Who owns innovation? Developing and implementing an effective employee IP framework

Artificial intelligence has brought intellectual property firmly onto the boardroom agenda. Businesses are increasingly considering who owns AI-generated content, whether confidential information can safely be disclosed to AI tools and whether AI-enabled innovations can be protected.

However, a more established and often less systematically managed source of IP risk is frequently overlooked: the intellectual property created, accessed and used by employees.

Employees create and handle many of a business’s most valuable assets, including software, product designs, technical data, manufacturing processes, formulations and commercially sensitive know-how. Yet many businesses simply assume that anything created by an employee automatically belongs to the company and will remain protected when that employee leaves.

That assumption can create significant ownership, confidentiality and evidential gaps. These often become visible at the worst possible time: during an investment round, a business sale, a dispute with a competitor or the departure of a key employee.

A robust employee IP framework helps a business identify, capture and protect employee-created innovation, while reducing the risk of confidential information leaving the business or third-party IP entering it.

The UK’s legal position on employee IP rights

There is a common misconception that any intellectual property created by someone working for a business automatically belongs to the business.

The reality is much more complex and nuanced.

UK law provides employers with important default ownership rights, but there is no single rule covering every form of IP. The applicable rules depend on the type of asset involved, the duties and responsibilities of the creator, the circumstances in which the asset was developed and the legal relationship between the creator and the business.

For example, for inventions, the question is not determined solely by where or when the work took place. Relevant considerations include the employee’s normal or specifically assigned duties, whether an invention might reasonably have been expected to result from those duties and whether the employee’s responsibilities created a special obligation to further the interests of the employer’s undertaking.

Consider these common friction points:

• Hybrid and flexible working: If an employee develops a product improvement outside normal working hours, using personal equipment, but drawing on a problem encountered through their role, can the business confidently establish ownership?
• Vague job descriptions: If an account manager who is not explicitly employed to innovate invents a new mechanical component or a proprietary “free-from” recipe formulation to solve a client’s problem, the statutory default may not automatically hand ownership to the business.
• The contractor ownership gap: The statutory rules that give employers ownership of certain employee-created IP do not generally apply in the same way to independent contractors, freelancers and consultants. Unless ownership is addressed effectively in the contract, the individual or external business may remain the first owner of important rights, leaving the commissioning business with only limited or uncertain rights to use the resulting work.

How to secure your intellectual property

To eliminate ambiguity and protect corporate value, businesses must move beyond basic, template employment contracts and implement a dedicated internal IP policy with supporting processes and training to give it practical effect. The written policy should sit within a wider governance framework that defines how innovation is identified, captured, recorded and protected.

An effective employee IP framework should address several core operational pillars:

1. Align employment terms with actual responsibilities

Your employment terms should accurately reflect employees’ innovation responsibilities and the statutory allocation of IP ownership. They should also require employees to disclose potentially relevant innovations, maintain appropriate records and provide reasonable assistance with the protection and registration of company-owned IP.

2. Formal IP identification and disclosure procedures

Innovation cannot be protected or managed if the business does not know that it exists. The policy should establish a straightforward disclosure process requiring employees to report potentially valuable technical solutions, software developments, product designs, datasets and other innovations before they are published, demonstrated, launched or disclosed externally.

The process should enable the business to decide promptly whether to pursue patent or design protection, retain the innovation as confidential know-how or a trade secret, conduct appropriate brand clearance and seek trade mark protection, publish defensively or take no further action.

3. Clear differentiation between trade secrets and general skills

The policy should explain the distinction between an employee’s general skills and experience, which they will ordinarily remain free to use, and identifiable confidential information, proprietary know-how and trade secrets belonging to the business. Examples may include source code, unpatented formulations, pricing models, customer datasets, research results and non-public manufacturing processes.

Policies, training, access restrictions, classification, monitoring and exit procedures are not merely administrative safeguards. They can also help demonstrate that the business took reasonable steps to preserve secrecy.

4. Control the use of external AI tools

The policy should also address employees’ use of generative AI and other external technology platforms. It should identify approved tools, prohibit the unauthorised upload of confidential information or personal data, require appropriate review of generated outputs and establish how the provenance and development of important AI-assisted work will be recorded.

5. Clear accountability and record-keeping

Responsibility for implementing the framework should be clearly allocated across management, HR, legal or IP, IT security and relevant technical teams. The business should maintain appropriate records of innovations, their creators, relevant contracts and assignments, protection decisions and external disclosures. The framework should also establish clear escalation procedures for suspected loss, misuse or unauthorised disclosure of IP, ownership disputes, or the receipt of third-party confidential information.

Managing IP leakage and misappropriation risk

While establishing clear ownership boundaries is an important asset-ownership control, an internal policy must also perform a vital defensive function: mitigating the risk of IP leakage, misuse and misappropriation.

Whether caused by malicious intent or a simple lack of awareness, the unauthorised removal, use or disclosure of confidential information and other intellectual property, especially during employee offboarding or corporate restructuring, can threaten the business’s competitive position.

