Contact
Contact

This year marks a significant milestone for the influential life sciences journal, Nature Biotechnology. The recently released 30-year anniversary issue not only celebrates three decades of scientific progress, but also reflects on the journal’s distinctive role in communicating biotechnology as both a research discipline and a global industry.

30 years of progress

Nature Biotechnology published its first issue in 1996[1], with an aim to bridge the gap between academic research and the burgeoning commercial biotechnology sector, providing a dedicated venue for publishing scientific discoveries and their commercial/ industrial applications. It thus provides a platform communicating advances in biotechnology, such as recombinant DNA technology, genomics, monoclonal antibodies, genetic engineering, biopharmaceuticals, and synthetic biology.

Over time, its influence has only strengthened. With a reported impact factor of 41.7 as of 2024[2] the journal now sits comfortably among the world’s most prestigious research journals, underscoring the importance and maturity of biotechnology as a scientific domain. Consistently high citation rates reflect both the quality of the work it publishes, and the central role biotechnology now plays in addressing global challenges.

Commercial and patent landscape coverage

In addition to providing a key forum for communicating academic research in this area, the journal has actively championed the commercial/ industrial progress of biotechnology.

A search of its archives reveals over 6,000 articles related to “business and industry”[3], averaging roughly 77 per year in recent times (years 2021-25). These include coverage of key technological developments, profiles of emerging and growing companies, and interviews with (or profiles of) founders and venture capitalists. Indeed, even the 30-year anniversary edition dedicates 3 pages to a discussion of biotech building from the view of a venture capitalist[4].

The journal also recognises the importance of intellectual property in driving innovation and investment in biotechnology. A search of its archives for pieces reciting “patent” in their title returns more than 800 such articles[5], about 24 per year on average in recent years (years 2021-25).  These contributions extend beyond descriptive reporting, frequently incorporating detailed analysis of patent landscapes across key biotechnology domains (e.g. gene editing, biologics, and synthetic biology), thus offering insight into the commercial strategies of both corporate innovators and academic institutions.  Such coverage provides a view of the translation of research output into legally enforceable assets, while also highlighting the role of IP in driving investment and commercialisation pathways within the biotechnology sector. Notably, patents are consistently framed as important assets for the growth of the sector.

Conclusion

Having celebrated another decade, the journal shows no sign of slowing down on documenting the evolution of biotechnology and its influence can be expected to continue for years to come. As the biotech field continues to thrive, a journal such as Nature Biotechnology is likely to play an increasingly important role in sharing high impact research, and contextualising how these advances translate into real-world applications.

1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-026-03073-9

2 https://www.nature.com/nbt/journal-impact

3 https://www.nature.com/search?q=business+and+industry&order=relevance&journal=nbt

4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-026-03027-1

5 https://www.nature.com/search?title=patent&order=relevance&journal=nbt

We are delighted to announce that Mathys & Squire is a Gold sponsor of Life Sciences Patent Network (LSPN) Spring 2026 for the second year running. The event is taking place on the 29th and 30th of April in Boston, Massachusetts.

Partners Hazel Ford, Stephen Garner, Philippa Griffin and Alexander Robinson are attending the event, and Philippa and Stephen are presenting on developments in EPO case law relating to claim interpretation. Our team is looking forward to catching up and sharing knowledge with other leading IP attorneys and life science industry experts from around the world.

Hazel Ford has extensive experience in drafting patent applications and prosecuting them globally. She also has experience with EPO opposition and appeal proceedings, and advises multinational clients on all aspects of patent strategy. Her expertise spans various areas, including antibodies, vaccines, genes, proteins, drug formulation, diagnostics and new administration regimes.

Stephen Garner is experienced in drafting, prosecuting and defending patents across a wide range of pharmaceutical technologies, with a particular focus on those which span the chemical and biological fields. Stephen manages the prosecution of a number of significant global patent portfolios and European SPC portfolios, and regularly advises on SPC matters and EPO oppositions.

