Contact
Contact

Harry Rowe’s commentary on the risk of European trade mark registrations being revoked after 31 December 2025, and how to prevent this, has been featured in an article by the CityAM and Law360.

Read the original article below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How we can assist

Portfolio Review:

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

New Trade Mark Applications:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended individuals

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

Life Sciences & Chemistry team

IT & Engineering team

You can see our ranking on the IAM website here.

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

Read the article below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is quantum computing?

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

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

Read the extended press release below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commercial applications continue to drive growth in drone innovation

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

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

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

To read the full article click here.

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

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

The value of trade marks for music artists

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

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

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

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

Best practices for artist-brand collaborations

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

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

The content of effective licensing agreements

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

The risk of confusion and misrepresentation

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

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

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

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

What’s next: Fortnite and future fashion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can learn more about the event here.

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the trailer for our new podcast here.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel through this link here.

When we think of music, we think of melodies, lyrics, rhythms, and genres that define eras and shape culture. From Britpop and Post-Punk to Drum and Bass and Grime, musical expression has continually evolved over previous centuries. But behind the sound lies a parallel story of innovation: the development of the tools and technologies that shape how music comes to life and reaches its audience.

The crescendo of musical patents

From synthesizers to streaming platforms, technological breakthroughs have revolutionised the music landscape. At the heart of this transformation is intellectual property, as patents protect the innovations that drive the music industry forward. What began with relatively simple mechanical inventions has grown into a diverse and rapidly expanding field, reflecting the pace of technological progress in how music is composed, performed, recorded, shared and experienced.

In this article, Associate Clare Pratt highlights a selection of intriguing and pioneering music patents which illustrate the breadth of innovation within the industry.

Instrumental Inventions

In the 19th century, as renowned composers penned melodies still celebrated today, inventors were crafting the instruments that would become fundamental to creating music. Among them was Belgian instrument maker Adolphe Sax. In 1846, he patented a woodwind instrument with a tapered barrel that combined the projection of brass with the agility of woodwinds. He called it the saxophone.

A few decades later, Thomas Edison created the first device capable of recording and reproducing sound, named the phonograph. This enabled music to move from live performance into private spaces, to be enjoyed wherever and whenever. The American inventor patented the phonograph in 1878. Seeking improvements to the phonograph and the graphophone, which Chichester A. Bell and Charles S. Tainter developed, Emile Berliner introduced the flat disc format. In 1887, he patented the gramophone which offered a more practical alternative.

Technological breakthroughs continued into the 20th century. A key moment came in 1932 with the granting of U.S. Patent No. 1,885,001 to H.F. Olson for an “apparatus for converting sound vibrations into electric variations.” This patent marked a pivotal step in the development of the modern microphone.

Together in Electric Dreams

Although experiments with electrically powered instruments date back to the 18th century, it was the widespread adoption of electronics in the late 1900s that truly redefined music. Innovations such as electric guitars and synthesizers fuelled the emergence of entirely new genres, such as rock, disco, and techno, while amplified sound systems allowed musicians to perform in front of huge crowds.

One of the earliest and most influential patents came in 1937, when George Beauchamp secured protection for an “electrical stringed musical instrument”, the first commercially marketed electric guitar. This paved the way for the modern electric guitar. Another pioneer in electric guitars was Ted McCarty, who, as president of Gibson, played a pivotal role in advancing electric guitar design. He oversaw the development of Gibson’s first solid-body models and patented innovations like the “Tune-O-Matic” bridge in 1956, which became a standard feature on Gibson models, and one of his unique guitar designs in 1958.

In addition, some of the most creative contributions to music technology have come from artists themselves. Guitar legend Eddie Van Halen received a patent in 1987 for a body-mounted support that allowed him to play his guitar face-up, “to create new techniques and sounds previously unknown to any player.” Similarly, Michael Jackson left his mark not only on pop music but on stagecraft. In 1993, the US Patent and Trademark Office awarded him patent for a shoe with a heel mechanism that latched onto stage pegs. The invention allowed him to lean ‘impossibly’ far forward in his iconic Smooth Criminal move, aptly titled the “Method and means for creating anti-gravity illusion.”

The Digital Turn of the Century

The late 20th and early 21st centuries ushered in a further wave of digital innovations that reshaped how music is made and experienced.