To reduce the risk of IP leakage and misappropriation, your framework should enforce practical safeguards:

• Role-based access controls: Restrict access to critical data, patent drafts, technical drawings, research data and proprietary code. Employees should have access only to the information, files and systems reasonably necessary to perform their duties.
• Regular confidentiality training: Staff should receive periodic training so that they understand their continuing obligations of confidence. They should also understand that transferring proprietary information to unauthorised personal devices, email accounts or cloud-storage services may constitute serious misconduct or a breach of contract and may jeopardise the business’s ability to protect the information as confidential.
• Structured offboarding procedures: When an employee departs, follow a structured exit protocol. This may include timely revocation of access, preservation or review of relevant activity records where appropriate, return of company equipment and information, confirmation that company materials have been deleted from personal systems, and a written reminder of continuing confidentiality obligations.

Preventing third-party IP contamination when recruiting

The same principles apply when onboarding new staff. Businesses should take active steps to reduce the risk of new employees introducing confidential information, source code, proprietary materials or protected technology belonging to previous employers into their development activities. Failure to implement appropriate controls can increase the business’s exposure to breach-of-confidence, copyright, contractual and other IP claims.

New employees should be educated about the risks of bringing or using files, source code, technical drawings, customer information or other confidential or proprietary materials belonging to previous employers. Managers should be instructed not to solicit, receive or use competitors’ confidential information from new employees.

Balancing protection with employee innovation

Implementing a defined employee IP framework does not mean stifling the workforce. In fact, a transparent policy can actually foster a stronger culture of collaboration and innovation.

Building an internal culture that respects individual rights while systematically identifying and capturing employee-created IP requires clear processes, regular communication and continuing oversight.

An effective employee IP framework is not simply a clause in an employment contract or a policy stored on the intranet. It is a coordinated set of legal, operational and technical controls that enables a business to identify innovation, establish ownership, preserve confidentiality and reduce exposure to third-party claims.

Our IP specialists can assess your existing employment and consultancy terms, innovation-disclosure processes, trade-secret controls, AI-use rules, onboarding and offboarding procedures, and staff training. We can then help implement a proportionate employee IP framework that protects business value without creating unnecessary barriers to innovation.

To reach out to our IP Consulting team, click here.

Quantum technology is entering a new stage in its lifecycle, leaving the lab and undergoing commercialisation. At this early stage, the question of how to translate quantum innovation into robust patent protection across different legal jurisdictions is a crucial one.

In the EU, for example, there have been exciting shifts in investment and policy across the field. Over €11bn of public funding has been funnelled to quantum in the last 5 years and an EU Quantum Act, following the Quantum declaration in 2023 and the Quantum Europe strategy adopted in 2025, is expected to be released soon. Patent activity has not yet caught up: whilst 32% of the world’s quantum companies reside in the EU, only 6% of quantum patents come from its member states.

Quantum technology poses various challenges for IP strategy. Multilayered technical systems call for multilayered approaches, and the patentability of software and algorithms can be contentious in the world of IP. Furthermore, there is still considerable uncertainty about which technical architectures or business models will persist which casts doubt over what is most beneficial to seek protection for.

On 15^th July, Partner Edd Cavanna and Technical Assistant Daniel Speed from our Quantum team took part in a webinar with the IP Business Academy, sharing their expertise on protecting quantum innovation across the stack. Click the video below to watch the full webinar or read on for an overview of their insights.

Determining what is patentable

Quantum inventions are highly complex, constituting an entire protection landscape rather than a single protectable entity. Sifting through hardware architectures, control systems, protocols, manufacturing processes, software and mathematical methods, and enabling technologies to determine the core of the patent application may seem a daunting task.

The most crucial requirement for patentability arises under ‘inventive step’ (in Europe at least). This means that the invention must not be obvious to a person skilled in the relevant field; it must be novel, in other words, demonstrate a notable difference in comparison to prior art; and critically it must solve a technical problem.

The protectable contribution may arise at different levels, requiring different kinds of scientific understanding and different approaches to IP protection. Quantum computing hardware and control, quantum software, quantum simulation in chemistry and life sciences, quantum communication, post-quantum security migration, quantum sensing, timing and metrology, quantum enabling technologies and supply chains, and more, can all be treated as their own unique areas with different underlying strategies, both commercial and IP-related. Patentability hinges on the characterisation of the invention, the expression of its technical contribution and the jurisdiction in which protection is sought.

With quantum hardware, it can be clear what aspect solves a technical problem, such as a technological advancement which enhances coherence, system stability or noise reduction. In comparison, in UK and European IP law, as well as other jurisdictions, there is more contention over whether software is patentable. The multitude of abstract concepts in quantum demands careful thought.

Academics and scientists often have preconceptions about what an invention should be that differ significantly from what an invention looks like within the context of intellectual property. The most obvious or scientifically interesting feature may not always be the most patentable; that could be a lower-level technical detail, like a solution for laser stabilisation or a UHV engineering fix, hidden behind the quantum protocol which the scientific paper is built around. It is important not to overlook the improvement which makes a quantum system possible when focusing on the scientific result.

