Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are firmly integrated within modern diets, with factors such as convenience, store availability, cost, food waste and time impacting consumer purchase decisions. However, influences in media and government action have recently drawn attention to the potentially harmful impact of overconsuming UPFs. So, as interesting behavioural changes start to emerge for both consumers and retailers, we can look to the future to see how this shift might influence intellectual property.
What are ultra-processed foods?
Understanding the chemistry behind UPFs is crucial in understanding both sides, and the reason to their great popularity. Food groups can be divided into four groups, referenced as the NOVA classification: Unprocessed or minimally processed foods, Processed culinary ingredients, Processed foods, and Ultra-processed food and drink products.
From a manufacturing perspective, such ingredients that are included in UPFs (e.g. preservatives, antioxidants and fats) are often to increase the flavour and appearance to the consumer, whilst simultaneously decreasing costs and minimising waste. A common differentiating factor is that they often contain ingredients that would not be utilised in home cooking, and therefore are not as recognisable to the consumer.
So, why now?
The apprehension is that the overconsumption of UPFs has been found to be associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, a finding that has become a hot topic of conversation. Government action, following the outline of ‘Towards a Good Food Cycle’ on July 15, popular publications, trending social media content, and daily news articles have all contributed to the increased awareness of these potential consequences, instigating consumers to reflect on their dietary decisions.
Consequently, some manufacturers are now following this trend within their food production strategy, attempting to cut down on the ingredients list to demonstrate themselves as a healthier, more transparent choice. A current example is the ‘Only…ingredients’ range from popular high street shop Marks & Spencers, which aims to highlight the simplicity of ingredients in their products, exemplified best by their famous cornflakes which solely contain corn.
For those trying to restrict their diet, either due to medical needs such as allergies or for personal preference, this transparency can be a good thing that was not always easily available in the past.
However, advocates of this practice as a general improvement have faced criticism for misinforming the public on the reality of food nutrition. In some cases, extra vitamins or supplements can be a positive addition to the nutritional value of a product. Innovation and sustainability director of vegan food brand THIS expressed his frustration regarding this misunderstanding, arguing that whilst their products are categorised as UPFs, this diminishes other benefits of their products (based on nutritional properties such as protein and fibre levels, and limiting saturated fat and sugar).
How might this impact IP?
The initial assumption might be that technical innovation within the food and beverage industry might be reduced, as producers interested in this trend attempt to strip back their recipes and reduce the ingredient list on their products, and, at least by appearance, avoid the use of “technology” in their food products.
However, the technical challenges in trying to maintain desirable properties in food products (such as, texture, flavour, shelf life, etc.) whilst limiting ingredients is, and will be, technically challenging. This may require different processes to be developed, or inventive ways to combine fewer ingredients to achieve the desired function and a comparable or improved product. It is within these processes and formulations used in the manufacturing of food that innovation can emerge, as the processes themselves may become more crucial in achieving comparable results whilst minimising ingredients. Whenever investment in technical innovation is used to provide new and advantageous products, this opens the door to obtaining patent protection for such innovations, and so IP protection can play a crucial role in staying ahead of competitors and adding value to a business.
This is not to suggest that the majority of food products will follow this path, as for many consumers and manufacturers this is not an influencing factor above cost or properties of the product. Instead, there could be a developing space for additional innovation in the sector which could influence IP trends in the future.
Our attorneys at Mathys & Squire have extensive experience protecting food-related innovations and assisting companies in carving out an advantageous position in the highly competitive food industry. If you would like to find out more or reach out, visit our food-specific sector page.
Investment Surges in AI-Driven Drug Discovery
Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as one of the most transformative technologies in recent years. The European Medtech sector saw a surge in investor interest in early 2025, dominated by AI-powered solutions. In Q1 alone, AI startups secured 25% of all European venture capital funding, with AI for drug discovery emerging as one of the leading segments.
Earlier this year, the UK government announced a £82.6 million investment into cancer research using AI, showing a dedication to harnessing the power of AI for cancer care and drug discovery. In June, the Nuffield Department of Medicine announced a new consortium, based in Oxfordshire, which will generate the world’s largest trove of data on how drugs interact with proteins for training AI models. 20 times larger than anything collected over the last 50 years, this collection will allegedly cut drug discovery costs by up to £100 billion.