One of the most transformative (and controversial) developments was Auto-Tune. Created by geophysical engineer Andy Hildebrand, Auto-Tune applied techniques used in seismic data analysis to audio processing, enabling automatic pitch correction in real-time vocal and instrumental performances. Hildebrand’s software is protected by U.S. Patents No. 5,727,074 (“Method and apparatus for digital filtering of audio signals”, issued in 1998) and No. 5,973,252 (“Pitch detection and intonation correction apparatus and method,” issued in 1999). While initially conceived as a subtle corrective tool, Auto-Tune became a defining effect in its own right, famously debuting in Cher’s 1998 hit Believe and later revolutionising pop, hip-hop and beyond.

Transforming how we identify music, Shazam, an audio-processor app, was developed in the early 2000s. The app can recognise songs within seconds, even in noisy environments, by comparing audio fingerprints, based on time-frequency peaks, against a vast database. Developer Avery Li-Chun Wang secured patents for the underlying technology, including a “system and methods for recognising sound and music signals in high noise and distortion” and a “method and system for content sampling and identification.”

The Future of Patents in Music

Looking ahead, the intersection of music and technology shows no signs of slowing. Emerging trends are already shaping the next frontier of musical innovation—and intellectual property will continue to play a central role in protecting and enabling this progress.

As music continues to evolve alongside technology, patents will remain crucial in protecting and encouraging the creative ingenuity that pushes the industry forward. From the early inventions of the 19th century to the digital breakthroughs of the 21st, each innovation has reshaped how we create, share, and experience music. With the rapid rise of AI, blockchain, and immersive technologies, the next era of music promises even more exciting opportunities, as well as presenting significant challenges for inventors, artists and intellectual property law.

Last week, on the 24th April, we hosted an incredible event at our London office in the Shard, a celebration marrying World IP Day, which took place on the 26th April, with our 115-year anniversary.

IP and Music: Feel the Beat of IP

As a firm committed to encouraging and protecting the expression of people’s ideas, we embraced this year’s theme for the 2025 World Intellectual Property Day campaign for our event: “IP and Music: Feel the Beat of IP.” Intellectual property underpins the very core of creativity, allowing ideas to blossom and people’s success to be sufficiently acknowledged – and music is an industry governed by creativity.

Patents are filed for innovative music tech, such as musical instruments or algorithms for generating or modifying music. Trademark registration protects branding, as applied for example to album covers or merchandise, to distinguish one artist from another. And, of course, music itself is an intellectual property asset, gaining copyright and allied rights once it is recorded in some material form.

To explore how intellectual property shapes, protects, and even inspires creative expression in music, we ran a panel discussion, led by Senior Partner Paul Cozens, where our panellists shared their fascinating experience and knowledge.

We heard from: Drew Ellis, Grammy-nominated graphic designer and photographer who created some of the most iconic album covers of all time; Dr Mark Gotham, whose work spans musical composition and computer science; Prof Simon Godsill, who is professor of Statistical Signal Processing in the Engineering Department at Cambridge University; and James St. Ville KC, who is a barrister with a significant music background. 

We also invited two of our own attorneys to the panel, Emma Pallister, Chartered trademark attorney, and Dani Kramer, UK & European patent attorney and UK design attorney.

AI: for good or for evil?

Although music has been a universal language since before the 1st century AD (the earliest fragment of musical notation was found on a 4,000-year-old Sumerian clay tablet), the industry is always undergoing change. The last 100 years has seen the most significant transformation with the conception of pop music and the use of electronics. Now the rise of AI begs the difficult questions: what determines music individuality? What makes music, or anything, human? And can intellectual property law balance protection and creative freedom?

At Mathys & Squire, we have many attorneys who specialise in AI and the complex range of implications for managing intellectual property which arise as a result. These span from the extent to which inventors can protect their AI-related inventions to how creations can be protected from unsolicited use by AI or for AI training. Our panellists discussed the broad implications of AI for the music industry and how they can be approached by intellectual property law.

“Good artists copy, great artists steal”

Although this was once said by Picasso, he may have thought differently had he known about AI. AI has transformed the traditional methods of obtaining information. Machine learning models mine information by web scraping huge quantities of data, which trains them to satisfy almost any request. But such capabilities present elaborate legal challenges, as information from human creators is often used without permission.

