We are proud to announce that Partner Chris Hamer has been featured for the second year running in IAM Global Leaders.

IAM Global Leaders 2027 recognises the leading talent in the patent profession, showcasing the professionals who display outstanding expertise in their field and patent law, and who go above and beyond to meet the needs of their clients.

The Global Leaders were selected from the list of professionals featured as Recommended Individuals in the IAM Patent 1000 2026 directory, in which Mathys & Squire maintained its Gold tier ranking for the second year.

IAM writes: “Chris Hamer brings a creative, well-informed approach to developing and protecting patent portfolios. He provides clients with practical advice and strong commercial insight, helping them define the right IP position and align it with investor expectations. His input plays a central role in strengthening companies’ development and long-term resilience.”

To learn more about the accreditation, click here.

Partner Michael Stott has been featured in Food and Drink Technology, Food Business News, Food & Drink International, The Plant Base, Meat and Poultry, IndexBox, DairyNews, Baking & Snack and eDairy News, discussing the surging demand for high-protein and ‘functional’ foods.

His commentary highlights how global patent applications for high-protein foods hit a record high in 2026, with the mission to increase protein content whilst preserving taste and texture opening new opportunities for innovation and valuable intellectual property.

Read the extended press release below

• Health-conscious consumers driving up demand for ‘functional foods’
• Food companies drawing on insect and plant proteins to enrich products

The number of global patent applications for high-protein foods hit a record high of 5,626 in the year to 30 June 2026, up from 5,148 the previous year, as strong consumer demand spurs innovation in food technology, shows new research by leading intellectual property law firm Mathys & Squire*.

In the space of five years, there has been an 80% increase in the number of patent applications filed compared with the 3,122 filings made in the year to 30 June 2021.

Growth in demand for high-protein foods has historically been driven by consumers seeking to lose weight or support muscle growth and has become mainstream as eating preferences have evolved. New US Dietary Guidelines have inverted the traditional food pyramid to place protein at its base and the growing impact of GLP-1s on eating habits has signalled a move to still greater protein consumption. 

Michael Stott, Partner at Mathys & Squire, says: “Demand for high-protein foods is so strong that manufacturers are looking for every possible way to add protein to their best-selling products. That has fuelled a wave of innovation in the food industry.”

“The goal for a lot of major food manufacturers has been to increase the protein content of some of their products, without changing the taste or appearance consumers expect. That is not an easy task and food manufacturers have been exploring new and disruptive approaches to achieving that goal, even using insect proteins to recreate conventional foods.”

“The current trend towards high-protein foods is in some ways a natural continuation of the earlier drive to develop meat alternatives. Many of the techniques originally developed for meat alternatives are now being used to create high-protein versions of a much wider range of foods.”

“This research is creating a vast library of hugely valuable intellectual property for food companies. Over time, that IP becomes a significant component of their valuations.”

Food giants Nestlé (58 patents), Cargill (46) and Arla (28) are among the world’s top patent filers for high-protein food technologies. Examples of the technologies which were the subject of patent applications last year include:

• A high-protein dough made with whey microparticles that can be used in pastries.
• A plant-based whipping cream with more than twice the protein content of traditional whipping cream.
• A protein ingredient developed from microorganisms that can be used in industrial confectionery.
• A ready-to-drink, high-protein beverage that replicates the smell, texture and flavour of milk.

Number of new patents for high-protein foods rose 80% over the last five years

*The research considers patent applications published between 1 July 2025 and 30 June 2026. Source: PATENTSCOPE, World Intellectual Property Organisation.

Few sectors are as R&D intensive as the drug discovery and development industry.  Considering also the complex regulatory hurdles that must be overcome to take a drug to market, any given asset typically requires 12+ years of development (at a cost of $M/Bs) before yielding a marketable product. This is a costly endeavour that requires significant investment.

By providing a framework that recognises and protects innovation at the earlier stages of the drug development journey, IP rights (notably patents) give companies and investors greater confidence that successful research may generate a return, helping to attract the capital needed to advance promising drug candidates through preclinical research, clinical trials and, ultimately, regulatory review. In this way, IP has helped bridge the gap between scientific discovery and commercial development. It supports the translation of ideas into practical innovations, enabling research organisations and startups to pursue ambitious projects that might otherwise struggle to secure funding.

On the importance for attracting funding, an EPO and EUIPO study found that “startups with patents and trademarks are 10 times more successful in securing funding” while highlighting that biotech is “by far the most IP-intensive sector”.  This is illustrated in Fig E3 of the study, copied below:

Below we discuss the importance of IP in enabling this industry, following which we outline some of our top-tips on becoming an investment ready startup/SME in the drug discovery space.

Enabling a thriving drug discovery startup ecosystem

Drug discovery and biotechnology startups, university spinouts and smaller research organisations are important sources of innovation, often developing novel targets, platforms, compounds and technologies that can reshape how diseases are understood and treated.

Unlike businesses that intend to build their own global manufacturing and commercial supply chains, many such ‘smaller’ drug discovery companies are established with a different business model: to develop promising technology and ultimately license it to, or be acquired by, a larger pharmaceutical company. Such transactions may take place when a candidate demonstrates sufficient promise in pre-clinical or early clinical development. A strong portfolio of patents and other IP can help demonstrate the value of an emerging technology, attract investment, support partnerships with established pharmaceutical companies and provide opportunities to license discoveries to organisations with the resources to develop them further.