Confidence in the potential of AI to solve healthcare’s greatest problems is growing, especially in areas like small-molecule drug and antibody design. With pressure to deliver faster, more targeted therapies, AI is becoming a central engine of biomedical innovation.
AI’s Transformative Role in Drug Discovery
AI is revolutionising how we discover new drugs by unlocking speed, scalability and novel insight. Traditionally, identifying new drug targets relies on a mix of intuition, laborious experimentation and trial-and-error. Pharmaceutical companies typically take 10 to 15 years to bring a single drug to market, which can cost up to $2 billion. Despite this effort, only about 10% of candidates entering the trial pipeline eventually succeed.
These are concerning statistics, but AI’s ability to sift through vast biological datasets and carry out predictive modelling could be the answer. AI can assist at virtually every stage of the small molecule drug discovery pipeline, including target identification and validation, hit discovery, lead optimisation, and preclinical assessment.
Reshaping structural biology with AI
The use of AI in structural biology has become crucial for modern drug discovery. AlphaFold, developed by DeepMind, represents one of the most groundbreaking achievements of AI. Its creators, Demis Hassabis and John Jumper, were awarded one half of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry “for protein structure prediction” in recognition of their work on AlphaFold.
Traditionally, tertiary protein structures have been determined through complex and time-consuming techniques such as X-ray crystallography. In contrast, AlphaFold enables the prediction of protein structures based on amino acid sequences, which are readily available in different databases. AlphaFold has been widely adopted by the scientific community and has become an indispensable tool in structural biology since its public release. It enables medicinal chemists and structural biologists to identify binding pockets, model ligand interactions, and perform in silico docking studies, even for proteins previously considered “undruggable” due to lack of structural data.
The recently released AlphaFold 3 model further advances the field by improving the prediction of protein-ligand interactions, including the binding of antibodies to target proteins. This enhanced capability is expected to significantly accelerate the design and optimisation of therapeutic antibodies, which now represent a critical class of biologic drugs.
AI for target identification and drug design
AI plays a pivotal role in both target identification and drug design. Enabling researchers to identify novel or previously overlooked drug targets, AI algorithms can mine genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic data to prioritise genes or proteins implicated in disease pathways. AI also accelerates the discovery of lead compounds by predicting molecular properties and optimising chemical structures.
One of the most promising recent examples of an AI-discovered drug is rentosertib, which is a small-molecule inhibitor of Traf2- and Nck-interacting kinase (TNIK). TNIK was identified as a potential therapeutic target for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) through AI-powered analysis of gene expression datasets profiling the tissue of patients with IPF. A separate AI platform then designed and optimised the small molecule drug. Remarkably, it took less than 30 months to progress from target discovery to the completion of Phase I clinical trials. In a recently conducted Phase 2a trial, preliminary results showed that rentosertib was well tolerated and led to significant improvements in patients’ conditions compared to the placebo group.
Unlocking the hidden potential of existing drugs through AI
AI can also help identify potential medical uses for existing drugs, and this approach can save time by reducing the need to optimise drug structures and address potential safety issues.
Baricitinib is a Janus kinase (JAK1/2) inhibitor originally developed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. During the COVID-19 outbreak, researchers used an AI-driven knowledge graph platform to explore existing drugs that could potentially be repurposed to combat SARS-CoV-2. Baricitinib was found to have both antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties which could be useful in treating COVID-19, and the FDA approved it for use in patients with severe COVID-19 soon after.
Intellectual Property: The Strategic Imperative
In the rapidly evolving field of AI-driven drug discovery, intellectual property is more important than ever to attract investment and protect your ideas. Securing patents not only protects novel molecules and AI platforms but also increases a company’s value and positions them as a leader in the competitive marketplace of drug discovery.
A 2024 patent landscape report recorded 1,087 global filings related to AI-enabled small-molecule discovery between 2002 and 2024. Recently, patent filings as well as pending applications in this area have surged, reflecting exciting technological progress.
