving aside ideological reasoning (Elon Musk once famously quipped that patents are “for the weak” and claimed SpaceX was a patent-free company; a position since evidently revised), for some companies, the very requirement to disclose in full details of the invention is seen as a drawback, allowing competitors an unwanted innovation leg-up. Instead, development is undertaken largely in secret, with intellectual property being protected through corporate culture – or in case that fails, formally buttressed via strict non-disclosure employment contracts and the potential for litigation.
Honda seems to be adopting this secrecy approach, at least initially. Since first declaring an interest in developing space technologies in 2019, they have kept a low profile. Footage of an earlier rocket test firing was only shown in grainy black-and-white, possibly to avoid disclosing details of the propellant.
They evidently take patents seriously, however. Established in the 1940s, Honda is one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the world, with vast experience in combustion technology, fluid handling, etc., and a large R&D department with a reported willingness to allow young engineers opportunities to work on projects of their own. For the past two decades, Honda has filed over 1,000 patent applications a year.
Honda also has prior form in diversifying into other technology areas, whether done primarily as a proof-of-concept and public-relations exercise (as with the ASIMO humanoid robot programme, since discontinued) or commercially. Honda has, for example, a successful side line in business jets and a small portfolio of aviation-related patents.
That said, Honda seems unlikely to be aiming to compete with SpaceX as a commercial launch provider. Rather, this may be a case of vertical integration, a company looking to support its core business by moving into adjacent technologies. Honda may in time provide its own satellite links for ‘connected vehicles’, avoiding over-reliance on the present dominant supplier (Starlink again).
Whatever the reason, Honda could well become a major force in the intellectual property of space, following similar industrial giants such as Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Hyundai, all of which have been building space-related patent portfolios.
So if your company is warily eyeing existing competitors and wondering where the next threat might come from, how can you anticipate competition arising from established companies crossing over from other sectors?
- Be aware that innovation and competition not only come from smaller companies and startups. Not all large companies are dinosaurs.
- Appreciate that patent monitoring is important but also imperfect and so must be part of a wider analysis.
- Take public pronouncements seriously. Whereas start-ups seek to make headlines, larger
companies may be indicating a deliberate strategy. - Identify companies with the means, motive, and opportunity to vertically integrate or diversify.
- Note when unexpected new entrants move into your technology area and consider whether there are similar companies which might do likewise.
You may also wish to consult with your patent attorney. Despite the drawbacks with patent monitoring, there are sometimes faint signals which a patent attorney might identify. A couple of years ago, a Honda patent application was published with the intriguing title “Landing gear for flight vehicle”. There was no mention in the patent specification of space or the launching of rockets. But a remarkably similar landing gear was seen deployed a few weeks ago in northern Japan.
