Contact
Contact

We are delighted to have been named as one of Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms by the Financial Times in their 2026 report.

The list highlights IP firms that demonstrate excellence in patent strategy, consultation, drafting, filing and prosecution, and marks the eighth consecutive year that our firm has been included in this prestigious ranking. Featuring in the report reflects our continued commitment to delivering exceptional patent services to clients across a wide range of industries.

In addition to our overall recognition, we are proud to have been recommended in four specialist areas of expertise:

The research process is conducted by Statista on behalf of the Financial Times, gathering recommendations from clients, patent attorneys, in-house counsel and other IP professionals throughout Europe.

We would like to extend our gratitude to all of our clients and contacts who took the time to highlight our firm as part of this year’s research.

To access the full report and rankings tables, please visit the FT website here.

Mathys & Squire is delighted to announce a series of senior promotions across our UK offices.

The promotions reflect our continued dedication to strategic growth as a firm, as well as the value we place on career progression.

In recognition of their hard work, the following have now been appointed as Partners:

In our London office, the below have been promoted to Managing Associate:

In our Cambridge office, two of our Associates have been promoted to Managing Associate:

Martin MacLean says, “It was with great pleasure that we announce these promotions and recognise the achievements and talent of our new Partners and Managing Associates. Their commitment to delivering excellence and dedication to their clients has shone through during their time with us, and we look forward to seeing how they will continue contributing to the success of the firm. At Mathys & Squire, we are passionate about supporting career progression and rewarding hard work, and this is an important step in the firm’s strategic growth.”

Skinny labels are a powerful tool for generic drug companies to avoid infringement of method of treatment/ ‘medical use’ patents after the original drug patent expires, by allowing a ‘carve out’ of the still-patented medical indications. However, as a generic drug is identical to the originator’s branded drug, physicians may prescribe it ‘off-label’ for the carved-out indication. The originator company may then try to sue the generic manufacturer for patent infringement.

The US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals v Amarin Pharma Inc., ruled that generic manufacturer Hikma did not induce infringement of Amarin’s patent.

Read more to learn what this could mean for enforcement of pharmaceutical patents against generics in the US, and how this compares to the approach taken by the UK courts.

Skinny Labels

Pharmaceutical companies can apply for method of treatment/ medical use patents to maintain patent protection for their drug (limited to the claimed medical indications) for years beyond the original drug patent’s expiry date. 

Legal systems aim to create a fair balance between IP protection and market competition; and health systems are motivated to bring down the cost of medicines when possible. 

To try and achieve this balance, generic drugs are allowed to carry a ‘skinny label’ that omits patented medical indications. This ‘carve out’ of patented uses may allow the generic manufacturer to enter the market for off-patent indications before all of the drug’s patents expire.

Hikma v Amarin 2026 – Summary of the facts:

Amarin Pharma developed the drug Vascepa®, which was initially approved by the FDA to treat severe hypertriglyceridemia (SH). Later, Amarin obtained FDA approval and patents for a new method of use of Vascepa®: reducing cardiovascular risk (CV). 

In 2020, Hikma Pharmaceuticals obtained FDA approval to sell its ‘generic Vascepa’ under a skinny label carving out the patented use in CV. Despite Hikma’s skinny label, Amarin alleged that Hikma’s website statements, press releases, and references to its product as ‘a generic version of Vascepa’ effectively encouraged physicians to prescribe the drug for the patented CV indication – i.e., Amarin alleged that Hikma induced patent infringement under 35 U.S Code § 271(b). 

The question discussed before the US Supreme Court became:

Can a generic manufacturer be liable for induced infringement when it uses a skinny label that excludes the patented indication, but other communications allegedly encourage the patented use?

A ‘sheer possibility’ or ‘plausibility’ of inducing infringement?

The US Court considered the relevant legal question to be whether Hikma actively encouraged infringing use for CV – it was not enough for Amarin to assert that Hikma’s marketing material might, ‘passively’ encourage physicians to use the generic drug off-label for this patented indication. In the Court’s view, Amarin failed to plausibly show that Hikma – even implicitly – took the kind of ‘active steps’ to encourage infringement that are required for induced infringement liability.  

This decision is a victory for generic drug manufacturers by confirming the high standard of proof required for originators to pursue induced-infringement claims in the US. Although a skinny label  does not guarantee ‘safe harbour’, a generic manufacturer may be more confident of avoiding induced infringement in the US if they do not ‘actively encourage’ use of the generic drug in patented indications.

How does this compare to UK law?

The current position in the UK is somewhat less clear.

In the UK, the Supreme Court in Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Generics (UK) Ltd 2018 was asked to consider direct infringement of a ‘Swiss form’ 2nd medical use patent. As they found the patent to be invalid, the Court did not need to decide on infringement: the judges made revealing ‘obiter’ (non-binding) comments but did not provide a definitive test for assessing infringement by a skinny-labelled generic drug.