Framing the technical contribution

The complex requirements behind patentability are where patent attorneys and external IP counsel come into play. You may think of an invention as something objective; however, IP offices and courts hold specific opinions over what can be protected. A large part of what patent attorneys do is framing the invention or technical contribution in the right way to achieve protection.

Strong invention storytelling transforms highly complex scientific ideas into something concrete and convincing which can be patented, connecting the technical contribution of an invention to its commercial relevance and strategic value. And by staying abreast of the legal systems around the world, patent attorneys know what works in each specific jurisdiction.

Defining your business goals

Beyond the scientific facts behind the technology, it is also vital for patent attorneys to understand a company’s business plan and goals, information which scientists or academics may not initially deem relevant when talking to IP counsel.

It is not just about whether something is patentable or spending money to patent everything, but whether the patent will be valuable for your business. Apart from protection, patents play an important role in attracting investors and can also be licensed for additional revenue.Therefore, a forward-looking IP strategy, expertly crafted and commercially minded, is essential. Furthermore, applying for a patent can involve a certain level of risk. If an invention does not get granted, it will likely still be published, disclosing any technical details.

Therefore, IP strategy is an exercise in prioritisation. Patent attorneys can conduct ‘invention mining’ to determine which features are likely to succeed, as well as which features support the product roadmap and future competitive position.

Collaborating through IP

The multi-faceted nature of quantum innovation means companies must coordinate protection across the entire quantum stack to achieve a coherent protection architecture. However, it may not be necessary or possible to have sole ownership over every aspect of the quantum innovation.

Crucially, patents can be a collaborative tool as well as excluding competition. Companies can license patents to each other or initiate joint ventures, facilitating the accessibility of core technology and creating additional revenue streams. In the field of AI, for example, a form of symbiotic relationship is arising between companies: the chips are designed to run what the AI companies are generating, driving developments in the chips, and the chip manufacturers determine how the AI companies can best structure their algorithms to be most efficient. Similar feedback cycles may start to occur across the quantum industry, such as algorithm companies feeding back to hardware developers.

Thus, the multi-faceted nature of the quantum industry does not necessarily result in individual endeavours to gain patent protection for every single aspect in a stack, but may instead create a landscape of collaboration between a lot of diverse entities.

Talking to IP experts

As an inventor in the quantum field, it is important to think beyond the pure scientific technicality of a quantum invention. Crafting an effective IP strategy involves considering multiple factors, such as patentability requirements under country-specific IP law and commercial tactics. The quantum field may be complex, but the fundamentals of IP strategy remain the same: protect what supports the product, business model and intended market position.

At Mathys & Squire, we close the research-to-patent gap in quantum technology. Our patent attorneys can help you dissect your innovation and achieve protection which aligns with your business needs. Combining technical expertise in the quantum field and extensive IP experience, our attorneys understand how the facets of a quantum invention interact with the legal requirements operating in different patent systems across the globe.

To get in contact with our quantum patent attorneys, click here.

Partners Rebecca Tew and Adam Gilbertson have been featured in a special IP report by Birmingham Business. In their article, ‘Ten things every SME should know about intellectual property’, they explore the essential IP knowledge that every business should have in order to maximise the value of its assets and support growth.

The article breaks down the fundamentals of IP to help businesses understand the role it can play throughout every stage of their development. It also highlights the importance of taking a proactive approach and covers topics such as licensing, negotiation, revenue generation and more.

Click to read the full article on Birmingham Business here.

After years of anticipation, the FIFA Men’s World Cup 2026™ is under way in North America. Unsurprisingly, meticulous planning and preparation at an unprecedented scale has gone into staging what is widely seen as the biggest sports tournament of all time. Beyond the colossal stadiums and fan parks, football’s governing body FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) and its partners have prioritised innovation to enhance the experience for fans and players alike.

The football pitch has transformed into its own technological system. Cameras, sensors and AI merge seamlessly to generate a network of data to help referees officiate matches with more accuracy and transparency. To what degree these objectives are being met cannot be known for certain, but it is undoubtable that the implementation of these technologies has fundamentally altered the nature of ‘the beautiful game.’

The integration of data in sport, as well as advancements in the capabilities of sports equipment, have created a fast-growing category of intellectual property. In the last decade, the number of published patent applications worldwide related to sport grew at an annual compound rate of 7.6%. One in 6 published patent applications in sports technology were for football, highlighting the strategic importance placed on innovation by those involved in and running the sport. With large companies competing on a global level and innovating at a rapid pace, these major players recognise that securing intellectual property protection and enforcing those rights is vital.

In no place is this more apparent than at this year’s World Cup. Whilst our eyes are glued to the pitch, waiting to see who will score, we are also watching intellectual property in action.

