Personalised medicine has been a strong focus of pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) in recent years, and we expect this to continue in 2022 and beyond, with the global personalised medicine market forecasted to grow to $717 billion by 2025. Personalised medicine encompasses technologies enabling cancer prognosis, as well as specific treatments targeting certain cancers associated with specific gene mutation. It also facilitates preventative medicine, allowing the identification of patients with a genetic predisposition for a particular disease to enable pre-emptive treatment.
Personalised medicines cover a wide range of actives, from more traditional small molecules to advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) such as stem cells and CAR-T cells. ATMPs are also a hot trend, with these products expected to increase markedly from the current level of around a third of pharmaceutical pipelines over the next decade. In view of the complexity of ATMPs compared with traditional pharmaceuticals, the IP landscape around ATMPs is also more complex, which may give rise to an increase in collaborations as companies work to get these products developed, approved and on the market. There is also the potential for an increased number of contentious proceedings, as companies struggle to find freedom to operate in a complex and crowded IP market.
The climate crisis and global food crisis are likely to drive the use of biotech to look for alternatives to conventional agricultural products and methods. Increased awareness of the problems caused by chemical pesticides is stimulating research into, and take up of, alternatives which reduce pesticide use and runoff, leading to an increased focus on biopesticides, with the global market projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 14.7% through to at least 2025. Whilst the public has historically been wary of genetically modified crops, genetically modified organisms have the potential to provide significant advances in sustainable agriculture, by improving crop yield and resilience, as well as through engineering crops with increased nutritional value or other desirable properties. As well as innovation to support a sustainable future, biotech can also be used to create crops that can actively remove existing pollutants through a process called phytoremediation. The growth in artificial meat was a significant trend in 2021, and the appetite (excuse the pun!) for such products shows no sign of slowing down.
Deep tech in general is seen as a massive growth opportunity (as covered in another of our IP trends articles), and it is estimated that deep tech investments will grow to about $140 billion by 2025. Specifically, in the context of biotech, artificial intelligence (AI) and synthetic biology are particular focuses. Synthetic biology is particularly exciting, as it has potential applications in multiple sectors, including cell engineering, biofabrication and drug discovery. The use of AI and machine learning based on large datasets can help accelerate early drug development, facilitating accurate prediction of drug-human interactions and reducing reliance on human trials at every development stage.
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented effort to accelerate drug discovery, testing and approval. Whereas in the past it would typically take up to 10 years for a new drug to be approved, the COVID-19 vaccines were developed and approved in under a year. These changes in approach will have knock-on benefits for drug development and approval far beyond COVID-19. Machine learning, AI and big data can further accelerate the drug development pathway. This technical acceleration will require commercial strategies to adapt. For example, funding for human trials may be required sooner if the early development and testing phases are completed more quickly, increasing pressure for smaller companies to find partners or investors to help bear the costs. There is also likely to be an effect on pipelines and on IP as nonviable projects may be identified and dropped sooner, leading to more focused R&D and a tighter IP estate.
After years in the making, it is expected that the new Unitary Patent system and associated Unified Patent Court (a pan-European form of protection and associated court) will come into force in late 2022. All innovators, regardless of their technical focus, will need to evaluate their patent strategies in light of the new system. Some European countries are not part of this system (including the UK, Spain and Switzerland), and so there are also factors to consider regarding the participating/non-participating countries. There are potential pros and cons to opting newly granted patents into this unitary system, which patentees will need to consider on a case-by-case basis to ensure the right decision is made for each of their patents.
Data provided by Mathys & Squire has featured in an article by City A.M. highlighting a surge in trade mark applications following Brexit, which has in turn increased the wait time for trade mark application approval. Click here to read the article in City A.M.
An extended version of the release is available below, and has been published by World Trademark Review, GB News, Irish Legal News, Scottish Legal News, Institute of Export & International Trade and The Scotsman.
Brexit has triggered a record number of applications for trade marks in the UK, with 195,000 registered in the past year*, up 54% from 127,000 the year before, says leading intellectual property law firm Mathys & Squire.
Since 1 January 2021, the UK is no longer part of the European trade mark regime, meaning that any business looking to trade mark a brand or logo across Europe now has to make a separate application in the UK.