Warner-Lambert v Generics

The 5 UK Supreme Court judges were split between two different proposed legal tests: 1) based on outward presentation of the generic product – including packaging and labelling – whereby a skinny label would avoid a finding of infringement; and 2) based on subjective intent – whereby other factors such as “words, conduct and even inactivity” are assessed to determine whether the generic manufacturer intended to target the patent-protected market.

Therefore, uncertainty remains as to what a generic manufacturer must do to avoid infringement of a patented medical indication in the UK and any future decision is likely to be highly fact-specific. A test based on outward presentation would certainly favour the generics industry but may be unfair to originators where off-label use is widespread. A test based on subjective intent – or even a US-style assessment of ‘active encouragement’ – places a high evidentiary burden on originators but this more ‘holistic’ approach may better reflect some ‘real world’ practices.

Whichever test is applied, it seems that a properly executed skinny label may offer protection from infringement of pharma patents in the US and UK, so long as the generic manufacturer’s conduct does not – even implicitly, or by omission – encourage off-label use of the generic drug for a patented indication.

In honour of Diabetes Awareness Week in the UK, which takes place from 8th to 15th June, we will be taking a closer look at the innovations which are revolutionising treatment.

This article will also discuss the role of intellectual property in the development of medicine and medical devices designed for people living with diabetes, and how companies can ensure they maintain a strong position in the market through their patent strategy.

What is diabetes?

Diabetes is a condition where the body cannot properly regulate the amount of glucose in the blood, leading to high blood glucose (hyperglycaemia) which can harm blood vessels, and limit the flow of oxygen and nutrient-rich blood to the body’s organs and nerves.

The level of glucose in the blood is regulated through the actions of two opposing hormones, glucagon and insulin, which are produced in the pancreas by alpha- and beta- cells, respectively. These cells are found in discrete clusters within the pancreas known as islets. Insulin triggers the absorption of glucose from the bloodstream into cells of many tissues throughout the body including fat, liver, and muscle cells.

Diabetes occurs when the body cannot properly make or respond to insulin. Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a complex chronic autoimmune disease where the immune system destroys insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas. In comparison, type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a metabolic disorder, often developing later in life, where the body becomes resistant to insulin or does not produce enough.

How do you treat diabetes?

The number of people with diabetes worldwide is rising and is expected to reach over 850 million by 2050, but tackling the disease remains a challenge.

Diabetes can be managed through insulin therapy, which involves daily insulin injections or use of insulin pumps to continuously deliver insulin to the patient. In 1922, Frederick Banting and Charles Best treated a teenager with T1D for the first time by injecting insulin isolated from dog pancreas. They famously sold the patents on insulin and the method of making it to the University of Toronto for $1 each in 1923. Since these early days of insulin therapy, scientific advances have included the creation of artificial insulin molecules such as short-acting insulin analogues (e.g. Lispro and Glulisine) and long-acting analogues (e.g. Glargine and Degludec) to more closely mimic the actions of normal insulin.

Nevertheless, insulin therapy is not curative and must be combined with the constant monitoring of blood glucose levels to avoid complications such as hypoglycaemia, (a dangerous low blood glucose episode). The need to constantly manage blood sugar can place a serious strain on a person’s daily life, as well as on their mental health.

However, in recent years, research into diabetes has reached a turning point. Scientists are exploring new treatments which tackle the root cause of type 1 and 2 diabetes and fully restore insulin production, leading to a future where people suffering with diabetes may no longer reliant on insulin therapy. Solutions are also emerging which make monitoring and management a lot easier, such as holistic approaches to overall health, and “med tech” device ecosystems integrated with digital AI tools to streamline and automate insulin delivery.

Key focus areas in innovation

The rise of medtech

Advancements in medtech and the digitalisation of healthcare has allowed for more accurate tracking of blood glucose levels in both T1D and T2D patients, as well as the possibility of automatic insulin injections.

For example, implantable continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) enable real-time tracking of glucose levels and can help patients understand how food, physical activity and daily routines affect their blood sugar levels, and make small self‑management changes. Recent innovations in the CGM field focus on sensor chemistry as well as improving sensor accuracy, lifespan and user comfort.

A particularly active area of patenting concerns the integration of CGMs with digital health platforms and automated insulin delivery systems to allow accurate 24/7 control. Entire device ecosystems, known as an “artificial pancreas” or a closed-loop system, may reduce the burden on people with diabetes. These systems combine a CGM in communication with an insulin pump, and a control algorithm to enable the devices to predict and respond to glucose fluctuations without user input. Such systems can also be integrated with machine learning and AI to facilitate the analysis of data and offer predictive insights.

The UK is a global leader in the rollout of hybrid closed-loop systems for people living with T1D. Following years of research and advocacy, the treatment has been offered on the NHS over the last few years and has contributed to the reduction of ethnic and socioeconomic inequality in access to diabetes treatment.

The intersection of integrated digital solutions with drugs has significantly influenced patent strategy, with innovators seeking protection for medical devices, software, predictive AI algorithms, methods for data sensing, calibration, integration and cloud storage, and user interfaces, for example, alongside next-generation therapeutic drugs to cure or modify diabetes.