This business model has attracted the attention of investors who can see the potential for a significant ROI upon a successful exit.  Such investors are well aware of the role played by a strong IP portfolio in maximising exit valuations, and IP due diligence is thus a key component of investor decision making in this industry. Similarly, for prospective large pharmaceutical partners, IP protection is a fundamental consideration: a technology without appropriate IP protection may be difficult to license or acquire on commercially attractive terms.

Investment readiness requires more than having filed a patent application. A company must demonstrate that its IP strategy is integral to its business objectives, supports its development plans and creates a credible basis for future commercial opportunities.

1. Demonstrating a coherent and defensible IP portfolio

An investment-ready company should be able to explain its IP portfolio clearly and demonstrate how that portfolio supports its business plan. This requires an understanding of both the geographical coverage and the scope of the protection obtained or sought.

Geographical coverage and patent status

Companies should maintain an overview of the jurisdictions in which their IP is protected, explaining why those jurisdictions are strategically important. Investors will want to understand whether the portfolio covers the markets that matter to the business and its anticipated commercial partners.

The status of the relevant patent applications and granted patents should also be clear. Where the company has received citations or encountered challenges on a pending application, and successfully overcome them, explaining these developments may help demonstrate the progress, resilience and promising nature of its IP position.

Scope and practical strength of protection

The breadth of patent protection is equally important. Companies should understand precisely what their patents protect and whether competitors could develop alternatives that avoid infringement while achieving similar technical results.

For example, where protection relates to a lead compound, it is important to explain to investors whether the scope extends to related or so-called “me-too” compounds. Where protection relates to a method, the company should be ready to discuss with investors whether a competitor could design around the patent and, if so, how easily this might be achieved. A useful assessment is whether avoiding a protected technical step would require a competitor to sacrifice an important technical advantage or incur prohibitive costs. The objective is to understand whether the portfolio provides meaningful commercial protection rather than simply documenting an invention.

Evidence that the IP has commercial significance

Investors should also be shown that the company’s IP is more than a collection of patent documents. Evidence of its impact on the competitive landscape can strengthen the investment proposition.

Relevant indicators may include enquiries or licence requests from third parties, competitors changing direction after a patent application becomes public, or increased attention to the technology in academic literature following publication of the filing. Such evidence can help demonstrate that the IP is attracting interest, influencing activity in the field or creating opportunities for commercial engagement.

2. Building an IP roadmap around research and development milestones

Investors expect an IP strategy to evolve alongside the company’s research and development (R&D) programme. Rather than treating patent filing as a one-off activity, companies should plan how their portfolio will develop as the technology matures and new commercial opportunities emerge.

This may involve planning follow-on patent applications covering different aspects of a drug candidate, including:

1. Composition of matter: protection relating to the compound itself.
2. Formulation: protection relating to how the compound is formulated.
3. Method of manufacture: protection relating to the process used to produce the compound.
4. Specific therapeutic indications: protection relating to particular uses of the asset.
5. Dosage regimens: protection relating to how the drug is administered.

These different categories of protection may arise at different stages of development. The company’s IP roadmap should therefore identify potential follow-on applications and align them with anticipated R&D milestones and the generation of supporting technical evidence. The purpose is to continue developing the IP estate as the underlying science progresses. Additional protection relating to the form, manufacture or use of an asset may be directly relevant to how that asset is ultimately marketed, potentially supporting further periods of exclusivity. 

A very generic ‘example’ roadmap, starting from a first filing date (green) in Oct ’26 directed to a “composition of matter” with an expiration date (red) in Oct ’46, may look like this:

Working with patent attorneys to establish and maintain an IP roadmap can help ensure that the company’s patent strategy remains connected to its scientific achievements, development priorities and longer-term commercial objectives.

3. Identifying and managing third-party patent risks

We do not live or work in vacuo and any science that is worth pursuing can be expected to attract others too in the form of competitors.

A credible IP strategy must address not only the company’s own patent portfolio but also the rights held by other organisations/ third parties. Investors will want reassurance that the business understands the surrounding patent landscape and has a plan for managing potential obstacles to development and commercialisation.

Freedom to operate

A freedom-to-operate (FTO) assessment considers relevant third-party IP that may affect the company’s ability to pursue its intended activities. The objective is to identify potential risks and develop an appropriate response.

Where relevant third-party rights are identified, possible risk-mitigation approaches may include designing around the protected technology or seeking a licence. Demonstrating that the company has considered these options signals a proactive approach to protecting risk against investors’ capital.

Importantly, no search can guarantee that a dispute will never arise. Investment readiness therefore also involves considering how the company would respond if a patent dispute emerged. The assessment of third-party rights should be revisited over time as the industry landscape and the company’s own development plans evolve.

The company’s position in relation to competitors

The analysis should also consider the reverse situation: whether the company’s own IP creates a position that competitors may need to address.

A strong or dominant patent position may require third parties to seek a licence and can provide leverage in cross-licensing negotiations. Understanding this position helps a company assess the strategic significance of its portfolio and explain how its IP may influence relationships with competitors and potential partners.