Prior to 1 January 2021, UK trade mark owners could file a single EU trade mark application and secure pan-European protection. Since the end of the Brexit transition period, two separate applications (one for the UK and one for the EU) have been necessary.
The huge surge in trade mark applications since Brexit has forced the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) – the Government agency that handles trade marks, patents and design registrations – to recruit more than 100 new staff to clear the backlog. Waiting times for trade mark applications reached three to four months in the early part of 2021, up from the usual wait of around a couple of weeks.
The IPO has also been inundated by applications from overseas trade mark holders to register with a UK trade mark attorney and address for service in the UK, which is now required post-Brexit.
Mathys & Squire points out that the UK’s departure from the European trade mark regime is permanent, meaning that the sharply increased number of applications represents the ‘new normal’ rather than a spike in activity.
Gary Johnston, Partner and Co-Head of Trade Marks at Mathys & Squire, comments: “The Brexit-fuelled rush to file trade marks and appoint UK attorneys in 2021 has been unlike anything we’ve ever seen in the UK.”
“Businesses from around the world have been forced to spend much more time and money on protecting their intellectual property separately in the UK. UK businesses have had exactly the same problem with their European IP. We’ve been tremendously busy filing applications for UK businesses in Europe too.”
“This huge volume of filings is unlikely to go away. Now we have left the European trade mark regime, this is the level of activity we can expect in the future.”
* Year end 31 October 2021 | Source: IPO
The third article in our ‘IP trends for 2022’ series on innovation and technology focuses on cleantech innovations ranging from electric vehicles (EVs), renewable energy to net-negative emission developments.
During the COP26 summit held in October – November 2021, hundreds of governments, cities and businesses signed a declaration to work towards making all new vehicles release zero emissions by 2040 at the latest. In 2022, we can therefore expect to see a focus on innovation in battery technology, particularly energy storage solutions and fast charging inventions, to make EVs practical and affordable for all consumers. This technological shift is illustrated by the fact that global patent filings for EVs are currently rising, while those for petrol and diesel vehicles are falling rapidly, as we recently reported.
During the climate change conference, there was also a renewed emphasis on the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. With power generation making up a significant proportion of total greenhouse gas emissions, we can expect to see further inventions and innovative developments in renewable energy technologies in 2022, particularly those that reduce the costs of renewable energy implementation to enable developing countries to phase out fossil fuels. For example, we expect to see improvements in the modularisation of onshore and offshore wind turbines, which is key to achieving cost effective wind power by simplifying servicing and upgrades, thus reducing lifecycle costs. We also expect to see developments in the manufacturing of polysilicon for solar photovoltaic cells in 2022, given that shortages of polysilicon in 2021 caused prices of new solar panels to rise for the first time in years.
As well as a spotlight on EV technologies and renewable energy developments, we also expect 2022 to bring innovations in net-negative emission technologies, such as BECCS (biomass energy with carbon capture and storage) – which involves recovering CO2 from the combustion products resulting from burning biomass – and DACCS (direct air carbon capture and storage) – which involves capturing CO2 directly from the air.
The second article in our ‘IP trends for 2022’ series on innovation and technology focuses on blockchain, its patentability and an increasing interest in non-fungible tokens.
Blockchain has been a growing area for a few years now – from both an IP perspective and a commercial perspective. With this, an increasing number of patent applications for blockchain related inventions have been filed around the world. Despite the large number of patent filings in this area, there is still a dearth of blockchain-specific case law and some lack of clarity over exactly what is patentable when it comes to blockchain technology, and to what degree.
As filings progress through the various international patent offices, it is inevitable that specific case law will appear and we might well see some important decisions in the next year. Indeed, as we reported recently, the Australian Patent Office has been one of the first to tackle this technology and has seemingly decided that blockchain is a patentable technology. Moreover, this amenability to blockchain, as we reported here, seems to be shared by a number of other patent offices, and therefore, similar decisions might reasonably be expected elsewhere. If such affirmatory decisions are issued by other offices, we might expect the number of blockchain filings to keep increasing over the coming years.
Patent applications of course go hand in hand with developments in technology and in commercial focus. In this regard, we expect that a particular area of interest in the coming year will be non-fungible tokens, which have moved into the spotlight in the past year.
