Contact
Contact

We are proud to announce that Mathys & Squire is sponsoring the ‘Hard Tech Investment of the Year’ award at this year’s UKBAA Angel Investment Awards. Partner Andrew White will also be acting as a judge for this year’s nominations.

On Thursday 10 July 2025, The UK Business Angels Association will be hosting their annual Angel Investment Awards. The UKBAA is the national trade association for angel and early-stage investment. Their goal is to underpin a far-reaching, yet deeply connected community of investors which supports cutting-edge entrepreneurs across the UK. The awards will highlight the impact of angel investors, crowd funders and early-stage VCs who are helping to drive innovation, as well as the businesses which they champion.

For the 2025 presentation, Mathys & Squire will be sponsoring the ‘Hard Tech Investment of the Year’ Award. This specific award celebrates the founders and early-stage investors leading the way in research-intensive and capital-intensive sectors such as health and life sciences, and engineering and manufacturing.

Partner Andrew White, who is committed to engaging with and mentoring start-ups, will be part of the judging panel helping to choose the recipients of this year’s awards across the 14 different categories.

Do you want to nominate someone you admire for the 2025 UKBAA Angel Investment Awards? You can apply now on their website here. Applications will close on the 28th March.

Find out more about the event and award nominations on their website here.

You can learn about the partnership between our Scaleup quarter and the UKBAA here.

We are delighted to share that we have appointed two new Diversity and Inclusion Partners to chair our D&I Committee.

Partners Andrea McShane and Nicholas Fox have been appointed as the new Diversity and Inclusion Partners to lead our D&I committee. Throughout the year, they will be involved in championing diversity internally, externally and at Board level, ensuring that we foster a culture of equality throughout everything that we do.

Partner Andrea McShane writes: “It is such a privilege to be involved in fostering diversity and inclusivity at Mathys & Squire. So much great work has been focussed on establishing a robust framework at Mathys & Squire for ensuring diversity and inclusivity. Our commitment to D&I is a central aspect of who we are and how we strive for excellence. Some of the key competences that we strengthen with our policies – cultural intelligence, a learning mindset, flexibility, collaboration, empathy, curiosity and humility – are also key to providing great professional services. As part of my D&I Partner role I spearhead continued evolution of the firm’s strategy. I champion initiatives that enrich and create opportunities. I engage with stakeholders, monitor developments and welcome opportunities to grow our commitment to diversity and inclusivity.“

Partner Nicholas Fox writes: “Diversity and inclusion is such an integral part of the culture here at Mathys & Squire, and it is therefore a pleasure to be actively involved in the establishment and reinforcement of our initiatives as we enter the new year. To effectively support the talent and technical expertise that we are fortunate enough to have here at Mathys & Squire, it is crucial that we create a positive foundation for all that will enable our staff to thrive at work. Not only will this encourage us to serve our clients to the best of our ability, but it also means that everyone will be able to succeed in their personal and professional goals at the firm. In my role as D&I officer, I will continue to take real action towards the implementation of our policies, both internally and externally, and champion the complete integration of all those that work at Mathys & Squire.”

Looking back on her time as Diversity and Inclusion Officer, previous D&I Partner Caroline Warren reflects on the importance and personal highlights of the role.

Partner Caroline Warren writes: “Mathys & Squire has long recognised the importance of Diversity and Inclusion to the firm as well as to the wider profession and I have enjoyed my time leading and developing the D&I group within Mathys & Squire over the past few years. I have learnt a lot from the talks and discussions that we have organised and I have enjoyed celebrating the awareness days and months that we have marked as a firm. I am pleased to be handing on the role to Andrea and Nicholas and look forward to continuing to support the development of D&I within the firm.”

Diversity and Inclusion is an extremely important part of Mathys & Squire. We are committed to fostering a culture of equality, diversity and inclusion, to sustain Mathys & Squire as a welcoming workplace for all of our employees and partners to be a part of.