Together, these assessments demonstrate that the company is considering both the risks to its freedom to operate and the commercial opportunities created by its own IP rights.

4. Establishing clear ownership and control of IP

Even a technically strong patent portfolio may present difficulties if ownership is unclear or the company lacks the necessary rights to exploit it.

An investment-ready business should be able to demonstrate a clear chain of ownership and identify any contractual restrictions that could affect the use, licensing, assignment or management of its IP.

This is particularly important for companies that have developed technology through collaborations or with the involvement of consultants and external development partners. The relevant contracts should contain appropriate IP provisions, and the company should understand who owns the resulting inventions and other IP.

University spin-outs may face additional considerations where the IP remains in the name of the original institution or another legal entity from which the business was established. In such circumstances, the company should understand what steps are required to transfer ownership or secure the rights needed to exploit the technology.

Joint ownership can also create complications. Investors will want to know whether third-party consent is required for key activities, including licensing, assigning or amending a patent or patent application. Reliance on another party’s approval can introduce uncertainty and potentially delay a transaction.

Where ownership needs to be transferred, the company should be able to explain the proposed assignment and how it will be achieved. The central objective is to ensure that the company has the legal and practical ability to control and exploit the IP on which its business depends.

5. Aligning IP strategy with commercial opportunities

Investment readiness is not solely about protecting technology. It is also about demonstrating that the IP portfolio is relevant to potential commercial partners.

Companies seeking investment should consider which organisations may be interested in licensing or acquiring their technology and whether their IP strategy is aligned with those organisations’ commercial priorities.

For example, a company may hold an asset that complements an existing pharmaceutical pipeline or addresses a potential gap created by an impending patent cliff. Alternatively, its technology may provide an opportunity to develop a new therapeutic indication for an existing drug, creating an additional revenue stream for a prospective partner.

These possibilities can make the company a more attractive candidate for collaboration or acquisition, particularly where the technology addresses a clearly identifiable strategic need.

Companies should therefore consider their target partners when developing their IP portfolios. The relevant question is not simply whether the technology can be protected, but whether the protection supports an opportunity that another organisation may value.

By proactively creating partnership opportunities, a company can demonstrate that its IP strategy is connected to a realistic commercial pathway rather than operating independently of its growth and exit plans.

6. Using trade marks to support long-term commercial value

Trademarks are another important component of investment readiness. Their role extends beyond registering a product name: they can form part of the company’s broader business and marketing strategy.

In the pharmaceutical sector, the commercial value of a drug may continue long after its patent protection (including any extensions) has expired. During the period in which patents are in force, exclusivity can help a product establish market momentum. Once generic competition becomes possible, prices may fall in the absence of patent protection.

A well-considered branding strategy, supported by trademarks, can help sustain that momentum. A recognised brand may benefit from goodwill associated with a product that customers regard as reliable, trusted and proven.

Customers may continue purchasing a familiar product identified by its trademark, at least until generic competitors have had time to establish their own credibility.

Trademarks should therefore be considered as part of the wider IP and commercial strategy. While patents and trademarks perform different functions, together they can contribute to the company’s approach to protecting and developing the value of its assets throughout their commercial life.

Making IP a core business objective

Investment readiness from an IP perspective requires a company to demonstrate that its intellectual property is strategically managed, commercially relevant and capable of supporting its development and growth plans.

For drug discovery start-ups, SMEs and spin-outs, this means going beyond the existence of patent applications. Companies should be able to explain the geographical coverage and scope of their protection, demonstrate how their IP roadmap aligns with R&D milestones, identify and manage third-party patent risks, establish clear ownership and show how their portfolio may create opportunities for licensing or acquisition.

Trademarks should also be considered within the broader commercial strategy, particularly where brand recognition may contribute to value beyond the period of patent exclusivity.

Ultimately, investors need confidence that the company understands the value of its IP, the limitations and risks associated with its position, and the steps required to turn its technology into a commercially attractive opportunity. By treating IP as a core business objective, rather than a purely legal or administrative function, a company can present a more coherent investment proposition and build a stronger foundation for future partnerships and exit opportunities.

If you require assistance getting your IP portfolio and strategy ready for investor due diligence, please reach out to us here.

World Food Day is celebrated every year on 16^th October, and was originally established to mark the founding of the United Nations Food And Agriculture Organisation in 1945. The day highlights the importance of building food systems that can feed a growing population sustainably. As climate pressures, resource constraints and demand for food challenge conventional production methods, researchers and businesses experiment with manufacturing methods and alternative ingredients to produce new and evermore interesting food sources.

Emerging technologies now enable manufacturers to produce specific functional ingredients, such as proteins, fats and flavourings, using microorganisms, easing the strain on traditional sources. One particular microorganism attracting significant attention is genetically engineered yeast. Traditionally used to make bread, beer and other fermented foods, yeast is now being harnessed in increasingly sophisticated ways. It can be used to produce animal-free dairy and egg proteins, protein-rich biomass, tailored fats and flavour-enhancing ingredients.

However, technological progress alone cannot guarantee success in the marketplace. Consumers expect food products containing alternative proteins to provide the same (or at least a similar) taste, texture and affordability as traditionally manufactured goods. Furthermore, scaling production economically and securing regulatory approval remain significant challenges which businesses within this field must overcome.

