We are delighted to announce the appointment of senior trade mark attorney Claire Breheny as our new Head of Trade Marks.

Joining from Stobbs, where she served as an IA Director and Head of Support, Claire has nearly two decades of experience working across trade marks, registered and unregistered designs, copyright, and cross-border portfolio management and enforcement.

Recognised in leading industry rankings such as the World Trademark Review 1000, Legal 500, World Intellectual Property Review Leaders and Thomson Reuters’ Stand-out Lawyers 2024 and 2025, Claire has consistently been acknowledged for her expertise, and she is widely regarded as being at the top of her profession, both by peers and clients.

Claire is also a member of the Intellectual Property Regulation Board’s Joint Disciplinary Panel, reflecting her status as a trusted figure in the profession.

Claire is known for her strategic insight and ability to manage complex multi-jurisdictional disputes, including strategic use of litigation where needed, and leading global settlement negotiations for her clients. She has worked extensively with clients with a worldwide presence, and specialises in acting for UK brands with international portfolios and US clients targeting UK and EU markets.

Partner Gary Johnston says: “We are progressing our strategy to further develop and grow our trade mark capabilities to attract more top-tier clients and enhance our reputation as a leading player in the IP legal space. Claire’s appointment is the next big step in this process.”

Claire says: “I am delighted to join Mathys & Squire at an exciting time for the firm. I bring a wealth of experience advising on global trade mark portfolios, managing complex multi-jurisdictional disputes, and developing commercially focused IP strategies.”

“I am looking forward to helping strengthen the firm’s reputation in the trade mark space, growing the team, and deepening relationships with clients across key international markets.”

This press release has been featured in The Trademark Lawyer, World IP Review, Commercial Dispute Resolution and Managing IP .

We are delighted to announce that we have received the ‘Intellectual Property Law Firm of the Year – London 2025’ award, granted by Legal Insider.

The Legal Insider Awards celebrate firms that demonstrate outstanding legal expertise, client service and contribution to the legal sector. The awards are decided by an expert panel of judges who evaluate all of the available data to make the most fair and suitable decision for each category.

To be selected for this award is an honour and a great reflection of the exceptional work of our team. This recognition also highlights our ongoing commitment to excellence and leadership in the field of intellectual property law.

Find out more about our award here.

Our Trade Marks team share their advice on managing your trade mark portfolio to avoid revocation after the changing regulations post-Brexit.

Following Brexit, EU registrations ceased to protect trade marks in the UK after “IP Completion Day” on 31 December 2020, the end of the 11-month period after 31 January 2020 during which the UK continued to be subject to EU rules. To address this, the UKIPO, under the Withdrawal Agreement Act, automatically created comparable (cloned) UK registrations for all EU trade marks registered before 1 January 2021.

This created a split in protection across jurisdictions, with a need for duplicated efforts to maintain enforceable trade mark rights. In the UK, a registered trade mark must be used in the UK within 5 years from the date of registration in respect of the goods/services it covers. An EU trade mark must be used in the EU within 5 years of its registration.

Scenarios in which a trade mark owner may need to prove use in the UK/EU:

1. In response to a revocation action on the ground of non-use; and
2. In response to a request for proof of use of a mark registered 5 years prior to the filing (or priority) date of an application being opposed on the basis of that earlier registration.

Before Brexit, use in the UK of a mark registered in the EU would typically constitute genuine use of an EU registration. Similarly, use in the EU before IP Completion Day is relevant when assessing use of a UK cloned right.

However, following Brexit, any use of a UK cloned mark in the EU after 31 December 2020 no longer counts as use of the UK registration. Similarly, only use of a mark within the EU (i.e. not the UK) would constitute genuine use of an EU registration for that mark.

As such, cloned UK registrations created due to Brexit may be at risk of revocation after 31 December 2025 if they have not been used prior to this date in the UK for the goods/services covered by the registration. Moreover, owners of UK cloned registrations will no longer be able to rely on use of the mark in the EU when proving use of those registrations in opposition proceedings directed to UK applications filed after 31 December 2025.