Find out more about our Diversity and Inclusion policies and framework here.

Mathys & Squire Managing Associate Lionel Newton has recently been interviewed by International Aquafeed Magazine and provided commentary on various issues relating to intellectual property (IP) and trends in the aquaculture industry.

The aquaculture industry is a rapidly evolving sector that generates a wide range of complex innovations. These advancements include cutting-edge technology designed to improve farming practices, enhance disease prevention and control, and optimise, food formulations through the development of specialised additives.

As the industry continues to progress, the protection of these innovations becomes increasingly important. Intellectual Property rights play a crucial role in safeguarding the research, technology, and developments that drive the sector forward, ensuring that innovators can benefit from their contributions and maintain a competitive edge.

In recognition of the significance of IP in aquaculture, Managing Associate Lionel Newton was recently featured in an article on this topic in International Aquafeed, a leading industry magazine. His insights highlight the challenges and opportunities surrounding IP protection in the sector, offering valuable perspectives for businesses and researchers in this field.

To read the article in full, click the link here.

Mathys & Squire is delighted to announce that our trademark team has been recommended in the 2025 edition of the World Trademark Review (WTR) 1000 guide. Partners Gary Johnston, Rebecca Tew and Helen Cawley and Consultant Margaret Arnott all featured as Recommended Individuals.

The WTR 1000 directory illustrates the depth of expertise available to clients, serving as the definitive tool for those seeking outstanding trademark services worldwide. Now in its 15th year, the WTR 1000  has firmly established itself as the definitive ‘go-to’ resource for those seeking stellar trademark expertise and partners worldwide. Mathys & Squire has been recommended for its work in the trademark field, specifically in the ‘prosecution and strategy’ category. “Mathys & Squire are incredibly easy to work with. The team possess extensive knowledge in all aspects of trademark law, ensuring an exceptionally effective and efficient A-to-Z service.”

Alongside our firm ranking, Consultant Margaret (recommended in the categories of ‘Enforcement & Litigation’ and ‘Prosecution & Strategy’), Helen (recommended in the category of ‘Prosecution & Strategy’), Gary (recommended in the category of ‘Prosecution & Strategy’) and Rebecca (recommended in the category of ‘Prosecution & Strategy), have received the following testimonials:

“Helen Cawley adeptly manages a wide range of instructions. She draws on two decades of experience to provide insightful and proactive advice that helps clients align their trademark strategies with their commercial goals. Cawley’s strategic vision and dedication are poised to make a significant impact on the team and its clients.“

Gary Johnston is “an agile practitioner who seamlessly integrates legal insights with commercial acumen, crafting practical solutions that achieve outstanding results. He recently represented the John Cotton Group in successfully opposing the registration of the mark ‘SNUGGLEMORE’, utilising their established rights in the mark and affirming its reputation and goodwill.“

Rebecca Tew “excels in devising and implementing effective protection and enforcement strategies. She adeptly tailors her approach to meet the unique needs of each client, whether a start-up or a multinational corporation, consistently delivering exceptional service. “

Margaret Arnott “navigates both contentious and non-contentious waters with finesse. Always practical and sensible, she has a knack for crafting business-friendly solutions to any challenge that comes her way.”

We would like to thank each of our clients, contacts and peers who took the time to participate in the research. For more information and to see the full WTR 1000 rankings, please click here.

The UK’s deep tech sector is a rapidly evolving landscape that thrives on ground breaking scientific and engineering advancements. From quantum computing to advanced semiconductor technologies, deep tech companies are driving innovation and reshaping industries. However, while technological breakthroughs are the foundation of deep tech, intellectual property (IP) plays a crucial role in safeguarding innovations, attracting investment, and ensuring commercial viability. This evolving landscape is explored in greater detail in the Royal Academy of Engineering’s State of UK Deep Tech 2024 report.