Trionda™: The official World Cup ball

Across each venue, an array of complex technology works together to facilitate a smooth match and live global broadcasting. Take all this away and we are still left with the most foundational and yet one of the most innovative pieces of equipment in the game: the ball.

The official ball of the tournament, Trionda™ (“tri” meaning three and “onda” meaning wave in Spanish) is both a feat of engineering and a visual symbol. Every aspect of it has been carefully designed by Adidas™, the official ball supplier for the World Cup since 1970. Each tournament has seen new technological advancements and a unique design, both of which can be protected through intellectual property rights.

Form

The ball is constructed from four thermally bonded polyurethane panels, the lowest number of panels in a World Cup ball. The panels curve together, imitating the wave mentioned in the ball’s name, and join in a triangle, representing the union of the three host countries. The colours and details represent the host countries as well: red for Canada, green for Mexico and blue for the USA, and the ball is covered with almost invisible symbols: a maple leaf, an eagle and a star.

The unique structure of the football was registered as a design (DM/241148) in October 2024 under the International design registration (‘Hague’) system. This means the design can be protected in several key jurisdictions, including the UK, US and EU. Adidas™ filed a multi-part design application to pursue a broader overall scope of protection by displaying different elements in each design, such as the base pattern, the colours and the embossed symbols.

DM/241148 – WIPO Global Design Database

Function

Beyond aesthetics and branding, the design also serves a functional purpose. The embossed pattern, for example, enhances grip in wet conditions, whilst the intentionally deep seams optimise flight stability. This could well be the reason why the ball has behaved unexpectedly in the air and has caught goalkeepers off-guard in the early stages of the tournament, as noted by several commentators and analysts.

A key requirement for obtaining patent protection is that the invention provides a solution to a technical problem. Features of a ball which have been specifically developed for improved performance, such as better grip or faster flight, would seemingly satisfy this condition. Adidas™ owns a patent (US10376750B2) which references the way a ball with four panels is constructed to have grooves between the panels so it is more aerodynamic. The description of their US patent No. 8529386B2 discusses how a lower number of seams allows for players to control the ball more consistently, but large panels can result in “unintended or unpredictable flutter movements.” The patent’s claims refer to the addition of “pseudo-seams” between real seams which do not deform the ball but nevertheless stabilise the flight of the ball.

The new digital game

During the 2022 FIFA World Cup™, Adidas introduced the world’s first smart ball: designed to enhance refereeing performance. The technology has been upgraded for this year’s edition and has seen an expanded role in helping the on-site and Video Assistant Referee (VAR) to make quicker and more accurate decisions during matches.

Inside the ball

The ball contains an ultra-lightweight Inertial Measurement Unit motion sensor to facilitate Semi-Automated Offside detection. Careful innovation ensures that the addition of the sensor does not negatively impact the ball’s performance and that the internal structure survives the unique conditions of being inside an active ball. For example, in previous iterations, the sensor was suspended in the middle of the ball, but this caused issues on account of continuous, high-velocity impacts which could weaken the tension of the wires holding it in place. In this year’s ball, the sensor is mounted inside a layer within one of the panels instead.

And so, the four-panel layout takes on a third role beyond aesthetics and aerodynamics: enabling the integration of the sensor. The geometric symmetry, combined with identical counterweights in the other panels, preserves the ball’s centre of mass, so its flight is not affected. The low number of panels also allows for as much space as possible to accommodate electric hardware between seams.

Another major consideration is how to ensure the sensor does not lose power in the middle of a game. This is solved by a lightweight internal battery which is chargeable via localised secondary coils. There is no external port which would disrupt the ball’s smooth shell and a ball charged for 90 minutes lasts 6 hours.

US Patent No. 12533561B2, filed in 2024, seems to be a precursor to the fully optimised smart ball, referencing “a method for monitoring the motion of a sport ball impacted during the course of an athletic activity” involving “a portable electronic device wirelessly receiving motion data from the sport ball, and the portable electronic device determining a point of impact based on the motion data.” Further patent specifications related to the sensor appear to not be publicly available yet.

Outside the ball

Known as ‘connected ball technology,’ the data is captured 500 times per second and is transmitted to the VAR system. This is 10 times faster than the typical frame speed of video technology used in football. Over one match, 10 to 15 balls are used; when a ball is thrown in, the system registers the kinetic impact, instantly and automatically transferring the role of active data tracking to the new ball’s hardware ID.

The data from the ball is integrated with information from cameras mounted beneath the stadium roof which track up to 29 data points on each player and read the bodies 50 times per second. All this data is processed by AI, generating automated alerts for the VARs and recreating the entire match in 3D with digital avatars for each player.

The complex fusion of hardware, software and AI in the ball as well as off-the-pitch equipment makes the picture even more interesting for intellectual property strategy. A layered strategy is necessary to ensure all aspects of a technological system are protected by separate patents.