We therefore recommend that clients review their UK and EU trade mark portfolios to determine whether their registered marks have been used in the UK or EU, respectively.

How we can assist

Portfolio Review:

We can assess your UK and EU trade mark portfolios, and discuss with you the extent of use in relevant jurisdictions for all registered goods and services.

New Trade Mark Applications:

We can advise on the benefit of filing new trade mark applications where a registered mark has not been used for specific goods or services in either the UK or EU. Such advice would be provided on the basis that trade mark owners should mitigate the risk of new applications being considered to have been filed for the purposes of “evergreening”, i.e. filed for the purpose of circumventing the requirement for proving use of registrations. (See our article on Hasbro’s trade mark filing strategy which was ruled as an abuse of law: “No Get out of Jail Free Card for Hasbro.”).

Visit our dedicated trade mark page here to learn more and meet our team.

Ascending to Gold Tier this year, Mathys & Squire is thrilled to be ranked in the 2025 edition of IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals.

IAM is known for being one of the most important tools for ascertaining world-class private practice patent expertise. The directory identifies leading firms and individuals based on extensive qualitative research, from their abilities and market presence to the complexity of their work. Only those with exceptional skills and deep insights into patent matters are featured in the directory.

This year, our firm has been ranked in the gold tier for the first time. This reflects the positive feedback we have received from clients upon meeting their complex demands with deftness and efficiency.

We have been recognised as a “solid and reliable firm that is absolutely first class.” Our team has also been praised: “The team are not only helpful and attentive but also go above and beyond to meet client needs. They offer extensive legal and technical expertise, and possess a deep understanding of the entire spectrum of intellectual property. This enables them to provide comprehensive, strategic and high-quality advice.”

Recommended individuals

In addition to our firm ranking, thirteen Mathys & Squire attorneys have been recognised as “Recommended Individuals.” This continues their acclaim from last year.

Life Sciences & Chemistry team

• “Chris Hamer is a highly diligent attorney, known for his timely and detailed advice. He has impressive expertise and know-how in the field, and he has navigated numerous challenging patent filings, ensuring crucial protection is achieved.”

• “Michael Stott provides exceptional support throughout the entire patent prosecution process. His deep understanding of his clientele and their technologies enables him to effectively address questions and challenges from the patent office, leading to timely resolutions.”

• “Martin MacLean  is an extremely astute attorney who needs no introduction. He is highly efficient and effective, with deep technical knowledge which he leverages to always get the right result.”

• “Craig Titmus is an exceptionally proactive and diligent practitioner, adept at guiding his clientele through the intricate patent landscape. Craig’s meticulous attention to detail and rapid turnaround times, even on challenging matters, save his clients significant time while consistently securing patent protection across multiple regions.”

• “Philippa Griffin is a formidable advocate at the EPO, delivering clear and logical arguments that get results. Recently, she successfully represented a prominent diagnostics company in revoking a patent owned by Roche, which was related to a diagnostic test for detecting intermittent atrial fibrillation.”

• “Impressive in her ability to manage complex instructions within tight deadlines, Anna Gregson crafts and files well-designed patent applications for market-leading companies and manages large portfolios with poise.”

• “Stephen Garner is a proactive and quality-focused attorney, highly regarded by leading pharmaceutical companies for his expertise in achieving patent protection and defence of his patrons’ rights at the EPO.”

IT & Engineering team

• “Paul Cozens delivers an exceptional service to his clients. He avoids a box-ticking approach, instead tailoring his work to the specific needs of each customer and situation. Paul’s technical expertise, commercial acumen and pragmatic approach ensure impactful results.”

• “James Pitchford consistently demonstrates thoroughness and attention to detail in his approach, while maintaining a pragmatic outlook at all times. He is an excellent communicator, offering practical advice that can be easily understood and implemented by his customers.”