Despite its strong foundation, the UK’s deep tech sector faces several challenges that could hinder its long-term success:

The Deep Tech Investment Landscape

According to the Royal Academy of Engineering’s State of UK Deep Tech 2024 report, UK deep tech companies have consistently attracted substantial venture capital (VC) investment. Since 2020, the sector has annually secured over £5 billion in VC funding, with healthcare and artificial intelligence gaining the most investment. However, despite this promising trend, the UK still faces significant challenges in scaling deep tech ventures, particularly when compared to the US. One of the key reasons for this is the complex and capital-intensive nature of deep tech, which requires long-term financial backing and industry-specific expertise from investors.

The UK’s venture capital ecosystem has seen an increasing presence of nontraditional investors, including corporate venture capital (CVC) firms and sovereign wealth funds. With 32.5% of UK deep tech VC deals involving no UK investors in early 2024, it is evident that global players recognise the immense potential of the sector. Nevertheless, a gap remains in the availability of UK-based investors with the technical knowledge necessary to evaluate and support deep tech ventures effectively.

Intellectual Property as a Competitive Moat

One of the defining characteristics of deep tech companies is their reliance on strong IP protection. Unlike conventional tech startups that often focus on software solutions with lower barriers to entry, deep tech ventures require significant investment in research and development (R&D) before they can bring products to market. As a result, patents, trade secrets, or other proprietary technologies become invaluable assets that distinguish these companies from their competitors and provide protection on the market.

A well-established IP portfolio serves several strategic purposes:

The UK’s deep tech sector benefits from a strong academic foundation, with universities playing a crucial role in IP generation. However, balancing academic innovation with commercial scalability requires carefully structured IP agreements. Traditionally, UK universities have held significant equity stakes in spinouts, but recent trends indicate a shift toward more investor-friendly policies, allowing startups to retain greater control over their IP.

Challenges in Scaling Deep Tech and IP Management

Despite the clear advantages of IP protection, deep tech companies face several hurdles in managing and leveraging their intellectual assets:

  1. Complex Patent Landscapes: Navigating the patent process is time-consuming and expensive, requiring expertise to avoid infringement and ensure broad protection.
  2. Funding Gaps for Early-Stage IP Development: Many deep tech startups struggle with securing funds to file and maintain patents before achieving profitability.
  3. International Competition and IP Theft: Given the global nature of deep tech, UK firms must contend with IP risks from international competitors, particularly in strategic industries like semiconductors and AI.

The UK has a strong foundation in deep tech innovation, but unlocking its full potential requires a more sophisticated approach to intellectual property management. By addressing funding challenges, refining IP strategies, and fostering investor expertise, the UK can solidify its position as a global leader in deep tech commercialisation.

At Mathys & Squire LLP, we have a profound comprehension of industry standards, intricacies, and the unique challenges entailed in patenting cutting-edge inventions within the dynamic realm of deep tech. For more information on our specialist advice in this sector, visit our website or explore our dedicated Scaleup Quarter platform, tailored for companies ranging from start-ups to university spinouts.

Good news! You have just heard that the EPO has decided to grant your healthcare patent application. You must now decide whether to allow the granted patent to be granted as a Unitary Patent in the member states participating in the Unitary Patent Court (UPC) or as a bundle of national patents and potentially file opt-outs to protect the national patents from central revocation in the UPC. You are aware of the various pros and cons of the UPC (see our opt-out brochure for further information), but what is everyone else doing? The pharmaceutical industry has been expected to adopt a cautious approach towards the UPC due to the value of individual patents and the potentially significant economic impact of a patent being revoked in multiple jurisdictions in a single court action. Does this mean that everyone simply opts their healthcare patents out of the UPC?

The UPC entered into force on 1 June 2023, but it was possible to delay the grant of a European Patent from the beginning of the year until Unitary Patents might be granted. In practice this means that 2024 was the first full year when patent proprietors had the choice of obtaining Unitary Patents, even though, at least theoretically, any European Patent application found in order for grant since 1 January 2023 could have been converted into a Unitary Patent if a patent proprietor chose to do so.