In addition, the innovation at the World Cup highlights the importance of partnerships and IP licensing. Strategic partnerships enable the development of complex technology, whilst IP licensing is a smart way for businesses to monopolise their assets or gain access to other markets. For example, Adidas™ has partnered with German technology company, Kinexon™, which specialises in ultra-wideband tracking technology for sports applications, for the sensor technology. Adidas™ owns the patent covering the core integration of the sensor, whilst Kinexon™ contributes the software technology, possessing expertise in areas such as ultra-wideband localisation, real-time positioning systems and the synchronisation of multiple wireless sensors. There is real value in protecting your innovation, even if you are not a manufacturer yourself, as it can be very lucrative to licence out your technology to a bigger player. And this is only made possible by having a robust IP strategy.

The jury is still out on whether the latest technology demystifies refereeing decisions for the average fan. Pursuit of this goal, however, has certainly highlighted the role of intellectual property in the shaping the future of our game.

Partner Claire Breheny and Trainee Trade Mark Attorney Ashley Low have been featured in World Trade Mark Review, sharing their insights on the rules surrounding alcohol packing in the UK and how to ensure compliance.

Their commentary highlights the difficult balance between adhering to tight regulations, such as no health claims or designs which appeal to under-18s and building a compelling brand image. In addition, as labels on alcohol drinks must clearly state the type of alcohol, such as “whisky” or “rum”, this may also cause complications for trade mark protection, where a name must be sufficiently distinctive to be eligible.

Click to read the full article here.

We are pleased to announce that Mathys & Squire has been awarded the EcoVadis Committed Badge, recognising our continued commitment to sustainability and responsible business practices.

EcoVadis is a globally recognised sustainability assessment platform that evaluates companies on their environmental, social, and ethical performance.

The EcoVadis assessment includes 21 sustainability criteria with a comprehensive review of policies, actions, and results across four main categories: Environment, Labor & Human Rights, Ethics, and Sustainable Procurement.

As part of our commitment to society, our people and the environment, at the start of this year we completed a thorough assessment of our business sustainability practices through EcoVadis, and are now proud to share our results.

Why is it important to us?

Receiving the EcoVadis Committed Medal is a positive step in our ongoing sustainability journey. It reflects the foundational work we’ve done to integrate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles into our operations. This recognition provides an external validation of our commitment to responsible business practices, and it encourages us to continue building on this progress.

Click here to read more about our Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives.

The Pride flag is an interesting example where instant recognition and widespread fame actually undermine distinctiveness.

In this article, D&I Partner Andrea McShane and Trade Mark Partner Harry Rowe discuss the history behind the legal protection of the Pride flag and why businesses would struggle to register it as a trade mark now.

The history of the Pride flag

The first rainbow flag was stitched in 1978 by Gilbert Baker, a gay artist, drag performer and activist, for San Francisco’s annual Pride parade. He chose the rainbow as a symbol because of its beauty and its representation of diversity; originally, the flag featured eight colours: hot pink for sexuality, red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sunlight, green for nature, turquoise for magic and art, indigo for serenity and violet for spirit. The flag gained a new loaded meaning after Harvey Milk, politician and gay rights icon, who requested the design of the flag, was assassinated the same year.

For practical reasons, eight colours went down to six – hot pink fabric was inaccessible in large quantities and the turquoise stripe was removed to make the number of stripes even for symmetry – but its purpose and significance stayed constant.

In 2018, designer Daniel Quasar created the “Progress Pride flag”, adding a chevron with white, pink and light blue to represent transgender and non-binary individuals, and black and brown to represent people of colour in the LGBTQ+ community.

Is the Pride flag protected by law?

Gilbert Baker chose not to apply to register the Pride flag as a trade mark after he devised it. Interestingly, when an advocacy organisation attempted to register the flag as a trade mark in 1978, Baker enlisted Matt Coles, LGBTQ+ civil rights lawyer, to resist the endeavour.

Baker purposefully wanted to keep the flag free to use, as its symbolic power across the LGBTQ+ movement was more important than any potential commercial value, and proactively protected the community’s right to using the flag. He wanted it to belong to everyone.

The ‘Progress Pride’ flag is protected by copyright, an automatic right for artistic works, but Daniel Qasar offers a free Creative Commons licence for non-commercial use. The community can display it with appropriate attribution, but exploitation by large brands is prevented.

Could you register the rainbow as a trade mark?

UK law allows for the registration of a trade mark comprising any sign which distinguishes the applicant’s goods or services from those of other businesses, provided that the mark can be represented unambiguously on the register. This can include colours. For example, Cadbury successfully registered its purple (Pantone 2685C) colour mark in 1998, although the registration has since been surrendered. Similarly, a set of specific colours arranged in a certain way, like a rainbow, could also be eligible for trade mark protection.

However, as colour marks are typically not inherently distinctive, a brand would usually need to prove that the mark has acquired distinctiveness on account of its use over a number of years. The rainbow we know and love in the Pride flag is undoubtedly recognisable, but it is for this reason that a single business or organisation seeking to monopolise the sign would face difficulty. The Pride flag, or the rainbow alone, arguably could not indicate a specific commercial origin to consumers because they are already widely associated with a universal movement. That being said, it may be possible for a rainbow incorporated in a mark which includes other distinctive elements to be protected under a trade mark registration.