• “Andrew White crosses technical disciplines with ease and is an excellent support to start-ups and scale-ups. He understands the challenges his customers face when taking products to market, collaborating with them closely to design and execute successful IP strategies.”

• “Nicholas Fox does superb work filing new patents, maintaining large portfolios, and advising on new areas of interest. He is always professional, highly engaged and very flexible in how he operates, which is particularly beneficial to small, rapidly growing businesses.”

• “Dani Kramer is not only knowledgeable but also highly meticulous in his approach. He provides highly targeted and tactical advice, while offering continuous guidance through every discussion and decision-making process. Dani is also appreciated for his commitment to aligning the patent prosecution process with his clients’ broader IP objectives.”

• “Alan MacDougall provides a service that far exceeds the expectations of his clients. His approach is characterised by pragmatism, flexibility and a nuanced understanding of what his clientele wants and needs.”

You can see our ranking on the IAM website here.

Mathys & Squire Partner Edd Cavanna has been featured in Practical Law with an article on the restrictive nature of the UK’s patent assessment framework in the field of AI and quantum computing.

Read the article below.

This article first appeared in the June 2025 issue of PLC Magazine.

In recent years, the IT sector has grown rapidly, with two strong drivers being AI and quantum computing (see box “What is quantum computing?”). In June 2017, PwC’s Global Artificial Intelligence Study estimated that AI could boost the world economy by $15 trillion by 2030 (www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/analytics/assets/pwc-ai-analysis-sizing-the-prize-report.pdf). In April 2024, McKinsey & Company’s Quantum Technology Monitor reported that the quantum computing industry alone could add around $2 trillion to the world economy within a decade (www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/steady-progress-in-approaching-the-quantum-advantage).

While it is easy to view this growth solely through a financial lens, the implications reach much further. It is no exaggeration to say that the IT sector is on the cusp of a paradigm shift. The UK needs a robust strategy to capitalise on its strong academic sector. Driving innovation in the IT sector is important both for national security and to position the UK as a world leader. Part of this strategy will involve ensuring that innovators are able to corner the market in their respective fields.

While there are many social and political factors that may contribute to this strategy, this article focuses on the interplay between intellectual property law and the IT sector. In particular, the ability to patent technological inventions is a core factor in the attractiveness of both investment in, and the operation of, innovative technology solutions.

The current UK framework for patenting AI and quantum computing inventions risks falling out of date and making the UK less attractive for innovators. The UK must take steps to update the patent assessment framework in order to realise the benefits of these exciting technological advances.

A historical view
The present situation can be traced back to 1977, when the UK was heavily involved in negotiating the European Patent Convention (EPC), which is the legal text that provides for patents to be granted centrally by the European Patent Office (EPO) and validated across Europe. The EPC required each signatory to harmonise its law so that there could be no disagreement regarding the national validity of the centrally granted patents.

Patent law in the UK was last substantially updated by the Patents Act 1977 (1977 Act), a large part of which was intended to harmonise UK patent law with the EPC. It was also at this time that the question arose of whether, and to what extent, software should be patentable. Essentially, the 1977 Act sought to delimit generic software, which was intended to be excluded from patentability, from software that is directed to some technical purpose, which could be protected.

At that time, it was not possible to predict that the IT boom of the 80s and 90s was just around the corner, let alone foresee the more recent progress made in AI and quantum computing. Software was reasonably perfunctory and seemed to be adequately protected by copyright law. Nevertheless, the drafters of the EPC did consider that there might be future developments and included a proviso that software would only be excluded from patentability to the extent that the patent application related to software “as such” (see feature article “Artificial intelligence: navigating the IP challenges”, www.practicallaw.com/w-015-2044).