In this article, we look at some of the latest developments using yeast as a tool for food production, and how intellectual property (IP) plays an important role in incentivising innovation and helping businesses scale effectively.

Precision fermentation: yeast as a factory

Precision fermentation involves the cultivation of genetically modified microorganisms, such as yeast, in a bioreactor. The microorganisms are modified by inserting a desirable gene, such as those responsible for producing proteins in cow whey, into the DNA of yeast or bacteria, effectively programming it to produce that molecule. As the modified microbes consume feedstock and multiply, they manufacture the desired molecule, which is then extracted and purified. To date, scientists have successfully genetically modified yeast so as to manufacture products traditionally obtained from animals, including casein, citric acid, albumin, rennet and whey proteins which are crucial for cheese, milk and yoghurt products.

In a recent development, Those Vegan Cowboys in collaboration with Interfood, HAS green academy and XXL Nutrition secured €1.29 million in public funding to further develop the production of casein through precision fermentation as well as reviewing its performance in finished food products and consumer acceptance. This partnership demonstrates the importance of replicating the functionality of animal proteins, not just their nutritional composition.

In an alternative use of this technology, companies such as like Oobli, are using precision fermentation to develop sweet proteins, such as brazzein, monllin and thaumatin. Some of these sweet proteins have been found to be 1,000 to 5,000 times sweeter than their traditional counterparts and so are considered to provide a healthier means of reducing sugar in everyday foods.

Single-cell protein: yeast as the ingredient

Unlike precision fermentation, which uses microorganisms as microscopic factories to produce a particular molecule, single-cell protein (SCP) production uses the microorganisms themselves as the product. Yeasts are a particularly promising source of protein production due to the well-established scale-up procedures, advantageous nutritional profile and metabolic adaptability, as well as being a regulatory approved food worldwide. Yeast can be cultivated in large bioreactors under controlled conditions, with a carbon source providing energy and building material for growth alongside nutrients such as nitrogen, minerals and vitamins. Temperature, pH and oxygen levels are managed to encourage the yeast to multiply and accumulate biomass. The cells can then be harvested, processed and dried into a protein-rich ingredient.

Whilst single-cell protein production is considered to be a more environmentally friendly means of manufacturing food products, new research is focussed on ways  of further improving the sustainability of this process (as discussed in “Recent Advances in Sustainable Yeast-Based Single-Cell Protein Production from Renewable Substrates Using Engineering Approaches” J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2026). In particular, this research looks at the use of food-processing waste and agricultural by-products which might otherwise be discarded as a more environmentally-friendly and cost-effective feedstock source. In addition,  “Yeast single-cell proteins from CO₂ with tandem biological systems” Food Biotechnology , 2026 looks at recent developments in the use of CO₂ as a carbon source for yeast SCP, reverting carbon emissions back into food production for a more sustainable and circular system. The method involves two separate processes: firstly, autotrophic microbes, such as acetogens, convert carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or industrial off-gases to a substrate, such as acetate if acetogen is the host used, through the process of carbon fixation. Secondly, the substrate is fed to the yeast for SCP production.

SCP creates a route to protein production that is less dependent on growing crops specifically for food ingredients or animal feed.

Yeast as a flavour technology

For alternative ingredients to become established within the market, the products formed must be appealing in terms of taste, texture and colouring. However, some plant-based proteins have been reported as producing undesirable beany, bitter or earthy notes.

Yeast has also been shown to provide a pathway for addressing this secondary issue. Yeast fermentation can be used to transform sugars into key aromatic compounds via metabolic pathways, such as glycolysis, proteolysis and lipolysis, to form volatile flavourants, such as esters, carbonyls, fatty acid derivatives and sulphur, which can enhance the taste profile and flavour complexity of food products, and act as substitutes for synthetic chemicals. Hamburg-based company, Ohly, for example, is producing yeast extracts through fermentation which enhance the perception of flavours already present and veil unpleasant tastes with the yeast’s natural savoury and umami-rich flavour, overcoming the gap between taste and nutrition.

Beyond alternative proteins

The landscape of sustainable food production is transitioning from a focus on alternative proteins to other ingredients. Yeast can convert sugars into lipids with specific properties, such as a particular melting point, texture, fatty acid composition and stability, so that they can be used in the production of food, such as palm oil, cocoa butter or meat alternatives. The lipids accumulate within the yeast cell bodies and can be released by splitting open the cells. The yeast, Yarrowia lipolyitca, for example, naturally accumulates large amounts of lipids, making it an attractive platform for producing customised fats. Y. lipolytica  is widely used in precision fermentation due to its ability to accumulate high lipid content and its perceived industrial robustness.

Sun Bear Biofuture, based in Oxford, is tackling the supply chain issues encountered by the vegetable oil and cocoa butter market by using yeast to produce fats and oils. Last month, the company released results of their consumer testing which trialled microbial fat as a substitute for cocoa butter and palm oil. The independent consumer study tested the perception of three foods, chips, chocolate spread and cookies, as well as two cosmetics products, hand balm and body butter, comparing items made using Sun Bear Biofuture’s oil and cocoa butter alternatives with items made using traditional ingredients. Four of the five products tested containing the substitute ingredient were judged as equal or preferable to the traditional counterpart.