The Pride flag is an example of a strong symbol, which is widely recognised around the globe, but that recognition has been utilised to reinforce a symbol of community, rather than as a brand. It represents freedom, in the way it stands for LGBTQ+ rights and in the way that the ability to monopolise it is likely limited by trade mark law.  

Read more about our commitment to fostering a diverse and inclusive culture at Mathys & Squire on our D&I page here.

We are delighted to be featured in IP STARS 2026, which recognises outstanding law firms and practitioners across IP practice areas worldwide.

Managing IP’s IP STARS is a leading legal directory that identifies the IP professionals and firms best placed to advise on both contentious and non-contentious matters. Widely recognised as a trusted benchmark of excellence in the profession, the rankings are based on extensive independent research, firm submissions, market analysis and client feedback.

In the 2026 edition, Partners Gary Johnston and Rebecca Tew have been recognised as ‘Trade Mark Stars’, and Partner Hazel Ford has been featured as a ‘Patent Star’. In addition, Partners Philippa Griffin, Nicholas Fox, David Hobson, Martin MacLean, Laura Clews, Andrew White, and Consultant Partner Jane Clark, have been praised as ‘Notable Practitioners’.

The 2026 Rising Star rankings are due to be released later this year.

For more information and to view the rankings in full, visit the IP STARS website here.

As London Climate Action Week gets underway, the conversations dominating the agenda tend to involve renewable energy, carbon markets and sustainable infrastructure. Weight management medication is rarely on the list. Yet the rapid rise of GLP-1 receptor agonists, the class of drugs that includes semaglutide, sold as Ozempic and Wegovy, is beginning to redefine the eating habits of millions of people, and society’s eating habits have profound implications for the planet.

The recent approval of the first oral GLP-1 tablet in the UK removes one of the biggest practical barriers to uptake. With injectable GLP-1s already used by nearly 1.9 million adults in Great Britain, a figure that has nearly tripled in two years, oral formulations are likely to drive adoption to an entirely new scale. As these drugs become more accessible, their wider effects on the food system come into sharper focus.

Eating less, eating differently

It is well established that the most immediate effect of GLP-1 drugs is that users significantly reduce their food intake. A 2024 study from Cornell University found that households with at least one GLP-1 user reduced grocery spending by 5.3% within six months of adoption, rising to 8.2% in higher income households.

However, GLP-1 users are not simply eating less, they appear to be eating differently. The study also showed that the largest spending reductions were concentrated in calorie-dense, processed food categories, including a 10.1% decline in savoury snacks. A 2026 Guardian investigation found that more than half of GLP-1 users described their approach to eating as ‘mindful’, guided by hunger rather than habit. Three-quarters ate less chocolate, and 72% reduced their consumption of crisps. A Danish study analysing over 1.9 million supermarket receipts confirmed the broader pattern: after starting GLP-1 therapy, participants spent a larger share of their shopping on unprocessed foods and a smaller share on ultra-processed foods. Yoghurt was the only food category to record a statistically significant increase in spending.

There is, of course, a legitimate question about cause and effect. People who use GLP-1s are, by definition, engaged in active weight management, and some of the observed dietary improvements may reflect that broader motivation rather than the pharmacological effects of the drug itself. Nevertheless, there is a plausible biological mechanism. GLP-1 drugs have been found to slow gastric emptying and dampen hunger signals in ways that appear to alter the neurological drivers of cravings, particularly for high-fat and high-sugar foods, in a manner that willpower and dietary advice have historically struggled to replicate.

Why ultra-processed foods are a climate concern

The environmental significance of a shift away from ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is considerable. UPFs now account for over 70% of food sold in grocery stores in the UK and US, and represent more than half of total calorie consumption. Research published in Nature Sustainability found that, although UPFs represented just 19% of participants’ diets by weight, they contributed disproportionately to environmental pressures: 24% of diet-related greenhouse gas emissions, 23% of water use, 23% of land use, and 26% of energy demand.

This outsized footprint reflects the full lifecycle of ultra-processing: from extensive monoculture agriculture and high-energy manufacturing to long-distance supply chains and excessive packaging. A longitudinal study published in Science of the Total Environment found that participants who made substantial reductions in UPF consumption reduced their carbon footprint by 0.6 kg of CO₂ equivalent over the study period.

It is also worth noting that UPFs are, to a degree, engineered to undermine the very satiety signals that GLP-1 drugs seek to restore. Ultra-processed foods are known to suppress the effectiveness of key gut hormones — including the body’s own endogenous GLP-1 — that signal fullness, making overconsumption an almost predictable outcome. In that respect, GLP-1 drugs do not merely suppress appetite, they may be partially correcting a cycle of overconsumption that certain food products have, by design, helped to entrench.