Over the following years, both the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and the EPO developed case law to try to delineate the boundaries of the “as such” clause. While each body went through periods of greater or lesser enthusiasm for software patents, and each developed its own framework for assessing compliance, the two systems remained in remarkably close agreement on what should be allowed at any given time. This was crucial in order for patent holders and their competitors to have reasonable certainty in the validity of patents in the UK, irrespective of whether they were granted by the IPO or the EPO.

The current situation
From the perspective of patent attorneys using the system, it has felt like the IPO and the EPO have been diverging on their approach for the past few years. This divergence came into sharp focus with the explosion of innovation in the fields of AI and quantum computing.

When a new technology causes rapid developments, it is understandable that patent offices become more conservative, as has happened in this case. In short, they are concerned that patents will become too easy to obtain if patent offices become dazzled by shiny new technology which, as it achieves what was previously impossible, can seem more technical at the time of invention than it may later seem with hindsight.

As each new technology gains importance, it is vital that patent offices play their core role in encouraging innovation. Both the IPO and the EPO have, in essence, attempted to fit these new technologies into their existing frameworks for assessing software. They are necessarily bound not just by their (nominally harmonised) legislation, but also by the nearly 50 years of case law interpreting the legislation. In each case, the view appears to be that inventions in AI or quantum computing can be protected. However, the European framework has seemingly led to a more receptive system where it appears that, for the time being at least, there is better engagement with new technologies from the patent examiners.

This has meant that applicants are more attracted to the European patent system than the UK system. In addition, the European system allows for protection in up to 45 jurisdictions. Furthermore, as highly technical fields such as AI and quantum computing tend to rely on international talent, the conclusion is clear: in order to become a world leader in these technologies, the UK will need to persuade talent to come, and to stay. The UK must provide its businesses with legal certainty and protection.

During 2025, the Supreme Court is due to hear arguments about the patentability of software in the long-running proceedings in Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Ltd ([2024] EWCA Civ 825; see News brief “Artificial neural networks: Court of Appeal examines patentability”, www.practicallaw.com/w-044-2469). In this case, the IPO refused a patent application on the grounds that the relevant technology, which recommended music tracks based on an “emotional similarity” with other music tracks, was mere software.

Emotional Perception is interesting because the arguments presented cast doubt on the meaning of “a program for a computer” in section 1(2)(c) of the 1977 Act. In cases where the invention is, or is implemented in, a neural network, a part of the invention is encapsulated in the weights learned by the nodes of the network. It is not wholly apparent that this is best viewed as either software or hardware. It is encouraging that the IPO has engaged with the judicial process to help bring clarity to the situation.

While no corresponding case is working through the courts for quantum computing, in January 2025, the IPO updated its guidance to simply state that quantum computers should be treated in the same way as classical computers (www.gov.uk/government/publications/examining-patent-applications-relating-to-artificial-intelligence-ai-inventions).

While this may be true in a very broad sense, in that the quantum computing system is performing technical processes to qualify for patentability, it largely discounts the core features that make quantum computing so powerful, such as parallelism and superposition states. In practice, this could result in significant restrictions for patenting quantum computing software.

The difficulty of patenting quantum computing software is demonstrated by some recent Hearing Officer decisions at the IPO in which the special quantum processes were given short shrift (River Lane Research Ltd, BL O/130/22; Odyssey Therapeutics UK Limited, BL O/1193/23; 1QB Information Technologies Inc, BL O/935/22). This is not to say that the IPO is refusing to accept this new technology, but that the patent examiners are just as constrained by the assessment framework as the applicants.

It is not just the EU that the UK is competing with in this field. Major markets, such as the US and China, will also be forming their own pathway. For now, the US appears to be caught in a particular swing of the pendulum to being more restrictive about software in general, following the US Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp v CLS Bank International (573 US 208 (2014)). By contrast, China appears to be a welcoming market for these advanced technologies, at least in terms of patentability.