Philippa Griffin has a substantial prosecution, opposition, and appeal practice before the EPO, and she is responsible for the coordination and strategic management of complex worldwide patent portfolios covering commercially significant products. She handles inventions in a range of technical areas, including antibodies and immunology, synthetic biology, nucleic acid-based therapies, engineered enzymes, and cardiac diagnostics.

Alexander Robinson has significant experience in contentious inter partes proceedings before the EPO’s Opposition Division and Boards of Appeal. He also manages the prosecution of global patent portfolios relating to authorised medicinal products and drug candidates currently in advanced clinical trials, meaning his practice also extends to SPCs and associated regulatory matters. His work has a particular focus on small molecule pharmaceuticals, antibody-drug conjugates, enzymes, protein production techniques, dosage regimens, dosage forms, biomarkers and diagnostic techniques.

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

Hazel Ford – Partner  |  [email protected]

Stephen Garner – Partner  |  [email protected]

Philippa Griffin – Partner  |  [email protected]

Alexander Robinson – Partner  |  [email protected]

London Fashion Week, which took place at the end of February, is one of the most influential events in the global fashion calendar, bringing together designers, brands, buyers and media from around the world.

In recent years, the event has also become an important platform for discussions around sustainability and innovation in textiles, and so it is no surprise that London Fashion Week is taking a leading role within the fashion industry by introducing stricter environmental standards, supporting sustainable designers, and promoting innovative materials and circular fashion practices.

This year was the first year in which the British Fashion Council formally adopted Copenhagen Fashion Week’s Sustainability Requirements for designers supported by NEWGEN, a talent incubator offering the chance to showcase at London Fashion Week. London is the first of the four ‘fashion capitals’ to implement the framework, and it was also the first Fashion Week to ban real fur and animal skins.

Like in many industries, the transition to more sustainable practices within the fashion industry presents major challenges, but it also creates significant opportunities for innovation. One exciting area of innovation is in the development of biomaterial-based textiles. Biomaterials offer sustainable and biodegradable alternatives to petroleum-based synthetic fibres, but several challenges must be overcome before their commercial potential can be realised.

The science of biomaterials

Biomaterials for use in textiles are typically made from naturally occurring biopolymers which can be extracted from or synthesised in living organisms, such as bacteria, plants, algae and fungi. Biopolymers often possess inherent properties which make them particularly well suited to the manufacture of fibres and fabrics, such as high tensile strength, elasticity and durability. For example, microbial silk (polymeric amyloid) fibres have been produced which exhibit greater strength than natural spider silks, and these microbial silk fibres have already been used to produce garments, such as silk ties and designer dresses. Fungal-based materials have also been developed which exhibit comparable properties to leather, while also being environmentally friendly and vegan.

The ability to produce biopolymers in biological systems provides a plethora of advantages. Microbial‑based biopolymer production enables rapid and controlled production from renewable starting materials, such as glucose, plant sugars or agricultural waste. Microbes can also be engineered to modify the existing properties and introduce entirely new properties to the biopolymers, e.g. inherent colour properties.

Although biomaterials offer significant environmental benefits, several challenges currently inhibit their widespread adoption. For example, production costs are typically much higher than for petroleum‑based synthetic fibres, such as polyester, which benefit from pre-existing and well‑established petrochemical processing infrastructure. Similarly, while production of small amounts of biopolymer can often be readily achieved in the lab, scaling production processes to the levels required for industrial production can be slow and costly.

These challenges must be overcome before biomaterial-based textiles are widely available, and at costs acceptable to the typical high street consumer.

Biomaterials at London Fashion Week 2026

While scientists and engineers work to overcome the challenges outlined above, top designers are already embracing biomaterials and London Fashion Week provided the perfect opportunity to display their work. A few of our favourites from London Fashion Week 2026 are highlighted below:

Protecting biomaterial-related innovation

For innovators looking to develop new biomaterials or new production processes, patents provide a powerful tool to protect their innovation and support their commercial development. As with any technology, the existence of a patent portfolio can help to attract investors and can provide a commercial advantage over competitors who might be looking to work in a similar area.