As part of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO)’s endeavours to encourage innovation, they have published a survey requesting feedback on the current UK designs system. Launched earlier this week, the survey is particularly aimed at people who do not consider themselves IP experts, and is described by the UKIPO as “an opportunity for designers, design-led businesses, and manufacturers to have their say on the future of how designs are protected in the UK”.
Registered Designs offer effective, quick and cost-efficient IP protection, and we encourage our clients to take part in this survey to ensure any changes to the UK designs system meet your business needs – whether you already have a large portfolio of Registered Designs or have an interest in using Registered Designs in the future.
The survey can be found here. All responses are anonymous, and it should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. The survey closes on 7 February 2022.
We are delighted to see the UK Government dedicating its time and attention to promoting innovation in the UK using IP frameworks. If any clients or contacts have views on any of the questions the survey seeks answers on, we would be happy to hear your thoughts – please get in touch.
The first article in our ‘IP trends for 2022’ series on innovation and technology focuses on ‘Biology 2.0’ and how it is impacted by deep tech and artificial intelligence (AI).
You may have heard of ‘Industry 4.0’ as being the ‘fourth industrial revolution’, relating to the digital transformation of manufacturing, production and related industries, as well as value creation processes. Looking to the year ahead, the term you should become familiar with is ‘Biology 2.0’ –where biology and technology unite in deep tech companies.
As summarised by Eroom’s law (a clear contradiction of Moore’s law), to date advances in biology, such as drug discovery, are becoming slower and more expensive over time, despite improvements in technology – with the costs of bringing a drug to market now amounting to about $2.5 billion and taking over 10 years. Now, 20 years since the human genome project, things finally look set to change. Over recent years we have heard of – and previously reported on – British Research Lab DeepMind’s AI ‘AlphaFold’ programme (owned by Google parent company Alphabet), which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to perform predictions of protein structure. Due to advances in engineering and computer science, and in particular AI, we are now starting to see fundamental changes to the way in which problems in biology are addressed, making use of these advances in AI technologies. This has been referred to by some in the field as ‘Biology 2.0’ – where engineering and computer science principles are applied to biological problems.
Examples of applications where advances are already taking place include:
Companies such as Foundation Medicine develop, manufacture and sell genomic profiling assays based on next-generation sequencing technology for solid tumours, hematologic malignancies and sarcomas, that can be used to match patients to targeted therapies, immunotherapies and clinical trial options. They also partner with the biopharma industry to help discover, develop and distribute the next breakthrough treatments for patients.
The Medicines Discovery Catapult, is testing an in silico (i.e. on a computer) pipeline for identifying new molecules for cancer treatment, for example, applying AI to find new disease ‘drivers’ and candidate drugs for lung cancer. Backed by Innovate UK, it is hoped that this will derisk future research and development projects and also demonstrate new cost and time-saving approaches to drug discovery.
It has been found that neural networks (used in AI) in particular are great at applications that depend on sequential data such as DNA sequence data. Biofacturing companies, such as Zymergen, are exploiting protein structures, such as those produced by DeepMind relating to microbes (e.g. organisms like E. coli), and using them to make products with biology. It is hoped that such data generated by DeepMind can be used for ‘synthetic biology’ – for example, to create microbes that better produce breakthrough chemicals and materials.
Companies such as Brainomix specialise in the creation of AI-powered imaging biomarkers that enable precision medicine for better treatment decisions.
Making use of advanced AI techniques, scientists in the US have developed a tiny camera the size of a coarse grain of salt that takes full-colour images that are as good as ones taken with camera lenses 500,000 times larger in size – which may have real world use, for example in diagnostic imaging (as well as potentially improving the quality of selfies in your smartphone!).
CoMind is working on next-generation non-invasive brain-computer interfaces which will help to develop and improve understanding of the human brain and neurological disorders.
It is clear that there are numerous opportunities to explore within ‘Biology 2.0’ and we are excited to already be working with many innovators in this field. Of course, as with many deep tech companies, those involved in ‘Biology 2.0’ are very IP-rich, however, they often need significant capital investment before they can begin generating revenue. Once a specific milestone is reached and such organisations do start generating revenue, progress can be very significant and. This requires a different model and mindset from investors and those involved in the field, as well as an effective IP strategy to match that can be used to monetise the IP assets.