A curative breakthrough for type 1 diabetes

There is currently no cure for diabetes, but the future may look different. We are seeing a movement beyond insulin therapy towards curative or disease-modifying therapies.

Immunotherapies are a new kind of T1D treatment. In 2025, the drug Teplizumab (also known as Tzield®), was approved by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for people aged 8 and over. Teplizumab is a monoclonal antibody which modifies the immune system to prevent it from attacking insulin-producing beta cells, and is the world’s first immunotherapy for T1D. It delays the progression of stage 2 T1D into stage 3 T1D, when the diabetes becomes clinical and individuals require insulin therapy; however, it does not prevent its onset forever.

Immunotherapies such as these could be used alongside regenerative medicine, which, in the case of T1D, would repair or replace the beta cells which have been destroyed. This has been shown to be a highly promising pathway towards a cure, but there are still obstacles to overcome.

Islet transplants, involving the transplantation of islets from donor pancreas into the liver of someone with T1D, have been available in the UK since 2008, but are only used for a very small number of people. Donor islets are limited, their quality differs, and patients usually require more than one transplant. Protecting the transplanted cells from the body’s immune system in order to keep them alive and working is a major challenge; transplant patients must receive strong immunosuppressants which increase infection risk and put strain on the kidneys.

Scientists are now working to solve these issues. For example, a recent first in human study showed that gene-edited “hypoimmune” donor islet cells can successfully evade detection by the immune system and continue to produce insulin for over a year post-transplant.

 Stem cell and biomaterials engineering approaches are also being harnessed to produce insulin-producing cells from stem cells, and to protect implanted cells from attack. An ongoing clinical trial in T1D patients is investigating the function of lab-grown, human stem-cell derived beta cells, and has shown promising results with patients restoring natural insulin production following transplantation.

The move to stem cell therapies will reduce the need for organ donors and enable treatments to be more scalable, and preliminary studies are underway to investigate the possibility of using autologous stem cells from the patient themselves to bypass the need for immunosuppressants.

Cell therapies are becoming one of the most important strategic areas in diabetes IP. Patent activity is increasing across the board, covering the engineered cells themselves, methods for genetic engineering and manufacturing of the cells, and devices or compositions for encapsulation and delivery. As the environment becomes more crowded, cell therapies for diabetes could become the next major patent battleground.

A holistic health approach for type 2 diabetes

One evolving class of drugs for T2D work by mimicking hormones that the body releases after eating. For example, GLP-1 is a gut hormone which binds to receptors on beta cells and tells them to release insulin. GLP-1 receptor agonists are a class of medications that mimic the gut hormone GLP-1, enhancing insulin secretion, suppressing glucagon, slowing digestion and reducing appetite. They can help people with T2D reduce blood sugar levels and lose weight, which enhances insulin sensitivity.

The success of GLP-1 therapies has made them a major focus of pharmaceutical innovation and commercial investment. The intellectual property landscape has become highly competitive in recent years, with protection expanding beyond the underlying core molecular chemical structures to encompass delivery devices, dosing regimens, manufacturing processes and combination therapies. Recent commercial successes have further intensified innovation and competition with companies seeking protection for specialised oral formulations and multi-target therapies.

While most GLP-1 therapies require regular and systemic administration through injections or oral dosing, emerging gene therapies aim to provide long-lasting benefits from a single treatment. In a significant milestone, the first-ever clinical trial of a gene therapy for T2D has recently received regulatory approval in Europe. The therapy uses adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based gene therapy to deliver instructions for making GLP-1 directly to beta cells in the pancreas. Unlike conventional GLP-1 therapies, patent protection in this area has focused on vector design, tissue-specific expression systems and promoter technologies, scalable manufacturing processes and methods of delivery.

The benefits of GLP-1 therapies extend beyond blood glucose management. Growing evidence supports that a more holistic treatment approach for T2D by integrating GLP-1 therapy with overall health management, rather than focusing on blood glucose control, leads to 8% fewer cardiovascular events, 7% fewer hospitalisations and 7% fewer bed days, putting less pressure on the healthcare system.

Key takeaways for patent strategy

Maintaining exclusivity and market control grows increasingly important as the diabetes treatment landscape evolves, with opportunities for innovation expanding and changing in nature as competition rises.

Pharmaceutical companies can no longer rely on “core molecule” protection and composition-of-matter patents alone.It is important to have a strong product pipeline with multidisciplinary patent portfolios in place to layer protection, as well as iterative strategies to ensure the protection lasts as long as possible. For example, protection can be extended through SPCs and secondary patents protecting devices, formulations, dosage regimes or additional medical indications. Secondary patents may be just as commercially valuable as the drug itself and secondary filing strategies should be considered early in patent strategy to maximise protection.