The key patentability considerations for biomaterial-related patent applications are the same as for any type of technology area, i.e. the invention must be novel, non-obvious and industrially applicable. Given the wide range of technical challenges in this area, there are a large number of ‘technical problems’ which can be overcome to demonstrate non-obviousness. Data which demonstrate that the newly developed biomaterials and/or processes are superior to those which are already known are very helpful in this regard. For example, a patent application may demonstrate that a newly developed biomaterial exhibits improved properties (e.g. improved flexibility, durability, tensile strength or water resistance) or that a newly developed process can be scaled to an industrial level without sacrificing the quality of the biomaterial.

While the first patent filing is often the most important, it is essential that technical advancements made while developing new biomaterials and processes are well recorded, and that the patentability of these advancements is considered in their own right. It may be commercially astute to retain some of these developments as trade secrets, but it is important that key technical developments which will be published (or which could be derived from the product) are properly protected by registered IP. The continual development of a patent portfolio will ensure that commercial products are robustly protected.

Conclusion

The science behind biomaterials is rapidly evolving, and overcoming existing challenges will involve multidisciplinary solutions which combine biology, chemistry, materials science, biotechnology and industrial engineering to create sustainable textile alternatives. As research advances, biomaterials are likely to play a major role in reducing the environmental footprint of the textile industry and it may not be long before they become a staple of high street fashion brands.

Mathys & Squire have extensive experience working with clients to protect their biomaterial innovations, supporting highly successful sustainable fashion companies, such as Colorifix. If you would like to find out more, please get in touch with a member of our team via our enquiry form.

Investment is key for the growth of biotech ventures, where it funds long, costly R&D, clinical trials, and regulatory approvals for products, often long before sales revenue can be generated.  Investment drives innovation in areas like mRNA vaccines, antibody therapeutics, gene editing, and personalized medicine. Furthermore, it supports global health needs, such as combating pandemics and chronic diseases.  

Together with Managing Associate Lionel Newton, we discuss the importance of Intellectual Property (in particular patents) in driving such fundamental investment in biotechnology.

This is a discussion about building an IP portfolio, more particularly a patent portfolio, for fund-raising biotechs.  A good place to start is to ask, why is this important for attracting funding?

To answer this question, it is useful to begin by considering the sheer scale of funding and time required to bring an advanced therapeutic to market.  That is, likely millions or billions of USD and 12 plus years of clinical development. These numbers here reflect not only the enormous cost of the R&D required to arrive at a clinical grade therapeutic product, but also the need to negotiate a notably complex regulatory process required to bring an advanced therapeutic to market.

A start-up or SME biotech will likely eventually need to work with, or even be acquired by, a big biotech or pharma company.  That being said, the venture and the science need to get to a point that big pharma would be willing to entertain such a costly partnership or acquisition.  However, reaching such point itself will likely involve a notably expensive journey, requiring multiple rounds of fund raising to progress an asset to a stage where it is sufficiently advanced to attract a large partner. Which means that recruiting investors during the venture-building journey is crucial, and likely over the course of multiple funding rounds.

In this regard, the IP position of a biotech company is key to its commercial prospects, especially for start-ups and SMEs for which sales revenue is likely far in the future. As just alluded to, marketable therapeutic products must navigate long and costly development pathways before sales provide any return on investment. Attracting investors to support this journey requires prospects for achieving a sufficient reward if the asset is successfully commercialised. Absent exclusive and enforceable rights, then the potential reward for the development of the asset is reduced, and so too are investor incentives.

Because of this, a biotech’s IP portfolio is amongst its primary commercial assets, protecting technologies arising from its R&D activities. A biotech company’s value can be directly linked to the strength of its IP position, and indeed IP due diligence forms a key part of an investor’s analysis of a prospective investment opportunity. In addition to seeing the potential of a great team and an exciting technology, they would need to know what would prevent a competitor from replicating it after all the biotech’s development efforts.

How early should a biotech start-up be thinking about their IP strategy, and do you have some examples of strategy points that you have seen successful ventures focus on in the past?