Mathys & Squire has featured in an article published by City A.M. relating to new data* around global patent applications relating to Covid-19 that have been published since the start of the pandemic. Click here to read the article in City A.M.
An extended version of the article is available below and has also been published by The Patent Lawyer.
The most common type of patent application relates to Covid testing and diagnosis, accounting for 1,668 patents (33% of the total 5,070 applications). 325 patents related to face masks (6%), while just 55 related to sanitizer and 38 to ventilators/respirators.
Mathys & Squire says a key reason why testing is the most common subcategory of Covid patents is the growing acceptance that the virus has become endemic and societies will have to learn to live with it. As a result, Covid testing has become a viable long-term business model.
The law firm says many more Covid patent applications can be expected next year, as it can take up to 18 months for the patent publication process to be completed.
So far, China accounts for the highest proportion of Covid patents by some margin, with 2,652 covid patent applications, 52% of the total number. Indian-registered patents were the second-most common, with 388, and the US was in third place with 383 (7.7% and 7.6%, respectively).
Mathys & Squire say China’s dominance so far is partly due the size and global importance of the country’s manufacturing sector. However, other countries are expected to narrow the gap as patent applications continue to be filed.
Juliet Redhouse, Partner at Mathys & Squire, says: “Covid has sparked an unprecedented wave of innovation in the healthcare sector within a very short timeframe.”
“Pharmaceutical companies and scientific researchers worldwide have done remarkable work in identifying diagnostic and therapeutic solutions to the virus. If businesses are going to continue to invest in R&D in the healthcare sector, they need to be able to protect their intellectual property.”
“We are likely to see even more patent applications as society finds innovative ways to adapt to the presence of the virus. This is likely to include more innovation in testing and treatments.”
*Data covers the period from 01.10.20 to 30.09.21 | Source: World Intellectual Property Office
Our team of patent, trade mark and design attorneys have considered the legal landscape, recent technical developments and inventions, as well as the marketplace, to predict the likely trends that businesses should look out for in the next 12 months.
To kick off our ‘IP trends for 2022’ series, we will be marking National Technology Day (today, 6 January) by looking at emerging trends in the technology space, covering deep tech, blockchain and cleantech. Mathys & Squire is delighted to support researchers, engineers and entrepreneurs in identifying and protecting the intellectual property in their technological inventions. On National Technology Day, it is important to not only spotlight existing innovations that have impacted the world we live in and celebrate their inventors, but also to look to the future and how further developments in technology will shape its course.
Snippet versions of the three articles, written by Partner Andrew White and Associates Dylan Morgan and Oliver Parish, can be found below, with extended versions of each article available throughout January.
Looking to the year ahead, the term you should become familiar with is ‘Biology 2.0’ – where biology and technology unite in deep tech companies. As summarised by Eroom’s law, advances in biology, such as drug discovery, are becoming slower and more expensive over time, despite improvements in technology. Now, 20 years since the human genome project, things finally look set to change.
Due to advances in engineering and computer science, and in particular AI, we are now starting to see fundamental changes to the way in which problems in biology are addressed, making use of these advances in AI technologies. This has been referred to by some in the field as ‘Biology 2.0’ – where engineering and computer science principles are applied to biological problems.
It is clear that there are numerous opportunities to explore within ‘Biology 2.0’ and we are excited to already be working with many innovators in this field. Of course, as with many deep tech companies, those involved in ‘Biology 2.0’ are very IP-rich, however, they often need significant capital investment before they can begin generating revenue. This requires a different model and mindset from investors and those involved in the field, as well as an effective IP strategy to match that can be used to monetise the IP assets.
Click here to read the full article
An increasing number of patent applications for blockchain related inventions have been filed around the world. Despite the large number of patent filings, there is still a dearth of blockchain-specific case law and some lack of clarity over exactly what is patentable, and to what degree.
Patent applications of course go hand in hand with developments in technology and in commercial focus. In this regard, we expect that a particular area of interest in the coming year will be non-fungible tokens, which have moved into the spotlight in the past year.
Click here to read the full article
During the COP26 summit held in October – November 2021, hundreds of governments, cities and businesses signed a declaration to work towards making all new vehicles release zero emissions by 2040 at the latest. In 2022, we can therefore expect to see a focus on innovation in battery technology, particularly energy storage solutions and fast charging inventions, to make electric vehicles (EVs) practical and affordable for all consumers.