In addition, as innovation within diabetes becomes more collaborative, bringing together pharmaceuticals and biotech, freedom-to-operate (FTO) analyses and licensing agreements become more complex. There are many overlapping patent families to consider across a single treatment approach and it is vital to get an idea of the level of competition or any broad patents in the area. To avoid the risk of litigation, early FTO analysis at the very start of a research project and ongoing FTO surveillance is vital, and companies are increasingly leaning towards strategic licensing and acquisitions across key jurisdictions.

Whilst diabetes remains a significant health challenge, we are getting closer to a point where people living with diabetes can become independent from constant management, and from an external insulin source. Diabetes treatment is evolving from a “drug category” into a full metabolic health platform ecosystem, and patent strategy is evolving with it.

For many growing businesses, intellectual property is one of the most important sources of commercial value. It can protect technical differentiation, support brand strength, improve investor confidence and create leverage in licensing, partnership or exit discussions.

Yet, because IP is intangible and frequently misunderstood, it is often managed reactively. Innovations may be discussed publicly or commercialised before protection has been considered. Trade mark gaps may only become apparent once a competitor enters the market. Key contracts with employees, contractors, suppliers or collaborators may be missing, outdated, or signed without properly addressing IP ownership, access rights, and risk allocation.

To bridge this gap and align your commercial goals with legal protection, businesses must take a proactive approach. So, what is an IP audit, and what is the importance of an IP audit for companies looking to scale?

What is an IP audit?

At its core, an IP audit is a comprehensive, systematic review of a company’s intellectual property assets and how intellectual property is managed. It goes beyond a simple administrative list of registered rights. An effective audit assesses the legal validity, commercial alignment, and potential risks associated with your proprietary technology, brands, designs, and trade secrets.

A thorough assessment typically addresses:

Why is an IP audit important?

An IP audit is not just a case of housekeeping; it’s vital for risk management and value creation. The importance of an IP audit can be broken down into two main functions: a snapshot of your current IP position, and mapping out the steps to secure and enhance your IP strategy for the future.

Identifying and cataloguing existing assets

Many businesses do not realise they possess valuable IP until a formal audit brings it to light. For example, a specialised software script, a proprietary manufacturing process, or a proprietary formulation may contain highly protectable innovations. An audit helps you systematically identify and assess these assets, decide how they should be protected, and understand how they may support commercial value

Spotting the ownership and application gaps

Crucially, a robust audit uncovers what you don’t securely own or protect. This is where businesses face the highest risk. A successful audit can reveal gaps such as:

How do you conduct an IP audit?

Conducting an IP audit takes your business from a purely compliance-focused position to a commercial, growth-focused one. But if you’ve not engaged with the process before, you may not know where to start.

If you want your audit carried out to the highest possible standards, our experts can help. We work with businesses of all sizes to identify intangible assets and map out a prioritised IP strategy to help you grow.

As a general overview, the IP audit process looks like this:

Step 1 – Scope and Objectives: Start by defining what the audit aims to achieve. Is it preparing the company for an impending Series A funding round, evaluating a brand expansion into new geographical markets, or assessing a newly acquired technical asset?

Step 2 – Information Gathering: Collate internal information, including product plans, marketing collateral, trade secret records, and key IP agreements. We use digital tools to simplify this process for you.

Step 3 – Legal & Commercial Analysis: Evaluate whether your IP is adequately protected. Are your trade marks registered and in the correct classes? Is there technical evidence, such as comparative testing, prototype results, or performance data, that supports the claimed technical advantage of the invention? Are your trade secrets protected by appropriate confidentiality agreements and access controls?

Step 4 – The Audit Report: A well-run IP audit should produce more than a list of registered rights. It should result in a clear, prioritised report identifying the company’s key IP assets, ownership position, protection gaps, third-party risks, contract issues, confidentiality controls and recommended next steps. The most valuable output is usually a ranked action plan showing what should be fixed immediately, what should be monitored, and where future budget should be allocated.

Once these steps have been carried out, your IP audit should act as a useful reference that the business can maintain as new IP is created or acquired.

Your IP audit checklist

If you’re new to the IP auditing process, here’s a checklist that will help steer your thinking in the early stages of identifying, categorising, and managing your commercial IP:

Align your IP strategy with business growth

An IP audit shouldn’t exist in isolation. But for growing businesses, it’s not feasible to recruit a full in-house IP team.

We’re here to help. Our IP specialists can help you to identify your intangible assets, develop a sustainable strategy to gain market traction, and understand your current IP value to set a benchmark from which to grow.

If you want a clearer view of what IP your business owns, where the risks sit, and which actions should be prioritised, our team can help you carry out a practical, commercially focused IP audit.

World Environment Day 2026 is upon us, with its focus this year being on the direct action needed to tackle climate change. A cornerstone of this fight is the expansion of electrification using renewable energy, which comes hand-in-hand with battery developments capable of supporting this expansion.   

For many applications, including the much-publicised electric vehicles market, Li-ion batteries are the prevailing energy storage means due to their established efficacy, excellent energy density and cycle life.  However, as the electrical revolution progresses, innovation in energy storage solutions is being driven by the host of new applications and situations which electrical implementation must now account for. For instance, sodium-ion batteries have the potential to perform better than Li-ion batteries under lower temperature conditions, avoiding the significant drops in capacity and charging/discharging issues at lower temperatures (e.g. below 0 °C).