Developing an IP strategy early should be amongst the most critical commercial objectives of a biotech start-up from the beginning. It is key for attracting initial seed-funding and generating vital momentum to get the company up and running.

A significant portion of biotech start-ups originate from commercially savvy university or governmental institute researchers, with scientific founders pursuing start-ups with an existing portfolio of “background” IP based on in-licensing IP from their academic or government institute.  This background IP may very often protect a “platform technology” or a therapeutic target/ pathway that the business aims to exploit.  Examples might include a new form of lentiviral vector providing a broad platform to discover new therapies, or a generic cell re-targeting platform having potential to open up a technology for developing treatments for multiple disease indications.

At this early stage there may be no clear candidate ‘asset’, or if there is, it unlikely in a final form for use as a scalable therapy.  But establishing exclusive rights for this technical springboard or platform goes a long way toward providing investor-incentives for critical early stage, or seed, funding.  So, when investors see a great team, that are seeking to bring in and build those exclusive IP rights, they see the potential for reward and can be incentivised to invest. 

Investors can be expected to perform their due diligence on the company’s existing and emerging IP, as well as the company’s overall IP strategy. In addition to scrutinising existing or background IP, investors are likely to raise questions as to ownership of future IP emanating from the start-up’s own R&D, thus establishing ownership and relevant documentation is likely to be an important factor in investment negotiations.  Naturally, there is also the matter of third party IP, and developing a thorough freedom-to-operate (FTO) assessment is likely to be important to demonstrate to investors that the company is not infringing on patents held by a third party.

Is there value in evolving the IP portfolio as the ventures grows and develops its technology?

Considering the IP strategy and generating initial filings is not a one-off task, but rather the strategy should evolve in-line with the companies R&D progress and emerging partnership or commercialisation opportunities. 

As a venture grows, we see those that succeed seek to leverage their exclusive platform, and direct their science toward achieving a clinical grade therapeutic product. R&D efforts at this stage may involve making improvements and additions to the platform technology such as certain structural modifications for stability or solubility, or the development of a delivery vehicle to actually get a candidate therapy to the site of the body where it is needed, or making improvements that expand the spectrum of potential disease targets.

We see successful ventures seek to actively grow their IP portfolio accordingly. While the existing background IP remains critical, it will have a finite lifespan.  So, seeking bespoke filings for these growing improvements provides new patent terms for some of the technology beginning to show promise for delivering a marketable medical product.

Considering that a venture in this area will likely be going through multiple rounds of fundraising over the years, updating and building the IP portfolio is a key component not only to retaining existing investors, but for attracting new ones as the sheer level of necessary funds increases.

Naturally, this growth comes with its challenges in terms of prioritising what to protect and how to manage costs.  We see successful ventures develop very close ties with their patent attorneys during this stage, using us as more than a means to prepare and file applications, but as key advisors to help guide them through these challenges and decisions.

So, it appears that biotechs can generate value by adding layers to their patent portfolio throughout their R&D journey? Do you have any further examples of what other developments could be protected, and what a biotech should be thinking about when deciding which patents to pursue?

Off the back of the improvements just discussed, the next stage might involve pushing a candidate asset, or assets, toward something suitable for clinical study. 

For example, the company might progress to developing scalable methods of production to have suitable quantities of GMP compliant material to work with.  Pre-clinical work can lead to identification of particularly suitable doses, and can also lead to plausibility of using a candidate asset for new disease indications that may not have been considered previously.

These are opportunities for building yet further layers of protection around technology that may be required for developing a clinically viable asset.  At this stage, there is a strong chance that the venture is seeking vital partnerships with large companies to take the asset through clinical development, and very often an exit in the form of an acquisition by big pharma. So, we see successful ventures look to maximise the value of their IP portfolio by expanding their IP portfolio in-line with their strongest commercialisation and partnership opportunities.

Do such opportunities for expanding the IP portfolio, in a way that adds value, arise at even later stages of clinical development?