During the climate change conference, there was also a renewed emphasis on the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. With power generation making up a significant proportion of total greenhouse gas emissions, we can expect to see further inventions and innovative developments in renewable energy technologies in 2022.
Click here to read the full article
Mathys & Squire has been recognised in JUVE Patent‘s UK Rankings in the ‘Patent Filing’ category for the third consecutive year in the fields of ‘Pharma and biotechnology’, ‘Medical technology’, ‘Chemistry’, ‘Digital communication and computer technology’, ‘Electronics’ and ‘Mechanics, process and mechanical engineering’.
As well as a practice-wide recommendation for the firm, four of our partners have maintained their status as Recommended Individuals: Hazel Ford and Philippa Griffin (for ‘Pharma and biotechnology‘), Chris Hamer (for ‘Chemistry‘) and Jane Clark (for ‘Digital communication and computer technology‘ / ‘Mechanics, process and mechanical engineering‘).
Partner Chris Hamer has also received a specialist Leading Individual ranking again this year for his expertise in Chemistry, one of only nine UK patent attorneys noted for their technical speciality – see here.
In its third annual UK rankings since the guide launched in 2020, the JUVE Patent editorial team has conducted research on how external developments have impacted the UK patent market. Based on this research, the UK 2022 Rankings bring together the top-ranked patent lawyers, patent attorneys and barristers who are making a national and international impact.
To see the JUVE Patent UK 2022 rankings in full, please click here.
In an update to the September 2021 Court of Appeal decision featured below, the Legal Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) has, in oral proceedings held yesterday, confirmed that an inventor on patent applications must be a human being, thus dismissing appeals that an AI should be recognised as an inventor. We await the board’s written decision and reasons, which we will cover once they become available.
In a September 2021 judgment, the Court of Appeal has upheld that, within the current legal framework in the UK, an artificial intelligence (AI) machine cannot be named as the inventor in relation to a patent application for an invention which it created. The full decision is available here: Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks And Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374.
Dr Thaler applied for two UK patents in respect of inventions which he claims were created by his AI machine known as DABUS (‘Device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience’). The applications were considered withdrawn by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) by failure to identify the inventor and how Dr Thaler derived the right to be granted a patent from the inventor in accordance with section 13 of the Patents Act 1977. Dr Thaler claimed that DABUS was the inventor and that he derived the right to be granted a patent as owner of DABUS. This was first appealed to the High Court in 2020, but was dismissed, and in turn was appealed to the Court of Appeal and came before experienced patent judges, Lord Justice Birss, Lord Justice Arnold, and Lady Justice Laing.
In essence, the court considered three main questions:
All three judges agreed that the Patents Act makes it clear that only a person can be an ‘inventor’. The Act does not actually explicitly state this requirement, merely that the inventor is the actual deviser of the invention. Lord Justice Arnold explained that the Act nevertheless implies that the inventor must be a person, supported, for instance, by the dictionary definition of a deviser being ‘a person who devises’. Other indications can be found in the Act, such as section 13(2) which imposes a requirement on the applicant to identify the person whom they believe to be the inventor. In addition, section 13(1) states the inventor has a right to be mentioned as the inventor in a patent – and only a person can have such a right. Moreover, section 7(2) states that a patent may be granted: (a) primarily to the inventor, (b) to any person who is entitled by an agreement or rule of law, or (c) to the successor in title of either (a) or (b) (e.g. to whom the rights have been assigned), but to no other person. Because this is an exhaustive list, it seemingly follows that the inventor must be a person. Therefore, the judges were in agreement that an inventor can only be a person – and DABUS is clearly not a person.
In answer to question (1): No, because an inventor must be a person.
As set out above, section 7(2) provides that a patent can be granted to someone who is not the inventor if they are entitled by virtue of an agreement or a rule of law. Such a rule of law may include the UK legal mechanism that inventions devised by employees will broadly be owned by their employers. Dr Thaler claimed that he had derived the right to be granted a patent by rule of law as the owner of DABUS. This was seemingly based on a principle in property law, where the owner of pre-existing property owns the new property resulting from it (such as the fruit which is produced from a tree). However, Lord Justice Arnold held that this principle did not apply to intangible property such as intellectual property rights like the right to be granted a patent. An example was provided to contrast the fruit tree analogy, where, if person A took a digital photograph using person B’s camera, although person B owned the camera (the original property), person A may own copyright in the photograph and not person B (the new intangible property). Similarly, intangible property such as the right to be granted a patent for an invention resulting from an AI machine would not automatically flow to the owner of the machine. Accordingly, Lord Justice Arnold held that there is no rule of law that would enable Dr Thaler to possess the right to apply for the patent, and therefore he cannot be entitled.