It is perhaps unsurprising then that the percentage of European patents granted in 2024 in healthcare fields which ended up being maintained as Unitary Patents increased. This was true across all healthcare fields sampled. Use of the Unitary Patent was particularly high in the case of medical devices where approximately 30% of all patents granted in Europe in 2024 were maintained as Unitary Patents up from around 20% in 2023. As the graph below (FIG.1) illustrates significant proportions of granted European Patents end up as Unitary Patents subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC across all healthcare fields. Any suggestion that healthcare companies are opting all their patents out from the jurisdiction of the UPC is clearly wrong.

Figure 1: Percentage UPs by Technical Field

But what are specific applicants doing? To answer this question, we have sampled a range of applicants in each of the above technical areas. The sample we selected included most of the largest filers in the healthcare sector in addition to several applicants from related sectors such as agrochemicals and fine chemicals.

Organic Chemistry

FIG. 2 below shows the results of our survey for major patentees for patent applications relating to organic chemistry. In the graph below we show the numbers of European Patents (EPs) each applicant has chosen to maintain as national patents and the numbers of patents where the applicant has opted to have the patents maintained as Unitary Patents (UPs). The figure then further breaks these numbers down across patents granted in 2023 and 2024 to see if any change in behaviour of an individual applicant can be identified.

Figure 2: Granted EPs and UPs – Organic Chemistry

As can be seen in the graph above, a number of the significant filers in organic chemistry have engaged very little with the Unitary Patent system having either zero or low single digit numbers of Unitary Patents granted in 2023/24. For example, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, LG Group, Merck Sharp & Dohme (Merck & Co Inc.), Novartis, and Samsung all had no Unitary Patents granted in 2023, and at most had a single Unitary Patent granted in 2024. This group includes Bristol-Myers Squibb, LG Group, and Merck Sharp & Dohme who were among the largest filers for patents in this area of technology.

Where an applicant has been very selective about engagement with the Unitary Patent system, it may be the case that a or particular patents relate to technology for which a Unitary Patent is particularly suitable. Potentially, this may explain the single Merck Patent GmbH (Merck KGaA) Unitary Patent granted in 2024. That patent concerned a chemical process which involved multiple individual process steps which potentially could be conducted in different European countries for which protection via a Unitary Patent was particularly suitable.

Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novartis all had no Unitary Patents granted in the field of organic chemistry in 2023/24, and each had a single organic chemistry Unitary Patent granted in 2024. Potentially, these might also have been chosen as “test cases” for using the Unitary Patent system or for specific reasons relating to the individual inventions that the patents cover.

Other applicants have used the Unitary Patent system more widely, for example BASF, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Syngenta, and Takeda.

Collectively, the figures indicate that different companies are taking very different approaches to the UPC and the Unitary Patent System. There is no uniformity of approach.

By way of example, Roche and Novartis are both multinational Swiss pharmaceutical corporations ranking in the top five global pharmaceutical companies by revenue. In the field of organic chemistry, Novartis converted none of their European Patents into Unitary Patents in 2023 and obtained only a single Unitary Patent in 2024. This compares with 40 and 43 organic chemistry patents in 2023 and 2024 respectively, where Novartis maintained their patents as a bundle of national rights. In contrast, Roche had 36 organic chemistry Unitary Patents granted in 2023 (compared to 44 European Patents maintained as a bundle of national rights), and this increased to 38 Unitary Patents granted in 2024 (compared to 27 European Patents maintained as a bundle of national rights). Hence, in contrast to Novartis who has yet to really engage with the Unitary Patent system, the majority of Roche’s organic chemistry applications are now being maintained as Unitary Patents.