We see that many successful ventures continue to innovate, and protect these continued innovations, based on insights from clinical trial work.  These could involve identifying new combination therapies showing synergy together.  Optimal formulations and administration regimens might be devised. Perhaps particular patient subgroups are identifiable as the best responders to a particular therapy, for example those associated with a certain biomarker readout.

These can all be meritorious of their own bespoke patent filings, and thus their own patent terms. Although the term of the original ‘background’ IP may have eroded by this point, continuing to build the IP portfolio at this relatively mature stage of development provides a further 20 year term of exclusivity for particular forms and uses of the asset of direct relevance to the manner in which they can be marketed. 

For example, a “composition of matter” patent protecting a key asset per se may have been filed many years before the asset is ready for marketing, such that the patent term will have eroded at the point of market entry.  However, once a key dosage regimen for actually using the asset in therapy is devised, the regimen itself may be patentable, thus providing a further period of protection for the practical manner in which the asset may actually be administered.

These later stage filings may well be taking place post-acquisition, after a founding venture has been acquired by big pharma. If not, the founding company may well be working toward an exit at this stage, and we see that the value at exit is closely linked to the strength of the IP portfolio, which was built on the back of a carefully managed IP strategy.

Do you have a case study of biotech start-up that the firm worked closely with to build their IP portfolio from the beginning, and do you have a view of the commercial value provided by the IP portfolio?

We have several such examples, but one company that our firm worked with from start-up through to acquisition springs to mind.

The company in question was spun out of UK government, while obtaining exclusive rights in an early patent portfolio that defined their intended technical space of operation, and this early portfolio allowed for crucial seed funding to get this venture spun out.

As the start-up grew and worked toward a clinical grade asset, while developing technology required to do so, they continued to build their IP portfolio accordingly. Crucially, they did so in a strategic manner with potential partnerships in mind, and consulted with us very often to help direct their growing IP portfolio toward their strongest investment and commercialisation opportunities.

Within less than a decade they built their business from an initial valuation of about $1M at start-up to over $200M when they were acquired by a large biopharma company.  The fact that the large biopharma valued this IP portfolio as part of this acquisition can be demonstrated by noting how they continue to grow this IP portfolio, which is going some way to helping them manage their many competitors and maintain exclusivity for key developments.

Do you have a brief ‘take home’ message to conclude with?

The different stages of a growing biotech business do pose different challenges in terms of developing and evolving an IP strategy, but also many opportunities for adding value to the business. In our experience, we find that those ventures that strategically build their IP portfolio, as a key commercial objective, put themselves in a strong position for investment and success.

Mathys & Squire sponsored the Non-Law into Law Conference for the third year running, with this year’s conference taking place on the 18th of March at the London School of Economics. Partners James Pitchford and Anna Gregson, and Technical Assistant Louis Brosnan all spoke at the event.

The Non-Law into Law (NLIL) Conference is designed for students across a range of academic disciplines, to give the attendees insights into a variety of pathways into legal careers, even though they are not currently studying law.

The conference has been growing every year, with over 300 students now taking part, who engage in a series of panel discussions, presentations and workshops given by experienced lawyers and current trainees in areas such as commercial law, finance law, and Intellectual Property (IP).

Mathys & Squire at the NLIL conference 2026

The team from Mathys & Squire led three events in relation to IP, including a workshop specifically focused on the patent attorney career, aimed at STEM students, and a panel session on careers in IP, for students from all subject backgrounds. The team also ran an interactive IP workshop which provided practical insights into the work of patent and trade mark attorneys, including identifying and capturing IP, and protecting innovations by means of patents, trade marks, registered designs and copyright.

It was a pleasure to attend this year’s event and to highlight the exciting opportunities available in IP professions for graduates and postgraduates. Our team also enjoyed engaging with the enthusiastic attendees and answering their questions on a range of relevant topics, including in respect of developing technical writing skills and the use of AI.

Research from Mathys & Squire on the number of patent applications for anti-drone devices has been featured in the article, “Trial by fire: ‘no training’ to prepare for reforms”, by The Times.

