Contact
Contact

Partner Oliver Parish has been featured in “Patent Pools Must Brace For Litigation After Tesla Ruling” in Law360, sharing his insight on the recent decision in Tesla v InterDigital & Avanci.

The decision was in relation to Tesla’s previous challenge to the terms of the global Avanci 5G platform license, through which InterDigital licenses their standard essential patents (SEPs), with the Supreme Court allowing Tesla’s appeal, meaning that their claims may now proceed before the English court. His commentary underscores the significance of this judgement for SEP owners, cautioning that joining a patent pool may not necessarily release a licensor from their FRAND obligations.

Click to read the full article here.

The recent decision in T 892/24 is the latest contribution to the ongoing debate concerning the application of Article 12(6) RPBA 2020 and, in particular, the admissibility of claim requests filed for the first time in appeal proceedings. The decision has already attracted commentary suggesting that the Boards of Appeal have adopted irreconcilable approaches, turning admissibility into a matter of chance rather than principle.

A closer examination of the emerging case law suggests a more nuanced picture. While there are undoubtedly different strands of jurisprudence, the decisions may be better understood as reflecting differing views as to when a party is under an obligation to preserve fallback positions during first-instance proceedings. Rather than demonstrating a fundamental inconsistency, the recent decisions may be asking a common question: When does a party’s failure to file a fallback request become a procedural choice that it must live with on appeal?

The facts of T892/24

The patent in suit concerned an illuminated vehicle emblem. Claim 1 as granted required an emblem that was “preferably” suitable for both interior and exterior automotive use. The Opposition Division rejected the opposition and upheld the patent as granted, including finding that the patent’s priority claim was valid.

On appeal, however, the Board reached a different conclusion. The Board held that the priority document disclosed an emblem suitable for both interior and exterior automotive use, but did not disclose that this characteristic was merely preferred. As a result, claim 1 as granted was not entitled to priority. The priority document therefore became prior art under Article 54(2) EPC and destroyed the novelty of the granted claim.

The proprietor responded to the priority objection on appeal by filing an auxiliary request deleting the word “bevorzugt” (“preferably”) from the claim. This amendment restored entitlement to priority and thereby overcame the novelty objection arising from the priority document. However, the opponent argued that the request was prevented from being admitted into the appeal proceedings under Article 12(6) RPBA because the priority objection had been raised in the notice of opposition and the proprietor could and should therefore have filed the request making that amendment during the opposition proceedings.

In contrast, the proprietor maintained that there had been neither any reason nor any procedural need to do so. According to the proprietor, an intention to file auxiliary requests had been raised during the oral proceedings before the Opposition Division, but the matter was not pursued because the Opposition Division considered the priority claim valid and ultimately rejected the opposition. Ultimately, the Board admitted the request and upheld the patent. In doing so, the Board expressly stated that it followed the reasoning of T 141/20, which held that the mere existence of an objection during opposition proceedings does not automatically mean that a corresponding auxiliary request necessarily should have been filed at first instance. The decisive question was whether there had been a genuine procedural need to file the request. Since the Opposition Division never questioned the validity of the priority claim, the Board concluded that no such need had arisen.

When does a request become one that “should have been submitted”?

To understand the significance of T 892/24, it is useful to compare it withT 217/23 and T 45/22.

T217/23: The consequences of deliberate non-filing

In T 217/23, objections of insufficiency and inventive step had been raised from the outset in the notice of opposition. The proprietor chose to address those objections through argument alone and filed auxiliary requests only in relation to a separate Article 123(2) EPC issue. On appeal, however, the proprietor sought to introduce new auxiliary requests directed specifically to the insufficiency and inventive-step objections that had existed throughout the opposition proceedings.

The Board refused to admit those requests. In that case, the Board emphasised that parties are expected to present their complete case as early as possible and rejected the argument that a favourable preliminary opinion from the Opposition Division justified withholding fallback requests until appeal. The Board regarded the requests as ones that could and should have been submitted during the first-instance proceedings and therefore concluded that Article 12(6) RPBA required that they not be admitted.

The decision reflects a strong commitment to procedural front-loading and to the principle that parties should present their complete case before the Opposition Division. Once a relevant objection has been raised and the proprietor has a realistic opportunity to formulate fallback positions, the proprietor may be expected to place those positions on file rather than reserve them for appeal.

T0045/22: A change of mind?

T 217/23 can be understood as a case where the proprietor chose to rely on argument rather than fallback requests. T 45/22 presents a slightly different factual situation.

In T 45/22, some of the independent claims originally pursued by the proprietor were found to contain added matter. In response, during oral proceedings before the Opposition Division, the proprietor filed a single auxiliary request deleting the offending claims from the proprietor’s main request, which was subsequently found to be allowable by the Opposition Division. On appeal, however, the proprietor sought to combine that successful amendment with other auxiliary-request structures that had existed during the opposition proceedings but had not previously been pursued in that combination.

In contrast to T 892/24, in T 45/22, the Board considered that additional fallback positions, later filed for the first time on appeal, could and should also have been filed during the first-instance proceedings and were not admitted into the proceedings.

What makes T 45/22 particularly significant is that the proprietor had already begun constructing a hierarchy of fallback positions before the Opposition Division. The Board’s criticism was therefore not merely that a request was absent, but that the proprietor had effectively chosen where to stop.