Clearly, batteries are an increasingly fundamental technology underpinning most, if not all, aspects of modern life; that is why investment and innovation is of great importance.  And there are signs that advanced battery technologies are starting to make the leap from the lab onto the road.  Earlier this year, the first passenger vehicle to be mass-produced with a sodium-ion battery was announced.  An electric vehicle using a semi-solid-state battery (containing an electrolyte composition that is 95% solid) has recently been unveiled to be coming to the UK in late 2026. 

As you might expect from a field with such significance to so many aspects of everyday life, there is a tremendous amount of activity on the patent front.  In addition to being essential tools for protecting and commercialising your intellectual property, patents can also provide insights into the technological landscape of a given field.  In this article, we’ll take a look at what the patent filing data for a selection of key cell chemistries says about the battery sphere today, and what it might suggest for the future.

Lithium-ion batteries

First released in 1991, the Li-ion battery has, with the help of some further significant developments, exploded in popularity (and only occasionally in aeroplanes) to become the most widespread of modern batteries due to their high energy density, efficiency and long lifecycle.  Li-ion batteries have found utility across the spectrum of possible applications, from personal electronics to major components in electric vehicles (EVs).  There are a number of cell chemistries that fall within the general category of “Li-ion battery”, varying most significantly in their cathode materials.  These include: lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC), lithium nickel cobalt aluminium oxide (NCA), lithium iron phosphate (LFP) and lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) cells.

Accompanying this boom in Li-ion battery adoption is a corresponding growth in patent applications in the field.

Fig. 1A: Espacenet, IPC = H01M10/052
Fig 1B: EPO Observatory’s Data Desk – Energy storage

Fig. 1A shows the number of patent families published per year worldwide between 2015 and 2025 relating to Li-ion batteries.  Fig. 1B shows the number of EP patent applications published between the years of 2016 and 2025 relating to Li-ion batteries, and includes a breakdown of these according to the applicant’s country.

As can be seen from Fig. 1A, the number of worldwide patent filings related to Li-ion batteries has grown steadily in the years between 2015 and 2025, reflecting their widespread adoption and development: in 2015, around 6000 patent families were published, contributing to a total cumulative number of around 40,000 patent families directed to this subject-matter.  By 2025, this had increased to around 26,000 families published that year alone, and a cumulative number of patent families approaching 200,000.  

Similar increases are apparent in EP applications, with a particularly notable rise in applications coming from Chinese and South Korean applicants in the past 5 years.  Even though Li-ion battery technology, at a base level, has been around for quite some time, patent filings are clearly still growing, highlighting the keen interest and range of developments in the field.

However, one area of Li-ion battery technology that may still be in its (relative) infancy is recycling.  In addition to the clear environmental benefits of recycling, Li-ion batteries contain several valuable elements, the efficient recovery of which is desirable from an economic standpoint.  Given the typical lifespan of 10 to 20 years of Li-ion batteries and the increasing number reaching end-of-life stages in the near future, there may be a growing incentive to implement effective and economical recycling methods.  The development of economical methods may be especially important for certain cell chemistries (such as LFP cells) which present more of an economic challenge due to the lower content of the more valuable elements, such as cobalt.  While the number of patent applications directed towards such recycling methods seems to be growing year-on-year, it still remains a relatively minor portion of overall filings, with approximately 400 patent families published in 2025.   

Sodium-ion batteries

Sodium-ion batteries are an emerging technology with significant potential for further innovation and applicability to current battery implementations.  Whereas Li-ion batteries rely on lithium ions as charge carriers, sodium-ion batteries utilise (unsurprisingly) sodium ions.  Otherwise, at least in their current forms, sodium-ion battery architecture is broadly similar to Li-ion battery cells, although the use of sodium ions allows for different electrode materials that often involve less expensive elements.  For instance, current sodium-ion cells often employ layered transition metal oxide or Prussian white cathodes.  Further cost benefits arise due to the abundance of sodium, as compared to lithium, as a key component, which can help to alleviate possible supply chain issues.

As already mentioned, sodium batteries also come with certain performance advantages over Li-ion batteries, albeit (at least at present) mainly only under specific conditions.  In particular, sodium batteries can function effectively over a wider range of temperatures while maintaining good efficiency and capacity metrics that can be roughly comparable to Li-ion batteries under normal conditions.

Although initial research into sodium-ion batteries roughly coincided with Li-ion batteries, the early promise of Li-ion cells caused their sodium-based sibling to fall by the wayside.   However, commercial interest began to be renewed in the 2010s; this is reflected in the patent filings, as shown in Figs. 2A and 2B.