The upward trend in the proportion of patents maintained as Unitary Patents which is apparent from Roche can also be seen in the figures for other applicants. Thus, for example, Syngenta also had a greater proportion of maintained as Unitary Patents in 2024 compared with 2023 so that in 2024 a majority of Syngenta’s patents in the field of organic chemistry were maintained as Unitary Patents rather than a bundle of national rights (16 Unitary Patents compared with 12 patents maintained as national rights).

Tentatively, this may suggest that some applicants are overcoming their initial caution about the use of the Unitary Patent system. However, as we only have two year’s data, and the data from 2023 is necessarily impacted by the introduction of the Unitary Patent half-way through that year (albeit with the option of selectively delaying patent grant where a proprietor really wished to obtain a Unitary Patent), it is probably too early to tell.

Organic Pharmaceuticals

Similar mixed signals are also shown in the numbers of patents converted into Unitary Patents by major filers in the field of organic pharmaceuticals shown below (FIG. 3)

Figure 3: Granted EPs and UPs – Organic Pharmaceuticals

AbbVie, Bayer, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda all show relatively widespread uptake of Unitary Patents in the field of organic pharmaceuticals.

Chiesi Farmaceutici has chosen to convert the majority of their granted patents into Unitary Patents. This was the case both 2023 and 2024 when 4 and then 5 of Chiesi Farmaceutici patents were converted into Unitary Patents compared to 2 and then 5 patents which were maintained as national rights.

Although the sample size is small, AbbVie had no organic pharmaceutical Unitary Patents granted in 2023 (and a single patent maintained as a bundle of national rights), but 3 Unitary Patents granted in 2024 with no rights not being maintained as Unitary Patents.

Some applicants – Amgen, Bayer, Chiesi Farmaceutici, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, and Takeda – increased their use of the Unitary Patent system in 2024, However, others – AstraZeneca, Merck Patent GmbH, Pfizer, and Vertex – obtained Unitary Patents in 2023 but obtained no Unitary Patents in 2024. Whereas other major players in the field – Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Regeneron – have entirely avoided the Unitary Patent system for organic pharmaceutical inventions and have chosen instead to maintain all their European patents as bundles of national rights.

Biologics

FIG. 4 shows a similar analysis, this time in the field of Biologics.

Figure 4: Granted EPs and UPs – Biologics

Apart from Biogen, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Roche, applicants generally seem to be more reluctant to use the Unitary Patent system for biologics. Of the applicants sampled, only Novo Nordisk obtained Unitary Patents for a majority of their granted patent applications (7 and 6 Unitary Patents in 2023/24, respectively compared to 2 and then 1 patent which was maintained as a bundle of national rights).

The greatest number of biologics Unitary Patents in our sample were granted to Roche. However, that was due to the higher number of patents that Roche obtained compared to the companies in the survey and still represented a minority of Roche’s biologics patents overall (10 and then 15 Unitary Patents in 2023 and 2024 compared with 16 and then 18 patents maintained as national rights in 2023 and 2024 respectively).

Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme converted none of their European Patents into Unitary Patents in 2023/24, despite these applicants being among the largest filers in this field. Whereas Novartis chose to maintain only a single European patent as a Unitary Patent in 2024, opting for national rights for 19 and then 22 biologics patents in 2023 and 2024 respectively.

Medical Devices

Medical device applicants appear to be most divided in their adoption of the UPC (FIG. 5).

Figure 5: Granted EPs and UPs – Medical Devices

A significant number of applicants sampled have chosen to not to obtain Unitary Patents – see Intuitive Surgical, Novartis, ResMed, Smith and Nephew, Solventum (3M Health Care), and Stryker. This is particularly significant because some of the largest filers in the field of medical devices have chosen to take this approach.

Other applicants such as Abbott Laboratories, Braun, Dexcom, Fujifilm, GE Healthcare, and Medtronic, had either a single or low single digit number of Unitary Patents granted in 2023/2024, compared with significantly higher number of patents which were maintained as national rights. Of these applicants, all but Abbott Laboratories and Dexcom deferred their adoption of the Unitary Patent system for medical devices until 2024.