Viewed this way, T 45/22 is arguably not simply a front-loading case. Rather, it is a case about procedural choice. The Board considered that the proprietor had already been required to make strategic decisions regarding fallback requests and later sought to revisit those decisions on appeal.

Viewed together, T 217/23 and T 45/22 suggest that Article 12(6) RPBA is increasingly being used to police procedural choices made during opposition proceedings. Once a proprietor has decided either not to file a fallback position at all, or to stop at a particular level of fallback protection, Boards increasingly consider that such a choice cannot be revisited on appeal.

The reasoning in T 45/22 also finds support in T 1456/20. In that case, the Board held that a proprietor could not reintroduce on appeal subject-matter the examination of which had been deliberately foregone during the opposition proceedings. The proprietor had chosen a particular route for overcoming a novelty objection before the Opposition Division and later sought to pursue a different route on appeal. The Board considered this to be inconsistent with the judicial review function of appeal proceedings and concluded that the alternative amendment route should already have been pursued at first instance. In doing so, the Board emphasised that reintroducing subject-matter whose examination had been deliberately avoided in the proceedings below is generally contrary to Article 12(6) RPBA.

The relevance of the proprietor’s conduct in T0892/24

An interesting feature of T 892/24 is the proprietor’s assertion that it had indicated an intention to file auxiliary requests during the opposition oral proceedings but was informed by the chair of the Opposition Division that this was unnecessary because the patent would be maintained.

The written decision does not suggest that the Board regarded this as an independent legal basis for admission. The formal reasoning remained focused on the absence of any procedural need to file the request before the Opposition Division.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to ignore the practical significance of this factual background. The proprietor’s conduct appears inconsistent with any attempt to reserve fallback positions for appeal. Instead, the proprietor maintained that it had indicated a willingness to file auxiliary requests but had been given no reason to believe that such requests were required.

This helps explain why the Board may have regarded the case differently from T 217/23 and T 45/22. In those cases, the Boards considered that the proprietors had consciously decided not to preserve available fallback positions and then sought to revisit that choice on appeal. In T 892/24, by contrast, the Board was persuaded that no such procedural choice had been made.

A possible reconciliation

The apparent conflict in the case law may therefore be less dramatic than it first appears.

A common thread can be identified if the focus shifts from the mere existence of an objection to the procedural choices available to the party at the time.

An interesting feature of the case law is that Boards often appear to ask an implicit question:

“Would it have been reasonable to expect this exact request to have been before the department of first instance?”

Where a request represents the natural consequence of the case as it emerged from the first-instance proceedings or the decision under appeal, admission may be easier to justify. By contrast, where the request represents an alternative amendment strategy that could equally well have been pursued during the first-instance proceedings, Boards are increasingly inclined to regard its omission as a conscious procedural choice. In those circumstances, the request is more likely to be viewed as one that “should have been submitted” before the department of first instance.

On this view, a request becomes one that “should have been submitted” when the relevant party has reached a point in the first-instance proceedings at which it can reasonably be expected to decide whether to preserve the relevant position, but consciously chooses not to do so.

This rationale provides a coherent explanation for all these decisions. In T 217/23, the proprietor chose to rely on argument rather than fallback requests. In T 45/22, the proprietor chose where to stop building its fallback hierarchy. In T 1456/20, the proprietor chose one amendment path and deliberately forewent examination of another. In T 892/24, by contrast, the Board was persuaded that no equivalent procedural choice had arisen because the priority objection had never become a live issue before the Opposition Division.

Seen in that light, the apparent divergence between T 217/23, T 45/22 and T 892/24 may be less about competing interpretations of Article 12(6) RPBA and more about differing assessments of whether the proprietor had already been required to make, and had in fact made, a procedural choice regarding the relevant fallback position.

Conclusion

T 892/24 does not eliminate the uncertainty surrounding Article 12(6) RPBA. The decision sits within an ongoing debate between a more permissive approach that focuses on whether there was a genuine need to file a request at first instance and a stricter approach that emphasises the obligation to file all fallback positions at the earliest opportunity.

However, the case law may not be entirely incoherent. A more persuasive explanation is that the Boards are increasingly concerned with whether a party made a conscious procedural choice not to file or maintain a fallback position when it had the opportunity and procedural need to do so. Where such a choice can be identified, admission on appeal becomes difficult or impossible. Where it cannot, as in T 892/24, Boards may be prepared to conclude that the request was not one that “should have been submitted” during the proceedings leading to the appealed decision.

For practitioners, the lesson is stark. A proprietor who wishes to rely upon a fallback position should assume that it must actively be filed before the Opposition Division if it is to be relied upon later. Decisions such as T 217/23 and T 45/22 indicate a growing willingness on the part of the Boards to treat the failure to file a fallback position as a conscious procedural choice. Once that choice has been made, an attempt to introduce the omitted request on appeal may be viewed not as a legitimate reaction to the appealed decision, but as an impermissible change of case. T 892/24 demonstrates that exceptions remain where no genuine need to file the request arose at first instance. Nevertheless, the prudent assumption is that any fallback position not filed before the Opposition Division is lost forever.

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:

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:

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 15th 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.

US10376750B2 – “Ball, in particular a soccer ball, and method of manufacturing a 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.