Fig 2A: Espacenet, IPC + H01M and title, abstract or claims inc. “sodium ion”
Fig 2B: EPO Observatory’s Data Desk

From only a handful of patent families published per year in the mid 2010s, patent filings grew steadily to about 500 patent families in 2021. From this point, there has been a surge in applications, with nearly 3,500 patent families filed in 2024 alone, adding to a cumulative total of around 10,000 families.  It remains to be seen, however, whether the slight decline in 2025 represents a genuine cooling in interest, or simply a minor fluctuation.

Certainly, the EP filings show no decline in patenting activity, which is being driven primarily by China who are a clear frontrunner in sodium-ion cell chemistry.  However, the sodium-ion battery field is one of the relatively rare situations where EPC countries are in a comparatively prominent position (in terms of filing numbers).  

Comparing these numbers with the Li-ion data, patent filings for sodium-ion batteries are only at a similar level to Li-ion batteries in the early 2010s.  This could point to there being plenty of potential for further innovation and development, particularly if their commercialisation is successful.   

Lithium-sulfur batteries

Lithium-sulfur (LiS) batteries are developments of more typical Li-ion batteries, based on replacing the cobalt or iron-based cathode material with one consisting of S8 sulfur.  In these batteries, lithium ions are stored as lithium sulfide (Li2S) during discharge, creating the potential for a cell with much higher specific energy than allowed for by the intercalation of Li-ions in conventional Li-ion cells. 

While the potential benefits from developing a successful LiS battery could be enormous, there are still barriers to overcome in the technology if they are to be successfully commercialised, such as electrode expansion and polysulfide shuttling.  These barriers may be posing a challenge, or at least acting as a deterrent, since LiS battery technology appears to remain in its very early stages compared to conventional Li-ion batteries, despite the first LiS prototype batteries having been around since as early as the 1960s.  This is reflected in the worldwide patent filings in Fig. 3A: from about 300 patent families published in 2015 of a cumulative 1,000 patent families, filings reached a peak of about 850 families in 2019 but have since diminished to a consistent number of about 600 patent families filed per year. These numbers are similar to those of Li-ion batteries over 20 years ago. 

A lack of widespread adoption is also suggested by the EP data in Fig. 3B, which shows both a similar trend of declining applications in the past couple of years, and an overwhelming dominance in the field by South Korean applicants.

Fig 3A: Espacenet, IPC = H01M and title, abstract or claims inc. “lithium sulfur”
Fig 3B: EPO Observatory’s Data Desk

Solid state batteries

Conventional Li-ion batteries typically make use of liquid electrolytes, consisting of lithium salts in various organic solvents.  However, solid state batteries aim to make use of a solid state electrolyte for conducting the charge carrying ions between the electrodes, which could provide significant improvements in terms of energy density and safety.  Possible solid state materials naturally require high ionic conductivities, and a large variety of material classes to meet this requirement have been, and are currently being, explored.  These include: polymer electrolytes; inorganic electrolytes such as oxide solid and sulfide-based electrolytes; and composite electrolytes that aim to incorporate aspects of both of these.

Growing demand for compact, safe, and high-capacity batteries across EVs and consumer electronics has seen solid state battery development start to approach manufacturing and early commercialisation.  Correspondingly, the overall trend – both worldwide and at the EPO – is that of significant increases in filings.  Although the technology is nowhere near as mature as general Li-ion batteries, and filings are currently only at a similar level to Li-ion batteries 15 years ago, patenting activity in solid state batteries is only likely to increase in the coming years.

Fig 4A: Espacenet, IPC = H01M10/0562
Fig 4B: EPO Observatory’s Data Desk

Batteries and the clean energy transition

A crucial step to tackling climate change is moving away from fossil fuels and transitioning to net zero. To achieve this goal, we need to make a marked shift towards cleaner energy sources, such as solar and wind. However, there are obstacles which need to be overcome to ensure that these sources can provide sufficient power to fuel our ever-growing demand. Solar panels only generate electricity when the sun is shining. Wind turbines only generate electricity when the wind speeds are suitable. Therefore, this electricity must be stored and later released when supply falls or demand rises.

Innovation in battery technology is helping to solve this major challenge in the clean energy transition, providing a way to store energy and facilitating the widespread adoption of low-carbon electricity systems. Batteries are also essential in the electrification of transport which is another important measure for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Lithium-ion batteries currently play a major role in both electric vehicles and energy storage systems. Their relatively high energy density allows large amounts of energy to be stored in a compact space. On the other hand, sodium-ion batteries could be emerging as the holy grail of energy grids due to the greater availability of sodium. Although they store less energy per kilogram, this may not be of consequence for the storage of renewable electricity, and their relatively lower cost and reduced reliance on critical minerals could accelerate the clean energy transition. In terms of the electrification of vehicles, solid-state batteries may take us one step further. Whilst they are largely in a pre-commercial stage, it is suggested that they can offer a higher energy density, faster charging, improved safety and longer battery lifetimes. This could be revolutionary for vehicles like long-range passenger transport, heavy goods transport, or even aviatic and marine vehicles.

Patent strategy

Of course, there are far more possible battery technologies in development, and even more avenues for development, than have been discussed here.  There undoubtedly remains a wealth of opportunity, across the entire field of battery development, for the discovery of the next transformative breakthrough. 