For example, AI can produce a piece of music almost instantaneously, drawing on sources of existing music to meet user prompts. Last year in the US, Universal Music Group, Sony Music and Warner Records sued an AI model called Suno which creates music described as “original” by the platform. These record companies claimed that the model re-created elements from recordings which they owned, infringing their copyright.

Infringement or inspiration?

A musical composition is an intricate tapestry of external influences. As Dr Mark Gotham illustrated during the panel discussion with his piano rendition of Pachelbel’s Canon (from the 1600s) and Oasis’ ‘Don’t Look Back in Anger’ (which builds on the same chord progression like many other recent pop songs), music composition often uses well-known phrases. Therefore, evaluating whether one composition infringes the copyright in another is complicated by the fact that they may both contain references to even earlier works.

But does the popular proverb “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” still stand when it comes to AI-generated music? According to Damon Albarn, Annie Lennox, Kate Bush and a host of other artists, it does not. These musicians, among others, released an album on 25th February titled “Is this what we want” in protest at a proposed change in UK copyright law relating to AI. A similar sentiment was seen in the House of Lords, when the Peers voted for amendments to the UK Government’s Data (Use and Access) Bill, which were suggested by film director and peer, Baroness Beeban Tania Kidron. The amendments were proposed with the aim of protecting the intellectual property of creatives, ensuring that they are made aware how and when their work is used.

If AI-generated music is indeed an original work, another question follows: who owns it? But this is also a contentious topic, as the list of possible authors is long: the designer of the AI model, the individuals in charge of training the model, the individuals whose work is used to train the model or the individual who inputs prompts into the machine. Furthermore, musical creations consist of many different elements, including the lyrics, the melody and the beat. Licensing arrangements for music are already multi-faceted and, when AI is thrown into the mix, it becomes even more complicated. Copyright law cannot accommodate something which has no clear owner.

The patentability of AI

In addition, AI raises questions about the criteria for patent filing. For an invention to be patentable in the UK, it must: be novel, display an inventive step (i.e. not be obvious to a person skilled in the field), have an industrial application, and solve a technical problem. Pure mathematical method (and hence, sometimes “pure AI”) inventions are not patentable because they lack technical character, and merely specifying the technical nature of the parameters may not be sufficient on its own to remedy this. For an AI invention to be patentable it must have either a technical application or a technical implementation.

In practice, this means that unless the invention is a specific technical implementation of a machine learning algorithm that is particularly adapted to consider the internal functioning of a computer system or network it may be very hard to patent in this space. An argument that the provision of better music is a technical application would be unlikely to be met with success.

A new creative force

Paul Cozens ended the insightful panel discussion with a deciding question. Ultimately, all the panellists agreed that AI can be harnessed as a creative force rather than destroying creativity as whole. However, this is only possible if IP systems develop fast enough to accommodate all the issues which come with it.

In December of last year, the government published a consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence. The consultation presented a framework which would prioritise transparency, requiring AI developers to disclose the material used for training, and allow creators to reserve the rights of their work, opting out from use for data mining.

Just last week, a collective license was put forward by The Copyright Licensing Agency which would enable authors to receive remuneration when their content is used to train AI. The CLA portrayed this as a more viable alternative to the government’s current proposals.

We can stay hopeful that the government is able to develop a legal system which rewards rights holders and gives them control over their work, whilst also supporting the development of AI models by allowing access to high-quality data.

115 years of protecting creativity

World IP Day was also the perfect opportunity to celebrate our firm having been at the forefront of intellectual property law for 115 years. The event showcased our dedication as a firm to align our deep expertise with the cutting-edge of technology, as well as foster a culture of creativity and innovation.

Albert William Mathys founded Mathys & Co. in 1910 with a vision to protect the influx of revolutionary inventions in science, engineering and manufacturing at the start of the second Industrial Revolution. Our firm began in a small office in Chancery Lane, and has flourished into a global IP powerhouse, with hubs across Europe, China and Japan, adapting to every complex change in the legal landscape as we grew. 

From protecting internal combustion engines in the early twentieth century to working with AI and life-changing biotech in the present day, we are proud to have 115 years behind us of combining technical knowledge with entrepreneurial spirit and a commitment to immaculate client service, and many more to come.

Below is a recording of the panel discussion for a deeper insight into the fascinating intersection between music and intellectual property.