How IP supports innovation and commercial growth

The science in yeast-based food technology has made leaps and bounds over the years and companies are demonstrating their ability to commercialise their inventions. However, they still face obstacles in manufacturing at scale and affordably. IP plays a crucial role in transforming research into tangible impact.

Developing yeast strains, optimising fermentation and building production facilities requires significant upfront funding before a technology is market ready. A well-managed IP portfolio can make a business more attractive to investors by showing that it will retain a competitive advantage and its technology has clear commercial value.

Intellectual property can also create additional revenue streams. Businesses in the food and drink sector do not necessarily need to manufacture and sell every ingredient or product they develop. They can license their technology to other manufacturers in exchange for royalties. This can be beneficial for startup companies developing innovative technology who do not yet have access to or the means to build manufacturing infrastructure. When entering into commercial partnerships, having a clear understanding of your IP rights is essential to set clear boundaries on ownership and how the technology can be used.

It is important to develop an IP strategy early to avoid disclosure of the technology which could prevent a business obtaining patent protection at a later date. The IP strategy should align with the business model, the business’ commercial goals and the competitive landscape, which will influence, for example, in what jurisdictions to seek patent protection.

All in all, IP incentivises innovation by ensuring that researchers are sufficiently rewarded, as well as enabling collaboration between different parties.

What can patents protect?

For businesses innovating in yeast engineering, IP protection can extend across multiple stages of development, rather than only being applicable to the final ingredient.

For example, it can be possible to seek protection for the yeast itself which has been genetically engineered to produce a particular ingredient. The technical effect requirement can be met by specific modifications which yield improved results, such as a greater production of protein or enhanced protein secretion. Processes are also patentable, including the overall precision fermentation process, as well as innovative intermediate steps, such as the selection of a particular feedstock, the optimised conditions for fermentation, methods for extracting and purifying the ingredient from the fermentation broth. It is also possible to protect the use of particular ingredients, for example to improve a food’s taste profile.

Yeast is a highly promising solution to the issues faced by the current food system, surfacing as a platform for food production which can be programmed in a myriad of ways. Science is advancing rapidly, but manufacturing economics, regulatory approval, infrastructure and consumer acceptance are still major bottlenecks.

A well-planned IP strategy therefore considers not only what a business has developed today, but also how its technology may evolve as it scales. By identifying valuable innovations early and choosing appropriate protection, yeast food technology companies can strengthen their position as they work to bring new ingredients to market.

To learn more about our expertise in food & beverage and get in touch with a specialist attorney for any food-related IP queries, click here.

Partner Jeremy Smith and Associate Michael Charlton have been featured in Law360, IP Watchdog and UC Advanced, discussing the UK Government’s proposed approach to Standard Essential Patent (SEP) licensing and dispute resolution.

In their comments, Jeremy and Michael explore the UK Government’s proposed approach to court-led FRAND determinations in SEP infringement disputes and the next steps for SEP licensing. They discuss the potential implications for SEP owners and implementers, including how the proposed measures could influence licensing negotiations and dispute resolution.

Click to read the full article in Law360 here.

Click to read the full article in IP Watchdog here.

Click to read the full article in UC Advanced here.

We are delighted to announce that we have been ranked in the Chambers & Partners 2027 guide, maintaining our position.

The 2027 edition of the Chambers & Partners UK Legal Guide showcases the leading law firms and legal professionals around the country. The guide is compiled based on rigorous research conducted by a dedicated team analysts, forming a highly trusted and comprehensive view of legal talent and expertise.

The guide included the following testimonials for Mathys & Squire:

“The team’s level of service is exceptional and above and beyond typical business practice. They have become an extension to our team. They always returns calls and emails and are always there for us when needed, including when we do not know we need them.”

“Mathys & Squire’s strengths are its considered advice relevant to our business model, collaborative and down-to-earth attitudes and excellent back office support.”

“For me, the distinguishing feature for Mathys & Squire is the way that they communicate. It is clear, concise and friendly. I also appreciate that they challenge my decisions in the nicest way possible if they disagree with them. Whenever I give Mathys & Squire an indication of how important the task is, they always meet my timelines, whether impossibly short or extremely long.”

“They are very flexible, not simply following a set process. They are capable of covering all aspects of patent prosecution.”

Partner Martin MacLean has also been ranked as a Band 1 Patent Attorney.

“Martin is one of the most impressive patent attorneys I have worked with during my career. What distinguishes Martin is his rare ability to combine deep scientific understanding with exceptional commercial judgement. He combines intellectual rigour with sound judgement and genuine commitment to his clients’ success.“

For more information on the Mathys & Squire rankings, visit the Chambers and Partners website here.

We are happy to share that Mathys & Squire is a Silver sponsor of Life Sciences Patent Network (LSPN) Fall 2026, taking place from 2^nd to 3^rd November in San Francisco, California.

Partners David Hobson, Iain Armstrong and Nicholas Fox will be attending LSPN Fall 2026, as well as giving a presentation on “Making Space for your Blockbuster in Europe,” discussing the options available to optimise your patent clearance strategy amidst an evolving legal landscape.