The protein question

Were the story simply one of reduced consumption of calorie-dense, processed foods, the environmental case would be relatively straightforward. However, the picture is complicated by a concurrent shift in protein demand.

GLP-1 drugs produce significant weight loss, but a significant proportion of that loss, estimated at between 40% and 50%, can come from lean muscle mass rather than fat. To mitigate this, clinical guidance strongly recommends that GLP-1 users substantially increase their protein intake, typically to between 1.2 and 2.0 grams per kilogram of body weight per day, well above the standard dietary recommendation. The commercial consequences are already being felt. For example, the price of whey protein, derived from dairy, has risen fivefold in recent months as global demand has outpaced supply.

The environmental impact of this protein surge depends heavily on which protein sources consumers are actually turning to. On this point, the available evidence is somewhat reassuring. Multiple consumer surveys and market datasets suggest that GLP-1 users are gravitating away from red and processed meats and towards leaner alternatives: fresh poultry, fish, eggs, legumes, and lighter dairy products such as yoghurt. A study published in Food Quality and Preferences, surveying nearly 2,000 consumers, found that 45% of GLP-1 users reported eating less beef than before starting the medication. The likely mechanism is consistent with the drug’s known effects. By amplifying satiety signals and slowing gastric emptying, GLP-1s appear to make heavy, fatty foods — red meat, cold cuts, hard cheeses — less appealing.

From an environmental perspective, this directional shift is meaningful. Producing a kilogram of beef generates approximately 60 kg of greenhouse gas emissions; a kilogram of poultry generates around 6 kg. Dairy products sit at an intermediate level, though lighter formats such as yoghurt carry considerably lower footprints per unit of protein than hard cheese. Research published in Nature Climate Change has estimated that the worldwide adoption of a diet aligned with the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet, characterised by a shift from red meat towards legumes and nuts as principal protein sources, could reduce global annual dietary emissions by 17%. The dietary changes seen as a result of GLP-1 use appear to be moving in that more environmentally favourable direction.

Where the picture becomes more complicated

The food industry’s response to GLP-1 users has seen the proliferation of ‘GLP-1 friendly’ products, protein bars, fortified shakes, high-protein ready meals, which represents, in many cases, a new category of highly processed food. If users are substituting one form of processed consumption for another, the environmental benefit may be more limited than the headline shift away from snacks would suggest. The sustainability outcome appears to depend critically on whether increased protein density is genuinely replacing excess calorie consumption, or simply creating an additional category of demand.

It is important to position GLP-1-related dietary changes within a broader cultural context. The emphasis on protein consumption has become well established. Notably, the new US Dietary Guidelines, published in January 2026, have inverted the traditional food pyramid to place protein at its base, reflecting a wider societal shift in nutritional priorities. Separating the specific contribution of GLP-1 use from this wider trend is difficult. It should also be noted that most of the available evidence on what GLP-1 users actually eat is derived from consumer surveys and supermarket receipt data, rather than controlled clinical trials, and should be interpreted with the appropriate caution.

A disruption to the food system, not a climate intervention?

It would be overreaching to present GLP-1 drugs as a climate intervention. However, GLP-1 drugs are proving to be an undeniable disruptor of the food system, and one that is growing in scale and likely to grow further as oral formulations reduce the barriers to access. Meanwhile, research published in Nature Climate Change suggests that diet shifts represent one of the most powerful demand-side mechanisms available for reducing food-system emissions. It is clear that the food industry is already responding to the shift in consumer preferences, although whether that translates to a net positive environmental impact remains uncertain.

GLP-1 medications will not, on their own, deliver the scale of dietary transition that climate targets require. However, by reducing appetite for the food products most associated with overconsumption and environmental pressure — and by nudging both consumers and producers towards a greater emphasis on nutritional quality — they may be contributing to a more sustainable direction of travel.

Whether the shift in consumer habits is durable – particularly beyond the period of active medication use – and whether the commercial response from the food industry reinforces or diminishes the potential environmental benefit, remains to be seen. Nevertheless, particularly during London Climate Action Week when there have been numerous extreme heat weather warnings in the capital, it seems that the impact of GLP-1s on society’s eating habits and its wider environmental implications should form a part of the broader climate conversation.

The use of AI across every sector, public and private, is now undeniable – and the CleanTech sector is no exception. However, AI’s growth comes with a big issue. As the International Energy Agency (IEA) put it in its 2025 Energy and AI report, “there is no AI without energy.” Data centre electricity demand rose 17% in 2025 alone, far outpacing the 3% growth in global electricity demand overall, and AI-focused demand specifically is projected to triple by 2030 (IEA, 2026).

Whilst this is a real cost, it is not the whole story. The IEA’s 2025 Energy and AI report is equally clear that, if used well, AI can meaningfully accelerate the search for climate solutions through faster R&D, cheaper experimentation, and more efficient data analysis across energy, industry, and the built environment. The question for the CleanTech sector is not whether to use AI, but how to use it for applications with genuine, measurable climate impact.