Partner Andrew White has also been featured in a number of publications, following his commentary on the growing demand for technology which defends against drones, as drones become a mainstream security challenge rather than just a niche concern. He notes that the conflict in the Gulf demonstrates a need for anti-drone measures which are not dependent on the use of million-dollar interceptor missiles and will push innovation towards non-traditional approaches.

Publications

Read the extended press release below.

The number of patent applications for anti-drone (counter-UAV) technologies filed globally increased by 27% to 126 last year*, up from 99 the year before, according to new research from leading intellectual property (IP) law firm Mathys & Squire.

The sharp rise in patents filed reflects growing global demand for systems capable of disabling or neutralising drones, whose use has expanded rapidly.

The conflict in the Gulf shows the need for anti-drone measures that aren’t dependent on the use of million-dollar interceptor missiles. Meanwhile, incidents involving suspicious drone sightings in Europe and the US over the past year have raised questions about the vulnerability of both domestic civilian and defence infrastructure to drone attacks.

China dominated the global anti-drone patent landscape, filing 82 applications in the last year alone, far ahead of the US, which recorded just 22 new anti-drone patent submissions. China, the US and South Korea rank as the top three anti-drone patent filers globally.

Top 3 countries by number of anti-drone patent applications

European filers appear to be lagging in anti-drone patent filings, despite the fact that since September, seven major European airports have faced drone-related disruptions, including major hubs such as Brussels and Munich.

Interference and jamming remain the most common area of innovation, recording 49 new patents last year. Signal interference technologies accounting for the largest share of new inventions. This reflects a growing focus on non-kinetic countermeasures designed to disrupt drone communications and navigation systems.

Following recent drone-related incidents – including the temporary suspension of operations in Copenhagen and Oslo airports – technologies that can rapidly disable or disrupt drones, such as signal interference, appear to be in increasing demand.

Number of patents by technology type

However, a notable shift is also underway toward next-generation counter-drone technologies. Laser-related inventions reached 39 in 2025, while microwave systems rose strongly to 24 patents, suggesting increasing interest in directed-energy approaches as part of future airspace security.

Andrew White, Partner at Mathys & Squire says: “Drones have shifted from being a niche concern to a mainstream security challenge and the rise in patent filings reflects that change. With drone disruptions affecting sensitive sites and infrastructure, organisations are racing to develop reliable countermeasures.”

He adds: “We’re also seeing innovation move beyond traditional approaches. Laser and microwave systems are gaining traction in the counter-drone market and this is likely just the beginning of a broader shift in how airspace threats are countered.”

Commercial and infrastructure protection use cases are also growing rapidly, with anti-drone technologies increasingly being developed for use in areas such as airports, prisons, energy infrastructure, ports and large public events.

*Research conducted with a year-end of March 31, 2025

Partner Claire Breheny has been featured in “Who owns a name? Katy Perry, Estée Lauder and Jo Malone test rights” by the World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR).

The article emphasises the tensions which can arise between personal identity and trade marks, delving into two recent developments in trade mark disputes: Katy Perry losing against fashion designer Katie Taylor (born Katie Perry) and Estée Lauder filing a claim against Jo Malone over the use of her name in a collaboration with Zara.

Claire’s commentary contributes to the common debate, which is particularly relevant to celebrity branding, over who owns a name, highlighting how the own-name defence in the Trade Marks Act 1994 can be overridden by contractual obligations.

Read the article in full here.

The European Patent Office (EPO) has confirmed that a number of its official fees will increase from the 1st of April 2026, following a decision of the EPO Administrative Council in December 2025. The updated fee schedule was published in the January 2026 issue of the Official Journal.

Overall, most affected fees will increase by around 5%, reflecting the EPO’s return to a biennial inflation-based review of official fees.

Key fee changes

The increases apply to a few commonly incurred fees during European patent prosecution. These include:

Renewal fees payable during the application stage will also increase by approximately 5%.

Fees remaining unchanged

Not all official fees will be affected by the increase. The following fees are some which will remain at their current levels:

This means that the most significant changes primarily affect core prosecution and renewal stages of the European patent process.