However, unlike patenting new drugs in the traditional pharmaceutical industry, which could be relatively straight-forward, bringing AI into the mix could complicate things.
AI as the inventor
Despite the growing role of AI in research and development, both the European Patent Office (EPO) and UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) clearly stipulate that AI cannot be named as an inventor on a patent application. In the landmark DABUS cases, where Dr. Stephen Thaler attempted to name AI system, DABUS, as the sole inventor, both jurisdictions rejected the applications on the grounds that only a natural person can be legally named as an inventor. Although AI-generated inventions may still be patentable if a human (such as the deviser of an AI model) claims inventorship, AI itself cannot hold legal rights or be recognised as the originator of a patentable invention.
AI-generated inventions
Inventions such as drug molecules and antibodies designed and/or optimised by AI are patentable under UK and EPO law, provided that they meet the standard legal criteria of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. Furthermore, experimental data showing that the AI-designed drugs can achieve specific “technical effects”, such as enhanced efficacy, specificity or binding affinity, is key to securing the grant of a patent.
As with any invention, companies should file early to secure protection, as well as conduct thorough IP searches to avoid infringing on others’ rights. Monitoring existing patent filings in biomarkers and therapeutic targets also allows companies to focus their R&D efforts on drug candidates that can satisfy the patentability requirements of novelty and inventive step.
AI as the invention
In addition, it is advisable to consider obtaining patent protection for any novel AI system which identifies biological targets or designs molecules, not just the output.
Along the same line as algorithms and software, intellectual property law in the UK and Europe views AI models per se as of an abstract mathematical nature and therefore not patentable. However, an AI or machine learning invention may be patentable if it produces a technical effect that serves a technical purpose, either by its application to a field of technology or by being adapted to a specific technical implementation.
In this regard, under EPO practice, AI inventions applied to the specific field of drug discovery may be patentable, especially if such AI models solve clearly defined drug development problems (e.g. improving binding affinity or reducing toxicity). Patent protection may also be available for so-called core AI inventions relying on developments of the fundamental underlying AI techniques, rather than application of an AI model to a particular technical field such as drug discovery. The UK follows a broadly similar approach, with courts applying the Aerotel/Macrossan test, originally devised in the context of general computer-implemented inventions, to assess whether an AI invention is a patentable technical contribution.
Thus, while AI cannot be named as an inventor on a patent application, it can certainly be the subject of patent protection if it contributes to the technical character of an invention. Care must, however, be taken in drafting any patent application directed to such AI inventions.
Conclusion
As AI transforms how we discover and design new medicines, intellectual property becomes a critical pillar for translating technological breakthroughs into lasting competitive advantage.
Given the fast-moving nature of the field, a robust, multi-faceted IP approach is crucial. Other things to consider are leveraging trade secrets as well as patent protection and engaging in strategic licensing, open innovation and partnerships to help ease costs, allow broader access to vital data for AI training, and accelerate development. Most importantly, integrating a comprehensive IP strategy into your research and business activities from the outset will position your company to thrive in this dynamic landscape.
Over the past four weeks, we have been joined by students Mubarak Ahmed, Ejiro Williams and Mahfuz Ahmed in our London Office, the Shard, through our partnership with Career Ready.
Throughout their time at Mathys & Squire, they have shadowed multiple of our departments, learning from our fee earners, IP support, marketing and consulting, to gain a full understanding of the inner workings of our firm, and all the possible career paths available in IP. Alongside this, they were tasked with analysing real-life cases, presenting an invention of their own, creating a graduate brochure and much more, concluding today with a final presentation on what they have learnt about Mathys & Squire during their internship.
Mubarak Ahmed writes: “My time at Mathys & Squire has been incredibly eye-opening, insightful, and rewarding. Over the course of my experience, I’ve gained a deeper understanding for the world of IP and the vital role patent attorneys play in protecting innovations. From day one, I was welcomed in a supportive and friendly environment. I had the opportunity to work with professionals across various departments, shadowing associates, technical assistants and IPSS, every single one of them offering a unique perspective of the patent process. Beyond the technical learning, I appreciate the office culture at Mathys & Squire as its collaborative, approachable and genuinely invested in helping each other. I’m truly grateful to the team for their time, guidance and encouragement throughout my time here.”