LSPN is a major life sciences conference aimed at IP professionals, focusing on patent drafting, portfolio management, enforcement, prosecution and regulation across the life sciences. The conference will explore the ways in which recent legal and technological developments may influence how companies and private practice navigate the intricate world of life sciences intellectual property law. Topics covered will include the latest UPC case law, IP deal-making, optimising SPC term in Europe, geopolitical shifts and patent cliffs reshaping the competitive environment, antibody claims strategy post-Teva v. Lilly and the impact of AI.

David Hobson is highly experienced at providing commercially-focused advice for UK and overseas multinational pharmaceutical clients operating in the field of biologics, with particular expertise in the botulinum neurotoxin, cell therapy and antibody fields. He works closely with his clients’ commercial and scientific teams to map out optimal filing strategies and excels at putting in place and defending robust, valuable patents. His experience also includes performing competitor and intelligence gathering and patent monitoring, advising on high-value FTO matters, and representing clients in key offensive and defensive opposition and appeal proceedings.

Iain Armstrong has over 25 years of experience in guiding clients of all types through the life science patent landscape.  With a focus on drafting, prosecution and due diligence, Iain provides practical advice to his clients across the whole patent life cycle, ensuring that their IP strategy is in line with their commercial goals.  Having worked across a broad spectrum of life science technologies, he has a particular interest in cell therapies, antibodies, personalised medicine, and wound healing. In addition, he has considerable experience in patent prosecution, co-ordinating activity across multiple jurisdictions. 

Nicholas Fox is a solicitor and UK & European patent attorney, specialising in contentious and non-contentious intellectual property matters with a focus on patent litigation in the English courts and acting before the European Patent Office. He has experience litigating cases involving a wide range of technologies including applications for preliminary relief for pharmaceutical products and opposition work relating to a method of detecting a novel fusion gene for targeted cancer treatment. He also has acted on behalf of clients in international ownership disputes in the pharmaceutical field.

Our team is looking forward to catching up and exchanging their expertise with other leading IP attorneys and life science industry experts from around the world. Please reach out to our team if you are interested in arranging a meeting.

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

Contact our team

David Hobson – Partner  |  [email protected]

Iain Armstrong – Partner  |  [email protected]

Nicholas Fox – Partner  | [email protected]

The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks was widely regarded as a watershed moment for the patentability of artificial intelligence inventions in the UK. Yet, less than a year later, the UKIPO has refused the application on remittal, concluding that the claimed artificial neural network (ANN) recommendation system lacks an inventive technical contribution.

Although the deadline for appeal has not yet passed, an appeal does not presently appear likely. Attention can therefore now turn to the broader questions: what does the UKIPO decision tell us about technical character, inventive step and the patentability of AI inventions in the UK?

From Exclusion to Inventive Step

As reported previously when ruling on the Emotional Perception appeal, the Supreme Court fundamentally reshaped the legal framework for computer-implemented inventions.

Whilst confirming that artificial neural networks can fall within the concept of a computer program, the Court moved away from the traditional Aerotel analysis and embraced principles drawn from G 1/19. Most significantly, the Court introduced an intermediate step requiring identification of those claim features that contribute to the technical character of the invention before inventive step is assessed.

The Court deliberately avoided deciding whether the claimed recommendation system possessed technical character. Instead, that issue was remitted to the UKIPO.

The UKIPO’s Response

On remittal, the UKIPO accepted that the application was not excluded from patentability merely because it involved an ANN.

The decisive issue became whether the claimed ANN architecture, training objectives and techniques for closing the “semantic gap” contributed to the technical character of the invention.

The examiner and subsequently the Hearing Officer concluded that they did not.

In broad terms, the invention was characterised as seeking to improve the semantic or emotional relevance of recommendations provided to users. Once that objective was regarded as non-technical, the specific ANN learning objectives and convergence mechanisms were treated as differences that could not support inventive step.

With those features discounted, only conventional computer hardware and implementation remained. The result was a finding of obviousness.

The Debate Over G 1/19

The applicant relied heavily on passages in G1/19 recognising that:

• technical effects may arise within a computer system;
• measurements may constitute technical activities;
• technical contributions do not necessarily require a direct interaction with physical reality; and
• sophisticated information-processing techniques can, in appropriate circumstances, contribute to technical character.

The Hearing Officer accepted that key principles from G 1/19 had been endorsed by the Supreme Court and that the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s opinions represented settled law which the Supreme Court had indicated the UKIPO should follow. However, he rejected the proposition that the entirety of the Enlarged Board’s reasoning had become binding UK law.

As a result, much of the wider reasoning of G 1/19 was treated as highly persuasive rather than mandatory.

The Real Battleground: Technical Effect

The Applicant’s case focused heavily on the technical implementation of the ANN, including its learning objectives, vector-space representations and semantic-gap-closing mechanisms. Whilst those features were said to contribute to technical character, the case ultimately centred on whether they could be linked to a clearly identifiable technical problem and technical effect.

The Hearing Officer ultimately characterised the remaining technical contribution at a high level as “Computer hardware running a program (the ANN) that selects and outputs a file”.