This Climate Action Week, we take a look at where AI is already being used for good by spotlighting some of the startups doing exactly that with the support of The Greenhouse, Undaunted’s 12-month CleanTech accelerator, which has supported 180 startups since 2012 and helped its alumni raise over $1.33bn in investment. We’ll also look at why, as AI-driven CleanTech innovation accelerates, a clear IP strategy is becoming essential to turning a good idea into a defensible, fundable business.

AI Innovation in Practice

Utilities and the built environment

In the UK, the energy required to maintain buildings accounts for almost a quarter of the country’s carbon footprint. At the same time, demand for sustainable office space is rising as ESG credentials become a bigger driver of commercial property value. This leaves building owners and facilities teams with a difficult issue: how to retrofit and manage existing stock sustainably, cost-effectively, and at scale.

Carbon Shift, a Greenhouse graduate, is tackling this with AI software that improves decision-making around sustainable retrofits to help building owners identify the most cost-effective and environmentally impactful interventions before committing capital. Cosy Sense, another graduate, has developed a management system (GB2701612A) that gives facilities teams in retail, office, and hospitality settings a single platform for monitoring energy use, with automated controls that let managers act on that data directly to reduce emissions.

Both are examples of AI applied to a hard, high-impact problem. AI isn’t being used as an add on feature but as the mechanism that makes sustainability decisions faster, cheaper, and more confidently taken.

Manufacturing, engineering, and maritime

The maritime sector faces a similar challenge at a larger scale. Shipping is responsible for 3-4% of the EU’s overall carbon dioxide emissions, and although the International Maritime Organisation considers it the least environmentally damaging mode of transport, its sulphur, nitrogen oxide, and carbon dioxide emissions remain firmly in regulators’ sights. The UK’s own Maritime Decarbonisation Strategy targets net zero for the domestic maritime sector by 2050, adding commercial pressure to an already complex engineering problem.

BlueNose, another Greenhouse alumnus, addresses this with AI-driven software that models the cost and emissions impact of retrofitting existing cargo ships, then designs aerodynamic retrofit structures (US2025382031A1) that can be fitted to vessels already in service. BlueNose estimates that, if rolled out fleet-wide across active container ships, its retrofits could cut emissions by 11 million tonnes of CO₂ a year.

What connects Carbon Shift, Cosysense, and BlueNose is that each uses AI as the engine behind a specific, well-defined climate outcome – lower retrofit costs, lower energy waste, lower fuel burn. That specificity matters, both for genuine climate impact and, as we explore below, for what can actually be protected as IP.

Why This Matters for IP Strategy

Despite the potential, AI adoption in the energy sector remains surprisingly low. The IEA’s 2025 Energy and AI report found that only 2.3% of energy start-ups have an AI-related value proposition, compared with 7% in life sciences and 4.3% in agriculture, and roughly only 1% of energy-related patents reference AI as part of the claimed innovation. The Greenhouse alumni therefore seem to be the exception, not the rule.

That gap is an opportunity but it is also exactly the situation in which IP strategy matters most. When a sector is under-exploited, the startups that move first have the clearest run at building a defensible position. As more capital and attention flow into AI-driven CleanTech, that window narrows, and clear, well-drafted protection becomes the difference between a startup that can defend its market position and one that cannot.

AI-driven inventions also raise distinct patentability questions that founders should consider early, including:

• What, exactly, is being protected? A patent claim built around “using AI” in the abstract is unlikely to be allowed. Instead, applications should focus on claiming the specific technical system, method, or structure that the AI enables rather than the algorithm in isolation.
• Timing of disclosure. Early conversations with investors, pilot customers, or conference audiences can constitute a public disclosure that destroys novelty if a patent application filing hasn’t happened first. This is a particularly easy trap for AI-driven startups, who often want to demonstrate a working model before they’ve locked down what, precisely, they intend to claim.
• Patents vs. trade secrets. Not all aspects of an AI system should be protected using patents. Training data, model weights, and certain algorithmic refinements may be better protected as trade secrets, while the system or output they produce may be the more suitable subject of a patent application. Getting this split right from the outset avoids having to unpick it at a later, less convenient moment.

None of the above considerations need to slow a startup down. If done early, a review of your IP considerations can be a relatively light-touch process that runs alongside fundraising and product development rather than competing with it. It is also the kind of groundwork that investors expect to see in place before they commit capital.

Climate Action Week is a good moment to look at how far AI-driven CleanTech has come – and Carbon Shift, Cosysense, and BlueNose are a small sample of what’s possible when AI is pointed at a specific, well-defined climate problem. As more startups follow their lead, the firms that protect their innovation early will be best placed to turn that progress into a lasting commercial advantage.

At Mathys & Squire, our team has deep expertise in AI, machine learning, and CleanTech and can assist you with your IP Portfolio. For advice or any questions related to your UK and European patent or design rights, please contact Charlotte Penney, Andrew White, or your usual Mathys & Squire patent advisor.