Mahfuz Ahmed writes: “In Mathys & Squire I got to do many shadowing sessions with the teams within this company, for example learning about marketing, the records team, IPSS, and trade marks. I learned many valuable skills that I can take into other work environments which will help me significantly. Skills like close attention to detail, listening and taking in information quickly, and communicating more confidently with new people I meet.”
Ejiro Williams writes: “I really enjoyed my 4 weeks internship at Mathys & Squire. The staff were so friendly and always willing to help at any time. I developed many essential skills which I feel will be of good use such as: public speaking, collaborative working and close attention to detail. Thank you for having me! I would 100% recommend to future graduates who are currently studying a science or computing degree!”
Elijo Williams, Mubarak Ahmed and Mahfuz Ahmed in our London Office.
All our departments were thoroughly impressed with the work of all of the students, and we look forward to watching them prosper in their future careers.
Career ready is a UK-wide charity working to increase accessibility into professional workplaces for young people, giving them the chance to understand the opportunities available across different workplaces.
Read more about our CSR and D&I initiatives in the relevant links.
Mathys & Squire have published a report on the use of the Unitary Patent system in the field of IT & engineering, sharing the results of a survey on the patents granted to a selected number of applicants in 2023 and 2024 across six technical areas. The report was compiled by Partner Nicholas Fox and Associate Maxwell Haughey.
The Unitary Patent system came into effect on 1 June 2023. Prior to that date, whenever a European Patent was granted, the European Patent automatically became a bundle of national rights for each of the countries designated in the patent. Such national rights need to be maintained separately. In contrast, a Unitary Patent is a unitary right which provides patent protection across all the member states participating in the Unitary Patent system.
Previously, Mathys & Squire sampled a range of applicants in the healthcare sector and investigated their engagement with the Unitary Patent system (view our report here). The analysis revealed that, contrary to popular belief, there was no blanket approach by healthcare companies to engagement with the Unitary Patent system. Rather, widely diverging approaches between different applicants was observed, ranging from almost universal engagement to widespread avoidance.
On the other hand, concerns which may cause diverging approaches to the Unitary Patent system in the healthcare and life sciences field will be different to concerns which applicants in the field of IT & engineering will have.
Applicants in the IT and telecoms field
In contrast to the life sciences where relatively few, but highly valuable, patents are granted, the number of patents in the electronics fields is much larger. Applicants in the IT and telecoms fields consistently appear at the top of the European Patent Office’s list of most frequent filers. However, unlike the life sciences, where patents are normally validated and maintained in a large number of countries, most electronics patents are only ever maintained in the UK, Germany and France. This is more cost effective as due to the London Agreement, applicants do not need to translate their patent into a national language for the patent to have effect in those countries.
For such applicants, engaging with the Unitary Patent system involves a cost, as a full translation of the patent is required. When applicants are obtaining upwards of 1000 granted patents a year, the costs of such translations (typically around €5,000 per patent) will mount up.
Therefore, continuing with the existing approach of only validating patents in the UK, Germany and France, where protection can be obtained without incurring the translation fees, remains attractive.
Applicants in the engineering field
Compared with IT and telecoms, engineering is a half-way house. The volume of patents in the mechanical and engineering sectors is far lower than in the IT and telecoms fields. However, engineering patents are normally maintained more broadly than IT and telecoms patents – typically in around 4-6 jurisdictions (often the UK, Germany and France, and in addition 2-3 other major jurisdictions often selected from Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands). As such, engineering patents very much hit the sweet spot for using the Unitary Patent system. Where patents have traditionally been maintained more broadly, the Unitary Patent system potentially provides the means for patentees to obtain broad geographical coverage at a lower cost than was possible in the past.
In addition, although Unitary Patents are always subject to the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court, and as unitary rights they are always subject to the threat of central invalidation, relatively few IT and engineering patents are ever involved in litigation or are the subject of EPO oppositions compared with the life sciences. Opposition rates rarely exceed 3% and for many of these areas of technology opposition rates of less than 1% are common.