The Applicant argued that the processing undertaken by the ANN was such that the ANN outputted a “semantically better file”. However, the Hearing Officer concluded that how a file was chosen was a non-technical difference and therefore did not contribute to the technical character of the invention.

The Hearing Officer’s decision illustrates that the debate over technical character is, in many cases, really a debate about technical effect. Once the Hearing Officer concluded that the claimed ANN produced only a “semantically better” recommendation and that this result related to human perception, which is inherently subjective, rather than technology, the remainder of the inventive-step analysis largely followed. This reflects long-established EPO practice under which features that do not contribute to a technical effect cannot support inventive step.

Such an approach is entirely consistent with EPO practice.

In G 1/19, the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal stated that “patent protection is reserved for creations in a technical field” and that claimed subject matter must have a “technical character” or, more precisely, involve a “technical teaching“, namely an instruction addressed to a skilled person as to how to solve a particular technical problem using particular technical means. The Enlarged Board further noted that the Basic Proposal for the Revision of the EPC expressly stated that these considerations regarding technical character apply equally to the assessment of computer programs.

Under established EPO jurisprudence, features that do not contribute to the technical character of an invention cannot support inventive step. Similarly, EPO case law makes clear that where no relevant technical effect can be identified, inventive step will generally fail regardless of the sophistication of the underlying implementation.

The decision also resonates with established principles from English patent law.

In Actavis UK Ltd v Novartis AG, Jacob LJ observed that arbitrary claim limitations which possess no technical significance cannot support inventiveness. Similarly, in Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Kennametal UK Ltd, Arnold J emphasised that a selected feature is not inventive merely because it differs from the prior art. Its alleged technical significance must be established.

The real disagreement in the case was therefore not whether non-technical features should be disregarded. Both UK and EPO practice broadly accept that proposition. Rather, the key question was whether the ANN learning objectives, semantic-gap-closing mechanisms and resulting file selection in the Emotional Perception System should themselves have been regarded as producing a technical effect.

Is This the End of the Road?

Comments published following the decision suggest that some supporters of the application believe there are serious grounds for appeal. Criticism has focused on the operation of the new “intermediate step” and allegations that the UKIPO has, in substance, drifted back towards a contribution-based analysis reminiscent of Aerotel.

Yet there are also practical realities.

The dispute has already been litigated before the UKIPO, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court before returning to the UKIPO on remittal. Any further appeal would involve substantial cost, delay and uncertainty.

At present, there appears to be no indication that a further appeal will be pursued. If that remains the case, the October 2026 decision may stand as the first significant UKIPO attempt to apply the Supreme Court’s new framework in practice.

What Next for AI Patenting in the UK?

If the Emotional Perception saga is indeed approaching its conclusion, its legacy may be less about the patentability of ANNs and more about the future meaning of technical character.

The Supreme Court removed many of the barriers associated with excluded subject matter. The UKIPO’s remittal decision demonstrates that the focus has now shifted elsewhere.

For applicants seeking protection for AI inventions, the key question is unlikely to be whether machine learning techniques are sophisticated or novel. Instead, the crucial question will be whether those techniques can be linked to a clearly identifiable technical problem and a technical effect arising from their implementation.

In that sense, Emotional Perception may mark not the beginning of a more permissive era for AI patents, but rather the beginning of a new and more nuanced debate about the relationship between technical character and inventive step.

If no appeal is filed, the Emotional Perception litigation will have achieved the unusual feat of reshaping UK law whilst leaving many of the most important practical questions unanswered. The Supreme Court settled the law on patent eligibility. The UKIPO’s remittal decision shows how the debate has now shifted to technical character and inventive step. Whether future applicants can successfully demonstrate technical effects in AI systems will be key.

We are proud to announce that we have successfully passed the ISO 9001 and 14001 audit for ten years in a row.

The British Assessment Bureau manages the implementation of the international standards developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), assessing businesses on their dedication to excellence in work processes and management systems.

The certification ISO 9001 (Quality Assurance) highlights the firm’s commitment to outstanding customer service, consistently satisfying and going beyond our client’s expectations. Receiving this certification demonstrates that we meet the globally recognised benchmark.

ISO 14001 (Environmental Management) exhibits the firm’s efforts in aligning its work with environmental guidelines, ensuring we use resources sustainably and reduce waste. The certification signifies that we are actively committed to reducing our carbon footprint.

We are proud of our attentiveness to our clients as a firm and hold our environmental impact to extremely high standards. It is an honour to be able to formalise our progress and we hope to continue in this way, whilst always staying aware of how we can improve.

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

A robot is a highly complex technical system, integrating mechanics, sensors, electronics, control software and artificial intelligence. As robotics reaches a stage of more widespread deployment, securing intellectual property protection to preserve a competitive advantage is essential. However, the complexity of robotics can make it challenging to identify what aspect will yield a patent of value.

Inventors often have a much higher bar for what they consider to be patentable than intellectual property law. They may see a development as routine or obvious but, put into context of the encompassing robotic system, even a small internal change can have a significant impact on a robot’s external function.

But discovering that, in theory, many things could be patentable is just the first step. You may think that trying to get as much coverage is the best route, but IP is more than protection. It is a strategic asset which, when dealt with thoughtfully, can be highly rewarding. Especially in a sector like robotics which is rapidly evolving and becoming increasingly crowded, with many different companies and technologies coming into play.