However, as the data above indicates, there exists an extensive minefield of patent disclosures and patent rights.  Is important to note that, despite the abundant prior art these patents represent, disclosures of broader subject-matter are not necessarily a bar to obtaining patent protection for further optimisations of that subject-matter.  However,  questions around freedom-to-operate would likely need to be answered.  In such a busy field, navigating this maze of prior art and prior rights requires careful consideration and a comprehensive IP strategy.

Maintaining our Gold Tier ranking, Mathys & Squire is delighted to be recommended in the 2026 edition of IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals.

IAM is widely regarded as a leading authority in recognising excellent private practice patent expertise. Its rankings highlight top firms and practitioners through detailed qualitative research, considering elements such as previous work, technical capabilities and market presence.

We have been recognised as “a professional and well-respected firm, delivering high-quality legal work with a strong emphasis on responsiveness and efficiency.” Additionally, our team, “provides clear, practical advice and demonstrates a well-coordinated approach across matters. Overall, the experience of working with them is consistently positive thanks to their reliable and value-driven service.” 

This year we have been ranked Gold Tier for prosecution in the United Kingdom: England and Wales, and have also been awarded the Silver Tier for the European Patent Office, highlighting the consistent, high quality service we provide for our clients.

Recommended individuals

In addition to our firm ranking, our Mathys & Squire attorneys have been recognised as Recommended Individuals.

Life Sciences & Chemistry team

IT & Engineering team

Managing Associates Alex Elder and Matthew Morton (Life Sciences & Chemistry) are also featured as Recommended Individuals.

You can see our ranking on the IAM website here.

We are delighted to announce that two of our Partners in our London office have been promoted.

Dani Kramer has been promoted to Senior Equity Partner and joins the Senior Equity Management Team, whilst Max Thoma has joined the Equity Partnership. These promotions have been made with immediate effect.

These promotions reflect our firm’s commitment to recognising and awarding the talent across our team and the valuable contributions made by its members.

Dani Kramer is appointed Senior Equity Partner

Dani works for a number of large corporations, drafting and prosecuting patent applications, and managing their international patent portfolios. He focuses on the fields of AI and machine learning, microprocessors, communication technologies, internet television, software, and electrical and electronic engineering.  Dani is recommended in the latest edition of IAM Patent 1000, the three most recent editions of IAM Strategy 300 and multiple editions of The Legal 500.

Max Thoma is appointed Junior Equity Partner

Max has extensive experience in drafting and prosecuting patent applications, and handling opposition proceedings at the EPO, working across a variety of fields, in particular, computer-implemented (software) inventions and engineering-related fields. He enjoys supporting multinational businesses on major contentious work, as well as working closely with startup businesses through the process of protecting their innovations. He has been featured in multiple editions of Managing IP’s IP STARS directory which recognises IP practitioners.

Partner Martin MacLean, says, “These promotions demonstrate our dedication to career progression here at Mathys & Squire. On behalf of the whole firm, we congratulate Dani and Max on their ongoing hard work and the high-quality service which they deliver to our clients, and are excited to welcome them to the next stage of their time at Mathys & Squire. They will continue to be an immense asset to our company, as it grows and strengthens its leadership team.”

Many growing businesses now recognise the value of an outsourced or fractional General Counsel: senior legal expertise, often with years of practical in-house experience, embedded in the business, but without the cost, risk or long-term commitment of a full-time senior hire. It is a model that gives ambitious companies access to experienced judgement at the point they need it most.

For many SMEs and businesses looking to improve their IP position, there is a strong case for applying the same model to intellectual property.

IP is often central to the value of an innovation-led business. It can protect technical advantage, strengthen brand position, support investment, underpin partnerships, improve negotiating leverage and increase value in a sale or exit. Yet despite its importance, IP is often managed reactively or in a fragmented way, with advice sought only when a problem arises or an opportunity is missed, such as disclosing innovation without protection, encountering a trade mark issue, an ex-employee setting up in competition, investor questions or contract negotiations.

That approach can leave value on the table, create costly delays and expose the business to avoidable risks.

Good IP management is not just about registering rights. It is about making informed, commercial decisions that will shape the future of the business: what to protect, how to protect it, what not to spend money on, how to manage risk, how to structure ownership, how to deal with collaborators and contractors, and how to ensure the IP strategy supports the wider business plan.

The challenge for many SMEs is that they do not need, and often cannot justify, a full-time senior IP hire. But they do need access to experienced IP leadership that can support them through the broad range of real-world IP matters that impact their business now and in the future.

Outsourced IP management helps bridge that gap.

An experienced external IP advisor can provide senior-level strategic, legal and operational support without adding permanent headcount. The support can flex as the business grows: light-touch guidance at an early stage; more regular input during product development, investment rounds or international expansion; and deeper support when preparing for due diligence, licensing, acquisition or exit.

This scalability is one of the model’s key advantages. Businesses can access the right level of expertise at the right time, while maintaining control over cost and avoiding the overhead of building an internal IP function too early.