Therefore, the Unitary Patent system potentially provides many upsides for engineering applicants with relatively low levels of risk.
Our report on the Unitary Patent system
Whilst the above theorises their approach, the report reveals how applicants in the IT & engineering fields are engaging with the Unitary Patent system in reality. Mathys & Squire’s survey analyses the number of Unitary Patents granted in 2023 and 2024, across six technical areas: digital communication, semiconductors and microchips, civil engineering, transport, defence, and electrical machinery, apparatus and energy. A range of applicants in each area was also sampled to assess the activity of specific applicants.
In summary, the report shows that approaches to the Unitary Patent system vary significantly. However, in general, the percentages of Unitary Patents observed in all IT and engineering fields were lower than the four healthcare fields covered in our previous report, apart from civil engineering, which is perhaps contrary to expectation.
In addition, the percentage of granted IT & engineering Unitary Patents was higher in 2024 than 2023 across all technical fields, which is unsurprising as Unitary Patents were not available for the first five months of 2023. Although applicants had the option of delaying the grant of patents issued in the first half of 2023 until Unitary Patents became available, it seems that relatively few applicants took advantage of this.
Explore the full Use of the Unitary Patent System in IT & Engineering report to uncover changing trends, specific sector insights and the approach of top filers in the industry.
Partners Hazel Ford and Alexander Robinson have been featured in the Life Sciences IP Review (LSIPR) providing insights on the latest developments impacting the European Patent Office Boards of Appeal, following their discussion held at LSPN Spring North America 2025.
In their talk, they analyse the evolving legal landscape in the life sciences sector in light of recent decisions prompted by the Unified Patent Court, offering a valuable perspective on how these changes may affect patent strategies across Europe.
To watch the full video click here.
How can you keep track of innovations made by your competitors? Do you even know who all your competitors are? Monitoring patenting activity can help, but there are limitations. Surprises can still happen, sometimes from unexpected quarters.
June 2025. Another week, another news article with a colourful photograph of a rocket exploding. But as news feeds were focussed on the latest ‘Starship’ blow-up as SpaceX doubled down on its fail fast, learn fast methodology, the attention of much of the space industry was elsewhere. To northern Japan, where a day earlier a prototype rocket had risen some 300m into the air and, a minute later, redeployed its landing gear and landed flawlessly a short distance away. The technology was undoubtedly impressive, but the most newsworthy aspect was the identity of the company behind it.
Since the first commercial launch system was offered by Arianespace in the 1980s, arguably the greatest advances have come from SpaceX, who first demonstrated the result of a decade of development by launching a reusable rocket in 2015. Since then, SpaceX has become by far the dominant player with currently over 100 orbital launches a year. It has also inspired numerous start-ups. But the new rocket was not from any of those. The unexpected new entrant in the reusable rocket space was the venerable Japanese car manufacturer: Honda¹.
What was ostensibly a car company doing launching a reusable rocket? And could anyone have seen this coming?
The monitoring of patents – and in particular the filing of new patent applications – is often presented as a key tool for competitor intelligence. What areas are your competitors working on? What new innovations have there been in your field? Have there been any new entrants? Patents are by design a good source of technical information; to secure a patent monopoly requires full disclosure of the workings of the invention, which nowadays is readily available on free public databases.
However, patent monitoring is an imperfect tool. The language can be obscure, a dense mix of technical and legalese, sometimes deliberately so. Subject classifications are not always appropriate. The ultimate corporate owners can be difficult to determine. And patent applications typically only publish 18 months after the initial filing, so any such monitoring is inevitably somewhat behind the curve.
Another reason to be wary is that the incentives to file patent applications differ; what works for start-ups is not always appropriate for more established companies. The former tend to file early in the innovation process to indicate commercial potential, secure investment, and to protect their key innovation ahead of any public demonstration. We can see this with the large number of reusable rocket start-ups with a handful of patent filings, perhaps some successful ground-based test firings, but as yet no successful launches. Large companies (or those with more secure funding) tend to have a broader technological base and no need to engage in such market signalling.