On the other hand, Becton, Dickinson and Company is notable for obtaining 38 medical device Unitary Patents in 2023 (compared to 14 patents maintained as national rights). Then in 2024, Becton Dickinson’s number of Unitary Patents was an order of magnitude greater than the number maintained as a bundle of national rights – 74 Unitary Patents compared to 7 maintained as national rights.

All of the medical device patents granted in Europe to Align were maintained as Unitary Patents in both 2023 and 2024. In fact, out of 49 patents granted to Align in Europe in 2023 (in all areas of technology), only a single patent (relating to a computer program) was not maintained as a Unitary Patent.

Other large filers including Edwards Lifesciences and Philips are choosing to obtain a mix of Unitary Patents and bundles of national rights. Although, both companies are opting for the Unitary Patent route for only a minority of their patents, in both cases the numbers of Unitary Patents granted doubled in 2023 compared with 2024. Potentially, this suggests that these companies chose not to delay grant of patents prior to 1 June 2023 just for the opportunity to obtain Unitary Patents which would cause the 2023 numbers to represent grants for only around half a year and that Edwards Lifesciences and Philips have been converting a consistent proportion of their Medical Devices patents into Unitary Patents since then.

Roche, Sanofi, and Siemens had a large proportion of their medical device patents granted as Unitary Patents in both 2023 and 2024 with between 45% and 65% of medical device patents for these three companies being maintained as Unitary Patents in 2024.

Sanofi and Roche provide an interesting example of how take up of the Unitary Patent is impacted by technical field. Looking at the figures for 2024, Sanofi converted a greater proportion of their medical device patents to Unitary Patents (46%) than was the case for organic chemistry patents (37%) or biologics (5%). Similarly, Roche’s figures vary significantly across different fields and in many cases are quite different from those for Sanofi with Roche obtaining Unitary Patents for 64% of their medical device patents, 37% of their organic chemistry patents, 58% of their organic pharmaceutical patents and 45% of their biologics patents.

Conclusions

As shown above, it is clear that at present different companies are adopting very different approaches to the use of the Unitary Patent system and that the approaches are nuanced depending upon the area of technology a patent involves. Widespread adoption of the Unitary Patent has not been limited to European-domiciled companies, with several US applicants now maintaining a significant proportion of patents in Europe as Unitary Patents.

It is clearly not the case that large companies choose to maintain all their patents as national rights, opting the patents out from the jurisdiction of the UPC to protect such rights from central revocation.  

How those approaches develop further, only time will tell.

Organised by the General Assembly, the 26th of January is now recognised as the International Day of Clean Energy, enabling the opportunity to reflect and refocus on the collective goals of sustainability. In this article, Associate Jessie Harrison examines the current state of cleantech as we begin the new year.

As we enter 2025, climate change remains a hotly debated topic in global politics.  

Last year signalled yet another record breaking rise in global temperatures, however only last week President Trump announced his intention to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement.

In Europe, the European Green Deal has placed pressure on the EU’s commitment to protect the climate. This includes goals of becoming climate neutral by 2050, and reducing emissions by 55% in 2030.

However, based on current trends, the United Nations has declared that the world is not on track to successfully achieve Sustainable Development Goal 7 – ‘Affordable and Clean Energy’ – by 2030.

It is increasingly clear that innovation and new cleantech technologies are essential to achieving these goals.

Cleantech relates to a diverse range of technologies that contribute to reducing our environmental impact. In the energy sector, this includes the likes of innovative renewables, long-duration energy storage, grid flexibility, and green hydrogen.

The Royal Academy of Engineering’s recent ‘State of UK Deeptech 2024’ report identified that, among the seven deep tech areas (manufacturing & materials; robotics, hardware & chips; networks; healthcare; frontier applications; energy; and AI & computing), energy exhibited the strongest growth in deal count between 2018 and 2023 with a compound annual growth rate of 12.9%. Investment in alternative energy sources is increasingly being seen to be both sustainable environmentally and financially, with growing public sector support. Indeed, S&P Global predicts that clean energy technology supply spending will surpass investments in upstream oil and gas for the first time in 2025.