Where next?
The antidote to this competitive threat lies in ensuring that the IPO’s patent application guidelines are regularly updated in a pragmatic and fair manner. Training patent examiners to assess these new technologies, both from a technical and a legal point of view, is also critical. In addition, as Emotional Perception reaches its conclusion, some clarity should arrive regarding the patentability of software in general in the UK.

However, the UK should go further than this. It is currently operating within a framework in which software is assessed by rules that were created to deal with highly procedural classical software. The changes in the past 50 years in this field have been phenomenal and it is no surprise that the legal framework has struggled to keep up.

This naturally leads to the view that the UK should consider changing how it treats inventions in the fields of AI and quantum computing to make it easier to patent this technology. Such inventions are not mere software in line with the simplistic view that anything running on a computer is necessarily software; they show remarkable ingenuity by performing in genuinely new and technical ways. The existing UK framework is general enough to be interpreted to achieve this change without overturning any case law. The remaining question is whether it is brave enough to go first.

What is quantum computing?

Quantum computing is a technology that is based on the principles of quantum theory. It seeks to harness the subatomic physics of quantum mechanics where particles can occupy more than one value or state. In data processing, binary digits (bits) have one value (0 or 1) or occupy one of two states (on or off). A quantum computing bit (qubit) can simultaneously have more than one value or be in more than one state. Quantum computing increases the number of computations that can be processed concurrently, therefore enhancing the speed of computer processing.

Mathys & Squire Partner Andrew White has been featured in articles by The Financial Times, The Telegraph and the World IP Review with his commentary surrounding the significant global increase in drone patent applications, and the major contribution that China has to these emerging figures.

Read the extended press release below.

The number of patents granted in relation to drone technology has increased globally by 18% to 7,890 in the last year, up from 6,686 in the year previous, shows new research from leading intellectual property (IP) law firm Mathys & Squire.*

Increased innovation in drone technology has partly been driven by greater investment in defence R&D as well as an increasing range of uses for drones in the broader economy.

Manufacturers are rushing to corner as much of this rapidly growing market by registering patents to protect their R&D investments.

Developments in AI have also driven the substantial growth in drone inventions as companies look to integrate the two technologies .

Andrew White, partner at Mathys & Squire says: “There is now an almost universal acceptance that drones are going to be an important part of defence sector investment and defence companies, conventional drone companies and universities are all looking to out-innovate their competition in order to secure part of that market.”

“Innovations within the defence sector are also spilling over into the conventional drone sector – such as the use of AI to allow real-time data analysis, correction to navigation systems and object detection and avoidance.”

6,217 Chinese patents were granted last year relating to drone technology, accounting for 79% of all drone patents granted last year. This was up from 4,859 or 73% of all drone patents the year before.

Notable Chinese filers of drone patents include drone manufacturer DJI, who filed 64 patents in the last year alone. The state-backed People’s Liberation Army National University of Defence Technology also accounted for 73 patents in the last two years.

Russia also remained in the top 4 filers of drone patents (behind China, the US and South Korea), and were granted 239 patents last year, a 78% increase from the 134 patents granted the year before.

Commercial applications continue to drive growth in drone innovation

• Advanced mapping and surveillance capabilities, e.g. for monitoring progress on large-scale construction, industrial or land surveying projects
• Using drones to establish an underwater radio communications system
• Method for drones to recharge from overhead power lines
• An automated, high-efficiency spraying drone for use in agriculture
• The use of drone technology in creating a highly-automated air traffic control system to direct commercial aircraft

*Source: Patentscope data from the Information Commissioners’ Office (year-end December 31)

Mathys & Squire Partner Andrew White was recently featured in ‘Apple’s $502M License Bill May Draw SEP Owners To UK’ by Law360, providing commentary on the impact of the Optis v. Apple SEP decision on further SEP rulings in the UK, and even worldwide.

The article highlights how technology companies may avoid the UK for licensing disputes after Apple has been ordered to pay $502 million for a suite of 4G patents, an increase from the original order of $56 million, but might attract more SEP holders.

To read the full article click here.