Leaving aside ideological reasoning (Elon Musk once famously quipped that patents are “for the weak” and claimed SpaceX was a patent-free company; a position since evidently revised), for some companies, the very requirement to disclose in full details of the invention is seen as a drawback, allowing competitors an unwanted innovation leg-up. Instead, development is undertaken largely in secret, with intellectual property being protected through corporate culture – or in case that fails, formally buttressed via strict non-disclosure employment contracts and the potential for litigation.
Honda seems to be adopting this secrecy approach, at least initially. Since first declaring an interest in developing space technologies in 2019, they have kept a low profile. Footage of an earlier rocket test firing was only shown in grainy black-and-white, possibly to avoid disclosing details of the propellant.
They evidently take patents seriously, however. Established in the 1940s, Honda is one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the world, with vast experience in combustion technology, fluid handling, etc., and a large R&D department with a reported willingness to allow young engineers opportunities to work on projects of their own. For the past two decades, Honda has filed over 1,000 patent applications a year.
Honda also has prior form in diversifying into other technology areas, whether done primarily as a proof-of-concept and public-relations exercise (as with the ASIMO humanoid robot programme, since discontinued) or commercially. Honda has, for example, a successful side line in business jets and a small portfolio of aviation-related patents.
That said, Honda seems unlikely to be aiming to compete with SpaceX as a commercial launch provider. Rather, this may be a case of vertical integration, a company looking to support its core business by moving into adjacent technologies. Honda may in time provide its own satellite links for ‘connected vehicles’, avoiding over-reliance on the present dominant supplier (Starlink again).
Whatever the reason, Honda could well become a major force in the intellectual property of space, following similar industrial giants such as Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Hyundai, all of which have been building space-related patent portfolios.
So if your company is warily eyeing existing competitors and wondering where the next threat might come from, how can you anticipate competition arising from established companies crossing over from other sectors?
- Be aware that innovation and competition not only come from smaller companies and startups. Not all large companies are dinosaurs.
- Appreciate that patent monitoring is important but also imperfect and so must be part of a wider analysis.
- Take public pronouncements seriously. Whereas start-ups seek to make headlines, larger
companies may be indicating a deliberate strategy. - Identify companies with the means, motive, and opportunity to vertically integrate or diversify.
- Note when unexpected new entrants move into your technology area and consider whether there are similar companies which might do likewise.
You may also wish to consult with your patent attorney. Despite the drawbacks with patent monitoring, there are sometimes faint signals which a patent attorney might identify. A couple of years ago, a Honda patent application was published with the intriguing title “Landing gear for flight vehicle”. There was no mention in the patent specification of space or the launching of rockets. But a remarkably similar landing gear was seen deployed a few weeks ago in northern Japan.
¹ https://global.honda/en/topics/2025/c_2025-06-17ceng.html
The highly anticipated trial between Getty Images and Stability AI concluded on June 30, 2025. The case has gained national attention, as it represents a pivotal moment for the future of AI and copyright law in the UK.
On 16 January 2023, Getty Images brought proceedings against Stability AI, alleging that the AI company infringed Getty’s copyright by using millions of Getty’s images to train its generative AI model, Stable Diffusion, and that the outputs produced by the model reproduce substantial parts of these works.
The trial, which began on 9 June 2025, has attracted attention from both the technology and legal sectors, as it raises fundamental questions about how existing intellectual property laws should apply in view of modern generative AI systems.
In this article, Technical Assistant Egheosa Ogbomo and Partner Andrew White analyse the proceedings to date and the potential implications of any future developments.
Who are Stability AI and what is Stable Diffusion?
Stability AI is a UK-based artificial intelligence company which develops the family of Stable Diffusion AI models, open-source image generation tools capable of creating or altering images based on text or image prompts. Stability AI trained the original Stable Diffusion model on a subset of a dataset containing billions of images scraped from the internet.
Claims made by Getty
Copyright infringement claims
Getty alleges that Stability AI committed primary copyright infringement by reproducing substantial parts of millions of its images during Stable Diffusion’s training. This involved downloading, storing and augmenting them. They further claim infringement by making Stable Diffusion publicly available in the UK via Dream Studio and other open-source platforms, thus communicating significant parts of Getty’s works.