In such an innovation-driven industry, intellectual property plays an important role in the successful development, protection, and commercialisation of new cleantech technologies.

This was clearly demonstrated in a 2024 report by the European Patent Office, EPO, which reported over 750,000 published international patent families in clean and sustainable technologies worldwide across a 25 year period up to 2021. In 2021 alone, almost 15% of all technological inventions disclosed globally related to clean and sustainable inventions.

As we look ahead for 2025, we can expect to see the demand for clean and scalable energy solutions surge, driven by the need to sustainably power the growing number of energy-intensive data centres supporting the AI revolution.

Quantum applications such as quantum computation and quantum cryptography are right at the cutting edge of high tech and as such offer near unlimited potential for innovation within the next decades. As of beginning of this year, Dr. Adrian Holzäpfel, researcher in the field of quantum networks with ten years of experience in the field, joins the Mathys & Squire Physics Team of Munich Partners Dr. Matthias Brittinger and Andreas Wietzke as a patent engineer and strengthens their expertise in this exciting sector.

During his academic career, Dr. Holzäpfel has studied under eminent experts in the field such as Prof. Immanuel Bloch and Prof. Nicolas Gisin and has performed his research activities at renowned institutions such as the University of Geneva, Technical University Munich and the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (Nobel prize 2023).

We welcome Dr. Holzäpfel on board!

In modern culture, there is an increasing trend for people to opt for plant-based diets. There are many reasons for this, from increased awareness of climate change to personal concerns surrounding animal welfare or health concerns. For those that want to cut down on non-vegan products or trial the change in diet, Veganuary has become an opportune time to do so.

“Naturally” vegan recipes are expected to be made from raw ingredients, stripping back the meat and dairy that are normalised within most diets. However, with the ever-increasing switch to veganism, new technologies, brands, and products have surged, along with increased levels of innovation needed to provide desirable mass-market products.

One developing trend within the market is the replication of foods and ingredients that are widely popular in non-vegan form, such as meat and chocolate. Understandably, the convenience in substituting, rather than avoiding, non-vegan ingredients increases the accessibility of the diet and creates an easier transition between the two lifestyles.

This is clearly an increasing movement, evidenced by The Vegan Society passing their milestone of 70,000 product registrations in September 2024. However, this shift towards the re-design of existing products also necessarily requires technical innovation and, consequently, IP (intellectual property) protection for such innovations can be crucial to avoid others simply copying a product, especially for small businesses wanting to establish a foothold in the industry.

Intellectual Property and Vegan technology

In the past decade, the technology in the market has become increasingly groundbreaking, defying the expectations of what was originally thought possible for vegan eaters. The following businesses have demonstrated what is possible within the industry, but also the importance of protecting their work through IP.

Meat alternatives

Austrian brand Revo Foods have created ultra-realistic, whole-cut plant-based salmon using 3D food printing technology named “THE FILET – inspired by Salmon”. Their product is made from algae, pea protean and mycoprotein, with the extrusion technology allowing fats to be incorporated into a “fibrous protein matrix” that allows the seafood alternatives to achieve the typical flakiness of fish filets. They applied for a patent for their 3D print head with screw extruder called MassFormer.

Dairy alternatives

EVERY, a food tech company led by CEO Arturo Elizondo, have a foundational patent for their vegan egg product. Using precision fermentation, they can brew liquid egg white without the need for chickens. Recombinant ovalbumin is the primary protein found in egg whites and is responsible for its gelling, foaming and binding abilities. The company have been commended for how it ‘tastes, whips and gels like a chicken-derived egg white’.