With artists seeking to expand their influence beyond music, trade mark protection plays an increasingly important role.

As record sales sink in the face of streaming and touring costs rise, musicians are more reliant on merchandise and offshoot brands as crucial revenue streams. Artist-branded fashion and beauty lines, as well as collaborations, are becoming powerful tools for income generation and audience engagement.

The value of trade marks for music artists

Gone are the days of simply listening to what is on the radio. As the competition among artists multiplies, artist branding has become vital in the battle to stand out. Whilst copyright protects music,  artists rely on trade mark protection to secure the exclusive rights to not only their name but album names, song titles, key lyrics and various other aspects of their personal brand.

This allows control over the sale of unauthorised merchandise or the use of an artist’s name in a way that would imply false endorsement, both of which could affect consumer and fanbase trust.

Trade mark protection can also be a key part of a PR strategy. We can see this with Taylor Swift and her push to re-record her back catalogue following a dispute with her previous record label that retained ownership of the original recordings. The musician released each re-recorded album using the moniker and registered trade mark “Taylor’s Version”. In doing so, she effectively distinguished between her new and original recordings, and encouraged fans to stream and purchase the former, from which she herself will profit.

In addition, as the industry shifts away from physical record sales and traditional revenue models, artists are looking to lend their name and likeness to products via licensing or side businesses. The massive success of Rihanna’s Fenty Beauty and Savage X Fenty lines, for example, is the reason for Rihanna’s billionaire status, rather than the royalties she receives from her music. Rihanna is now worth $1.4 billion, making her the richest female musician in the world.

Best practices for artist-brand collaborations

An artist’s trade marks must be clearly owned and licensed appropriately. This includes obtaining trade mark protection in relation to all goods and services of interest, including performances, entertainment services and merchandise lines, but also any separate goods for which the artists’ name and brand will be licensed. This allows for cleaner transactions and ensures the artist’s long-term control over their brand.

Collaborations, particularly between music and fashion brands, have flooded the market in recent years. Collaborations maximise audience reach and elevate brand visibility, but bringing two brands together can cause complications for intellectual property ownership. For brands and artists entering into commercial collaborations, clearly defined agreements are vital. A well-structured contract will specify the use of each party’s trademarks, ensuring that logos, names, and designs are used in line with brand guidelines.

The content of effective licensing agreements

• Ownership of intellectual property (IP): If a new product or design is created collaboratively, the contract should clarify who owns this new IP, as well as who is responsible for registering and maintaining any new trade marks.
• Confidentiality: Protecting sensitive design, financial and business information is essential, particularly when developing high-profile, high-investment projects.
• Content and product quality sign-off: The artist should retain the right to review and approve final designs, content and product standards, ultimately maintaining control over quality throughout the process given the risk of harm to reputation should products be sub-standard.
• Brand usage guidelines: The requirement to stick to brand guidelines on either side of the arrangement helps ensure consistency in the promotion of the product.
• Reputational risk and termination rights: Artists and brands alike must consider the potential for reputational harm and be able to terminate the agreement relatively easily if values no longer align.

The breakdown of Adidas and Kanye West’s ongoing partnership in 2022 is a stark reminder that brands must retain the ability to walk away if values no longer align. Following anti-semitic comments made by Kanye on Twitter, Adidas were able to terminate their agreements relating to the Yeezy line of shoes and other goods, leaving them with Yeezy stock worth over a billion. Adidas has since been selling the stock in batches and donating the proceeds to NGOs.

The risk of confusion and misrepresentation

Given the increasing prevalence of collaborations and licensing arrangements, there is also a need to factor this into a likelihood of confusion analysis in infringement and opposition matters, or the likelihood that a link will be made to a reputable trade mark.

For example, artists may find it easier to argue that the unauthorised use of their name or a similar name on entirely unrelated products would lead to confusion, harm to repute or a misrepresentation to consumers that they endorsed the product.