Our clients work with a dedicated IP advisor who gets to know the business, its technology, its commercial objectives and its key stakeholders. That continuity matters. The best IP advice is rarely given in isolation; it depends on understanding the commercial context, the competitive landscape, the internal priorities and the long-term direction of the company.

At the same time, the dedicated advisor can seamlessly call upon the wider expertise of Mathys and Squire whenever required. That may include specialist patent drafting, trade mark protection, designs, freedom to operate, licensing, due diligence, disputes or valuation support.

For founders and management teams, this provides a practical middle ground: senior IP leadership without senior headcount; strategic continuity without building an internal IP function too early; and access to specialist expertise as needs evolve.

For many SMEs, IP is too important to be left to chance, but a full-time senior hire may not yet be the right answer.

Outsourced IP management offers a scalable, commercial and effective alternative.

Is your IP strategy keeping pace with your business growth?

Our fractional IP advisor service gives you access to senior strategic, legal and operational IP support on a flexible basis. Click here to learn more.

If you are looking for senior IP input but are not ready for a full-time hire, get in touch here.

On 4th May, the UPC revoked the ‘remdesivir’ anti-viral drug unitary patent owned by Chinese research institute AMMS and rejected all limitations proposed by the patentee (case ID UPC_CFI_552/2025).

Granted on 18 June 2025, the patent EP 3854403 claimed the use of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19, threatening the commercial operations of Gilead Sciences – the original developers of remdesivir. Gilead brought revocation action on the day of grant on the grounds that the claimed second medical use of remdesivir for treating COVID-19 was not inventive and lacked sufficiency.

The background

Remdesivir is a prodrug that is metabolised within cells after it is administered. Once within cells,  it is processed into a nucleotide analogue that mimics adenosine (an RNA building block).  This nucleotide analogue halts viral replication of RNA viruses by disabling a key viral enzyme, the RNA polymerase, which is required for copying the viral RNA genome. Prior to 2020, remdesivir had not been clinically proven to treat any viral infections, but preclinical research had shown that the drug appeared to be promising for treating infections by coronaviruses SARS and MERS.

Gilead has patents for the compound and for the use of the compound for treating coronavirus infections, the latter of which was filed in 2016, years before SARS-CoV-2 (SARS2) was identified. However, AMMS managed to file an application for the second-medical use of treating viral infections by the newly identified SARS2 before the pandemic was even declared by WIPO and shortly before clinical trials began in China in early 2020.

Narrow second medical use claims are routinely accepted by the EPO, even if an identical treatment for the broader class of a disease (the “first medical use”) has been disclosed before the priority date of the second medical use patent application. However, the requirement for an inventive step still applies and this can be undermined if the skilled person has been provided with some reasonable expectation of success.

The decision

In the case of EP 3854403, the Court dismissed the claimant’s sufficient objection but revoked the patent on the grounds that the second medical use lacked an inventive step. The decision issued by the Central Milan Court states that the treatment of COVID-19 with remdesivir was an obvious choice for the skilled person at the application date because the viral genome had been made publicly available before the priority date and it was therefore known to the skilled person that SARS2 was highly similar to SARS1.

The Court further noted that experts had speculated publicly that remdesivir would be a good candidate anti-viral treatment due to the positive results from pre-clinical experiments on SARS1 and MERS. The decision highlights how the UPC applies a strict approach to assessing the inventive step of second medical use and indicates that patentees must be wary of any ‘hints’ to the treatment’s effectiveness published prior to the applications priority date.

Gilead is also pursuing an Opposition against the patent at the EPO. The UPC and EPO are distinct entities so the outcome of the opposition could differ from the UPC’s recent decision, but it seems likely that the EPO will take a similar approach since parallel decisions to date have remained broadly uniform. While the reasoning for decisions occasionally differs, the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G1/24 regarding claim interpretation demonstrated an intent to bring EPO case law in line with UPC rulings. 

Battles for pandemic innovation IP

While the commercial significance for these technologies is huge, several pharmaceutical companies publicly pledged not to enforce their patent rights to allow mass production of life saving drugs and vaccines at a time of global crisis. These allowances were short-lived, ceasing in May 2023 when the pandemic was officially declared to be over, and contentious proceedings are ongoing for a number of critical patents.

The disputes have largely been centred around patents for the widely distributed COVID-19 mRNA vaccine filed early in the pandemic. The most high-profile cases revolve around ongoing infringement and invalidity proceedings between Moderna and BioNTech/Pfizer.

In the wake of the pandemic, applications of thousands of patent families directed to Covid-19 related technologies were filed in the space of a few short years. While many patents filed in 2020 following the characterisation and subsequent proliferation of SARS-COV-2 have been granted, many divisional applications and later developments are still pending prosecution, and may yet be the subject of new infringement and revocation proceedings.

The impact of these patent disputes extends further than the ownership of the IP itself; as the decisions handed down by the UPC and European Boards of Appeal shape the case law on inventive step, plausibility and medical use claims.