Alternative cheese

South Korean company Armored Fresh have continued to shake up the dairy-alternative industry through their plant-based cheeses. They pride themselves on their patented technologies, including method of manufacturing vegetable lactic acid bacteria fermented almond milk and a method for producing plant-based cheese using almonds.

Danish food tech company Færm have also developed a method for making vegan cheese that closely mimics the original product. In February this year, they filed for a patent for the process for the manufacture of a legume-based food product, using their B2B company structure to provide their technology to food producers that want to utilise these methods.

‘Bee-free’ Honey

MeliBio, a US company, have applied for patent protection for their plant-based and ‘bee-free’ honey. This invention “replicates the compositional complexity of honey using solely plant-based ingredients”. The product is made with botanical extracts, sugars, and acids to replicate the taste and texture of real honey.

In such an innovative and growing industry, the role of intellectual property continues to play a vital role in supporting advancements that help expand the market. For smaller start-up businesses in particular, IP can provide a foothold for growth in the industry by protecting the core innovations on which their products are based.   

If current trends continue then growing innovation in the vegan space can be expected, highlighting the value of strong IP protection to secure the value of innovations in the face of increasing competition.

Commentary by Partner Rebecca Tew and Managing Associate Adam Gilbertson has been featured in IAM, The Business Fashion Magazine, The World Intellectual Property Review and The Patent Lawyer Magazine as they discuss the rise in global patent filings for footwear inventions and Nike’s leadership in IP activity.

Read the extended press release below.

Nike is leading the way with global patent filings for footwear with approximately 250 applications published in the 12 months to June 30 2024 alone* – almost 100 more for the same period than all of its major competitors combined – as the world’s biggest shoe manufacturers compete in a ‘running shoe arms race’, says intellectual property law firm Mathys & Squire.

Nike’s nearest competitor for numbers of footwear patent filings is traditional German rival Adidas, with 37 patent applications publishing in the past 12 months*, amounting to just 15% of Nike’s total (see graph below).

The battle to develop and patent new technology for elite running shoes was triggered in 2017 by the launch of Nike’s first Vaporfly shoe, featuring a full-length carbon fibre plate for increased ‘rebound’ and efficiency when running, producing remarkable yet controversial results.

The resulting development of new shoe technologies has been credited with cutting the men’s marathon record by two minutes and the women’s marathon record by seven minutes since 2017.

The ‘running shoe arms race’ has heated up in recent years, as new entrants to the market, like Li-Ning and Xtep, are putting pressure on the established leaders.

This summer’s Olympic Games saw Nike competing with traditional rivals Adidas, Asics, New Balance and Puma to supply the most advanced shoes to athletes in events such as the marathon. However, this year’s Games also saw less-established brands like Swiss shoemaker On as well as Chinese manufacturers Li-Ning and Xtep supply high-profile runners. Both  Chinese challenger brands had runners finish in the top ten of the men’s marathon in Paris in April 2024.

Rebecca Tew, Partner at Mathys & Squire, comments: “This may be the golden age of running shoe innovation.”

Adam Gilbertson, Managing Associate at Mathys & Squire, comments “The right shoe can now deliver a major step forward in a runner’s personal best. The introduction of carbon fibre plates and 40-millimetre foam outsoles has been a game-changer for runners.”

“Established manufactures like Nike have been patenting their shoe technologies for years, but newcomers to the market making these big innovations in running shoes should make sure that their investment in intellectual property is protected and they have a clear IP strategy. What can be patented should be patented in key territories to help prevent competitors copying key technology.”

Rebecca Tew adds that the rise of new running shoe technology has already started to generate patent disputes between footwear manufacturers. US-based running shoemaker Brooks recently sued German competitor Puma for patent infringement in the US, the latest development in a long-running intellectual property dispute between the two companies.

Patent applications for footwear inventions in the last 12 months include:

Number of global patent applications for footwear inventions published in the past year – Nike is by far the most active patent filer

* Source: World Intellectual Property Organisation