In answer to question (2): Dr Thaler cannot be entitled.
According to Lord Justice Arnold, it logically follows that, because (i) DABUS is not a person and cannot be an inventor, and (ii) Dr Thaler was not entitled to apply for the patents, Dr Thaler had failed to identify the person whom he believed to be the inventor, and had also failed to provide an indication of how he derived the right to be granted a patent.
It is worth noting that Lord Justice Birss, also a very experienced patent judge, dissented from this judgment and found that, although DABUS was not a person so could not be an inventor, simply because Dr Thaler had filed a statement identifying whom he believed to be the inventor and indicating the derivation of his right to be granted the patent, he had satisfied the requirements necessary. He considered that it is not the function of the UKIPO to substantively examine whether the statement is correct – instead, since the statement honestly reflects Dr Thaler’s belief, it satisfies the statutory requirements. Lord Justice Birss considered that this fulfilled Dr Thaler’s obligations under section 13(2) and the applications should not have been withdrawn.
However, Lord Justice Arnold and Lady Justice Laing did not agree, finding that, although the factual accuracy of the statement does not need to be considered, the UKIPO is entitled to deem the application withdrawn if it clearly does not fulfil the statutory requirements. For example, it was a statutory requirement that the applicant identify the person who he believes to be the inventor, not merely their belief about who the inventor is. In these judges’ view, it was clear that the statements filed did not comply with the legislation because Dr Thaler did not identify a person as the inventor and did not identify a valid legal mechanism for deriving the rights. As a matter of law, and not as a matter of fact, the UKIPO can identify that the statements are defective, and that the requirements have not been met.
Accordingly, on a 2-1 majority, the Court found that the applications were correctly deemed withdrawn, and the appeal was dismissed.
In answer to question (3): the applications were correctly deemed withdrawn.
The fact that such an experienced patent judge as Lord Justice Birss would have found in favour of Dr Thaler indicates how the concept of AI inventorship is not clear-cut. It must be said that, following this judgment, it appears quite clear that, under current UK law, there is no room for an AI machine to be named as an inventor of a patent. It is worth noting that this decision referenced submissions which relied on where the law ought to be, and not where it is, and from the judges’ comments it is evident that, whether or not an AI machine should be identified as an inventor for a patent, a legislative change is required in order for AI machines to be allowed within the definition of inventor within the Act – and the judges are constrained in this decision by what the law currently is.
This judgment appears logical in that DABUS should not be an inventor because it is obviously not a person (whether a natural person, such as a human, or even a legal person for that matter, such as a corporation). As the inventor cannot have any rights, it follows that there are no rights which can be transferred to the owner of the machine, whether a legal mechanism exists or not. Furthermore, ownership of the machine appears to be a rather arbitrary mechanism to obtain rights from the machine (if such rights could exist). This would raise questions of what would happen if ownership of the machine was transferred, especially with respect to when the invention was devised by the AI machine.
If an AI machine cannot be named as inventor on a patent, in the absence of a change in legislation or at least until the time of any such change, applicants will have to determine how to apply for patents which are created by such AI. This raises the question of whether the owner of the AI could validly be named as the inventor, or whether it is the person developing or creating the AI; training the AI with data; setting the specific technical problem the AI has solved; or even identifying the inventive step of the invention created by the AI. In the UK at least, there is an argument that if the applicant identifies the person that they truly believe to be the inventor (whether that is the owner of the AI or otherwise), the requirements of section 13 are satisfied. This could only be questioned by someone who contests that they are instead entitled to the grant of the patent.
Looking forward, the UKIPO has since commenced a consultation on AI with respect to intellectual property rights. The outcome of this could well be the first step towards a solution to a problem that was likely not envisaged when Parliament decided on the wording of the Patents Act over 40 years ago.