Getty alleges secondary infringement by authorising users to reproduce or communicate its works when outputs closely resemble Getty images. Secondary infringement due to the distribution of the trained model (an alleged infringing article) in the UK is another claim.
Trade mark infringement and passing off
In addition, Getty claims infringement of its trade marks, asserting that Stability AI used Getty’s marks without consent when generated outputs include Getty watermarks, causing confusion and exploitation of its reputation. They also allege passing off, arguing that generated images containing Getty logos misrepresent them as Getty-owned or licensed, implying endorsement.
Defences brought by Stability AI
Copyright infringement
Stability AI argues that any copying during data sourcing and training occurred entirely outside the UK, as they stored the datasets abroad. According to them, no infringing work was done in the UK. They claim output-stage infringements are the fault of users, since users control the input prompts and, in the case of image-prompts, the degree of input transformation.
Furthermore, they argue that any reproduced portions of Getty’s works are so minimal that they do not constitute a substantial part of copyrighted works and maintain that Stable Diffusion is not an infringing article. They may also rely on the pastiche defence, asserting that the extent of use of Getty’s work was necessary for pastiche, stating that this use does not affect the market for any originals.
Trade mark infringement and passing off
Stability AI claims that outputs containing Getty trade marks were only created through deliberate efforts by Getty’s legal team and do not reflect its normal commercial use. Furthermore, Stability AI denies any likelihood of confusion or unfair advantage. For passing off, it argues any misrepresentation arises from user actions and that outputs are not sufficiently similar to Getty’s works to mislead the public.
Key case developments so far
Since the trial began, Getty Images have dropped their claims for primary copyright infringement, citing a lack of evidence and knowledgeable witnesses to support the allegations. They also dropped their claims over the model’s training and development, maintaining that infringing acts occurred but that there were no witnesses from Stability AI who could provide clear and comprehensive evidence about the entire training process.
For the claims concerning AI-generated outputs, Getty stated that Stability AI has implemented measures preventing the reproduction of infringing outputs. Getty has been unable to establish that any outputs produced by the models reflect a substantial part of its protected images.
This illustrates the difficulty in proving exactly where the training of an ML model takes place for the purposes of determining infringement, as well as demonstrating that AI-generated images reproduce a ‘substantial part’ of protected original works. While this has narrowed the scope of the dispute, Getty’s claims of secondary infringement and trade mark misuse remain in contention.
What are the implications for IP law?
There remains significant uncertainty over the balance of power between AI developers and content creators on copyright licensing. A win for Stability AI in these proceedings could reduce the incentive for AI developers to seek licences in the UK and may lead some to continue developing models without securing permissions, or to do so outside of the UK. This has prompted questions about whether legislative reforms are needed to address potential gaps in protection. However, extending UK copyright law to cover acts abroad could create conflicts with foreign regimes such as US fair use, risking the UK’s attractiveness for AI research and model development.
There has already been a significant increase in the number of AI-related patent applications globally, with the European Patent Office observing a 45-fold increase in the annual number of AI-related European patent filings since 2015. How UK courts interpret copyright law for AI training and outputs could influence the approach to patent applications for AI-related inventions in the UK. Uncertainty over data use rights may consequently affect the development, disclosure and protection strategies for new AI technologies. Companies already face rising costs of data collection, particularly as new technologies such as Cloudflare’s tool will allow website owners to charge fees for access by web-scraping tools.
A final judgement on the remaining claims is likely to be handed down in the next few months. This will set an eagerly awaited precedent for how UK infringement laws should be interpreted in the age of AI, and large-scale text and data mining.
If you have any questions as to how the outcome of these proceedings may impact your IP strategy, please reach out to your usual contact at Mathys & Squire, or get in touch through a general enquiry and we would be happy to help.
Mathys & Squire Partner Michael Stott was recently featured in ‘EPO appeal board establishes ‘on-sale bar’ with big implications for patent owners’ by IAM Magazine. He provided commentary on the ruling on G1/23, issued by the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal on the 2nd of July.