When the new fees apply

The revised fees will apply to payments made on or after the 1st of April 2026. This means that applicants may be able to reduce costs by paying certain fees before that date where the rules allow early payments.

There will also be a six-month transitional period. If a fee is paid at the previous rate after the 1st of April, the payment will still be accepted provided that any shortfall is paid within two months of the EPO requesting it.

Practical considerations for applicants

Given that many prosecution and renewal fees are increasing, applicants may wish to review their portfolios ahead of April 2026. In some cases, it may be possible to pay upcoming fees early to secure the current lower rates, depending on the applicable deadlines and payment rules.

Please reach out to us here if you have any queries.

Partner Claire Breheny and Trainee Trade Mark Attorney Tanya Rahman have have prepared an article for Professional Wealth Management (PWM) on “Why family brands can struggle to ‘Bend it like Beckham’.”

The article explores the complexities that can arise when a family name becomes a valuable commercial brand. Claire and Tanya examine how trade mark protection can help wealthy families control the commercial use of their name across industries such as fashion, entertainment and endorsements.

It also highlights the potential legal and governance challenges that may emerge when family names are registered as trade marks, particularly where the rights are owned by parents or family companies rather than individual family members.

Read the article in full here.

International Women’s Day, which took place this Sunday, the 8th of March, celebrates the achievements of women throughout history and the progress they have made in achieving equal rights to men, socially, culturally and economically.

2026 marks an incredible milestone: 115 years of International Women’s Day. Those 115 years have seen many important advances for women; however, there is still a long way to go. Women still face discrimination, lack of representation and disadvantages across many areas of daily life, such as in the workplace, in healthcare and in their relationships.

In acknowledgement of IWD, we will be showcasing an inspiring client who are improving women’s quality of life through scientific innovation. At Mathys & Squire, we are proud to have the opportunity to not only help our clients to protect their inventions but also support them in an entrepreneurial journey which will have a wider positive impact on society.

Epowar – Women’s Safety App

Epowar was founded in 2020 by University of Bath students, E-J Roodt and Maks Rahman, driven by the need to transform women’s safety and enable them to live their lives free from fear.

The rate of femicide has remained consistent for the last decade, with one woman killed in the UK every three days, and Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG) was declared a national emergency in 2024. It is no surprise that girls and women are raised to be on constant alert. “Don’t walk back on your own.” “Don’t go on a run at night.” “Don’t forget to text me when you are home”. Most men wouldn’t give a walk home from the station at 10pm a second thought, but, for women, it is twenty minutes of unease and agitation, or something to be avoided completely. If something does happen, you can call the police on your phone, but what if it is not to hand? You can activate a rape alarm, but what if there is no one there to hear it?

Instead, Epowar’s patented ‘Automatic Attack Detection’ technology connects to your smartwatch, harnessing AI, and tracking your heart rate and motion to automatically recognise when you are in danger. If an attack is detected, the Epowar app gives you quick and easy access to 999, and sends an automatic notification to your friends so they can call for help if you are unable to.

Another feature of the technology is the ‘Evidence Pack’: a cache of evidence stored in the cloud, including audio, location and time stamps, can be accessed even if the phone is stolen or destroyed.

“Epowar exists because every woman has a story,” says founder, E-J. Whilst 97% of women in the UK have been harassed or assaulted, the percentage of women who press charges is significantly smaller, and the percentage of charges which end in conviction is even smaller. With concrete evidence, Epowar empowers women to take the brave step towards reporting the crime and, ultimately, helping protect other women as well as themselves.

“It has been a privilege to support Epowar through the entire patenting process for their attack detection technology, and we are proud to share that they were recently granted a UK patent.”

William Wathey, Associate

“Running Epowar has been an incredible experience, and having our attack detection patents approved in the UK and US were two of the biggest highlights of the journey so far. We set out to create something innovative to empower women to feel safe while they move through the world, and we believe now more than ever that tech will play a powerful role in tackling this global crisis.”

E-J Roodt, Founder of Epowar

Visit Epowar’s website to learn more here.