On 30^th September, Partner Andrew White took part in a webinar with IP Business Academy, discussing the questions which may arise when building an IP strategy for innovation in the field of robotics. Click the video below to watch the full webinar or read on for an overview of the key insights.

Finding the technical effect

When crafting an IP strategy from scratch, it is important to firstly understand what exactly a patent is trying to protect. A patent gives you the power to exclude your competitors from selling your invention. But to be granted a patent, your invention must be novel, non-obvious and make a technical contribution.

AI and software are integral to robotic systems, forming the brain which controls the robot’s physical parts. There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding what can and cannot be patented when it comes to the AI and software, but it is still very possible to protect an AI or software invention, as long as the invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. For example, software developments may improve a robot’s ability to regulate its temperature or advanced hardware in the robot’s hand could lead to improved dexterity.

In robotics, the technical application often lies in the interaction between the invention and other elements of the system, and how this impacts the robot’s capabilities.For example, the functional relationship between sectors and actuators, perception and movement, software and hardware, will determine how a machine interprets its surroundings, adjusts its movements and to what extent it completes a desired task.

The fact that an AI model used within a robot does not exist independently, but always as part of an interaction with the real world can make finding the technical application in robotics more straightforward. Nevertheless, AI models or software which may have a useful application in robotics are not always developed with that in mind.

Filing with intention

We have discussed the factors which determine whether or not an invention may be patentable. The next step in an effective IP strategy is rightsizing. In other words, just because you can patent something, doesn’t mean that you should. A patent should play a strategic role in relation to your business goals and there should be valid commercial reason to pursue a patent. Robotic systems are highly complex with many interacting parts, so using a matrix to rate each element against different criteria which will determine patent value can help cut through the noise.

As discussed, patentability is key and refers to how likely a patent is likely to be granted after filing. But there are two other main criteria which are just as important. Firstly, you need to consider commercial potential. The long-term value of your invention is ultimately dependent on what customers will buy. If a customer is paying for a specific use case, you will be in a winning position if you have patented that. Secondly, you should consider how easy it will be to detect infringement of the patent by third parties. For software inventions, for example, it can be very difficult to know if competitors are infringing on your patent. If you patent an invention, it necessarily ends up in the public domain; therefore, if you can never detect infringement, it may be better to keep the invention as a trade secret, so competitors cannot gain access to it.

Ultimately, your filing approach will depend on your competitors and what the sector is doing, as well as the business model for your company. For example, whether you intend on primarily licensing your technology or using it yourself will impact your strategic priorities.

Considering the other players

Robotics companies rarely operate in a bubble. A functioning robotic system brings together many different forms of technology, often supplied or developed by different parties. As a result, it can be difficult for any one player to obtain control over the entire system and attempting to do so may not always be the most commercially effective approach.

Companies can be strategic about which technologies they share, license or make available, and which will remain under their sole ownership. Licensing can enable them to access technologies they do not want to develop themselves, but ownership should be carefully managed, establishing at an early stage who owns any resulting IP, how it can be used, and whether rights extend to future developments or improvements.

These relationships can also create challenges for a company’s freedom to operate (FTO). In a crowded and rapidly developing field such as robotics, where a company’s product incorporates technologies developed by multiple players, third-party IP rights need to be considered, and it may not always be possible to eliminate the risk of infringement entirely.

Companies can carefully monitor competitor activity, but sometimes it may be impossible to completely mitigate the risk of infringement. A strong IP portfolio can create opportunities for cross-licensing or provide negotiating leverage if disputes arise with competitors.

Revising your IP strategy

It is crucial for robotics companies to revisit their IP strategy on a regular basis and judge whether it still aligns with their commercial goals as their technology, funding position and target markets develop.

Obtaining patent protection can be a lengthy process. A company may initially file a few patent applications which support their business plan and then encounter significant costs further down the line. At the same time, the company may have created new IP or changed its commercial priorities.

There can be a natural reluctance to prune a projected portfolio if you have already spent money, but if there’s been a shift in where the value lies, it is important to adjust your strategy accordingly.

Adapting to changing technology

AI and software models used in robotics are evolving at a rapid pace, but the patent system is relatively slow. Robotics companies need to consider the risk of filing a patent which could be commercially obsolete in three or four years.

Firstly, there is value to having a patent pending, as it shows intent and clear direction, as well as ownership of IP and a willingness to strategically manage it. Secondly, to file a patent which will have long-lasting value, this may mean focusing less on what a particular iteration of a model can achieve and more on the underlying functionality, which brings us back to our initial discussion of technical contribution. What problem does the technology solve? How does it interact with other components of the robotic system? What technical effect does it produce, and what aspects of that interaction are likely to remain relevant even as the model changes?

Our attorneys have specialist expertise across robotics, AI, software and related technologies. We make sure to get to know each of our client’s specific commercial objectives, enabling us to translate our in-depth understanding of the sector’s technology and competitive landscape into a tailored IP strategy. From assessing patentability and identifying which aspects of an invention are worth protecting, to determining where and when to file and how to build a portfolio that maximises commercial value, we make your IP work for you.

To ask our attorneys any questions you may have, click here.