There have been several clashes over graphic t-shirts bearing a design that implies an artist’s endorsement. Back in 2013, Rihanna was successful in a passing off action against Topshop who used her image on a t-shirt. Despite it being acknowledged that there were no free-standing image rights in the UK, it was thought that this created a false impression of an endorsement or promotion.

Fast fashion brands are often being called out online for taking heavy inspiration from tour merchandise for their ranges, which can include terms and designs relating to an artist’s music. This explains why artists such as Taylor Swift have begun to expand trade mark portfolios to not just artist names, but terms and phrases that have meaning relative to their music and fan base.

What’s next: Fortnite and future fashion

The latest frontier between music and fashion is digital. Platforms like Fortnite are leading the charge in merging gaming, music and fashion into one immersive experience. Virtual concerts and artist avatars provide fans with interactive ways to engage with music—often dressed in digital skins that reflect the artist’s real-world outfits.

For example, Sabrina Carpenter recently made her debut as a playable character on Fortnite with outfits inspired by her tour wardrobe and animated dance moves choreographed to her in-game music. It is also possible for players to buy in-game Sabrina-inspired products, such as guitars, purses and a mic.

Like Taylor, Sabrina Carpenter has protected her brand through a series of trade mark registrations, ensuring that her name and branding are not used without her permission, and allowing this to be licensed out to Fortnite as part of this deal.

As music, fashion and the digital landscape become more interwoven, and new collaborative opportunities arise, artists, brand owners and intellectual property lawyers alike must remain aware of the implications for ownership and licensing arrangements, as well as the increased risk of disputes.

For World IP Day 2025, we published a series of articles exploring the interplay of the evolving music industry and intellectual property, including a journey through musical patents and the implications of using AI to generate music.

We are honoured to share that Mathys & Squire is a Gold sponsor of Life Sciences Patent Network (LSPN) 2025, taking place on May 6-7 in Boston. Partners Hazel Ford, Alexander Robinson, Philippa Griffin and Managing Associate Sarah Turp will be attending the event in person.

The Life Sciences IP Review is the principal online publication for professionals in the IP industry across the areas of pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and medical technology.

Every year, The Life Sciences IP Review organise LSPN to connect top patent experts and pioneers in innovative technology from around the globe. The event provides a pivotal opportunity to engage with industry leaders and discover cutting-edge advice in protecting and leveraging innovation in the fields of life sciences.

The program offers expert-led sessions and interactive panels, designed to share a wide range of expertise in the latest legal rulings, legislative changings and strategic approaches in the life sciences IP landscape. On 6 May, Partners Hazel Ford and Alex Robinson will be speaking about the changing landscape within the EPO and recent decisions on granted European patents from the newly formed UPC. They will be sharing their in-depth knowledge on how the approach of the EPO Boards of Appeal is shifting and the implications for a pan-European patent strategy.

You can learn more about the event here.

This month we are proud to announce the launch of our brand-new podcast, Innovation Unlocked by Mathys & Squire, a new series designed to explore the dynamic intersection of intellectual property, entrepreneurship and innovation.

Hosted by Partner Andrew White, our podcast is designed to offer in-depth insights that resonates with innovators, founders, and professionals across the wider tech and creative communities.

Each episode will examine key topics and emerging trends that are shaping the IP landscape, helping listeners navigate the challenges and opportunities that come with protecting and leveraging one of their most valuable strategic assets.

We will be speaking with experts including renowned innovators, industry leaders, and legal professionals who can bring unique perspectives and real-world experiences to the conversation.

Our first episodes feature high-profile guests such as Lord Paul Drayson (CEO of Freevolt Technologies and former UK Minister of State for Science and Innovation), Joe Warren (founder of Powervault), and several of Mathys & Squire’s own IP specialists, including Partners Sean Leach, Posy Drywood, David Hobson and Nicholas Fox.

Watch the trailer for our new podcast here.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel through this link here.