The ruling concerns the interpretation of prior art, determining in particular when a complex product put on the market should be considered part of the state of art and the extent of “reproducibility” which entails prior art status. Previously following a narrow definition of the “reproducibility requirement” established in the EBA’s G1/92 ruling, the EBA lays down in G1/23 that “a product put on the market before the date of filing of a European patent cannot be excluded from the state of the art […] for the sole reason that its composition or internal structure could not be analysed or reproduced by the skilled person.”
The article in IAM highlights how this new decision will have significant ramifications for the patentability of products across a wide range of technological fields, affecting how innovators approach their IP strategy, including when to file patent applications and the use of trade secrets.
To read the full article click here.
We are delighted to be ranked as a leading European patent law firm by the Financial Times (FT) in their 2025 report.
The Financial Times Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms list identifies the most recommended firms in Europe for services related to patent prosecution and strategic advice, and is compiled by the FT’s research partner Statista.
As well as featuring as a leading patent firm, we have also been recognised in five specialist areas of industrial expertise this year: ‘Biotechnology, Food & Healthcare‘, ‘Chemistry & Pharmacy‘, ‘Electrical Engineering & Physics’, ‘IT & Software‘, and ‘Mechanical Engineering.’
We are greatly appreciative of all of our clients and contacts who have taken the time to recommended our firm as part of the FT’s research.
To access the full report and rankings tables, please visit the FT website here.
The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has published a new guidance following the pivotal ruling in SkyKick UK Ltd and another v Sky Ltd and others (SkyKick). The updated Practice Amendment Notice 1/25 refines the examination practices at the IPO and outlines the implications of the judgement for new applicants when filing specifications of goods and services. Such changes are to come into effect immediately.
Background
Section 3(6) of the UK Trade Mark Act 1994 prohibits registration of a trade mark “if or to the extent that the application is made in bad faith.” What constitutes ‘bad faith’ is not legislatively defined, however, has been interpreted by the courts. Most notable is the recent Supreme Court Judgement in SkyKick following a long-running dispute between the parties. While the court confirmed a finding of infringement of Sky’s trade marks by SkyKick, it was found that Sky’s registrations contained excessively broad specifications across a range of goods and services for which there were no genuine intention to use the mark, and therefore, partially invalid on bad faith grounds.
Under the new guidance, examiners will now actively consider whether a specification is “so manifestly and self-evidently broad that a bad faith objection should be raised.” It follows that that certain applications claiming all 45 classes or all goods/services in those classes for example, will now automatically trigger an objection.
Looking Ahead
As a general rule, applicants should ensure that their specifications include goods and services which represent “fair and reasonable claims in the context of their business.” Going forward, applicants should exercise caution when filing a vast number of goods and services across a broad range of classes, or when using broad terms such as clothing, software, entertainment etc. That said, a pragmatic balance needs to be struck to not file too narrowly to restrict opportunities for business expansion.
Should an objection be raised by an examiner, applicants must be prepared to explain the commercial rationale behind the goods/services concerned. Paragraph 15 of the PAN 1/25 provides a 2-month period for a response. If the examiner refuses to waive the objection, applicants will still have the opportunity to be heard and to appeal. If the applicant genuinely is going to offer all goods/services applied for and can provide a justifiable commercial rationale and reasoning, we would expect the objection to be overcome.
Finally, opponents and cancellation applicants are also encouraged to be mindful of the changes above. as relying on broad specifications may lead to counterclaims from the other side on bad faith grounds. This has already been happening since the SkyKick judgement though in practice, but it is worth a reminder that this is possible as part of the proceedings before the UKIPO.
Mathys Comment
This is not an unexpected development by the UKIPO, but it will cause challenges for applicants who are used to filing with broad specifications (both in terms of classes and goods within the same class). Whilst the UKIPO does have an effective online tool to assist with drafting specifications, given the drafting of such defines your protection (and scope to challenge moving forwards) we would certainly recommend seeking advice from one of the Mathys trade mark team to ensure a) your specification covers you now (and moving forwards) and b) will ideally not trigger an objection.
