Latest News, Events & IP Insights

Innovation on Court: Intellectual Property in Modern Tennis

Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:00:00 Z

World Intellectual Property Day 2026 highlights the role of intellectual property in sport. With this year’s Wimbledon Championships just a couple of months away, tennis provides a timely and familiar example of how IP operates behind the scenes. Although governed by detailed technical regulations, tennis continues to innovate across equipment, apparel, courts and officiating technology. This innovation is supported by well‑structured IP portfolios combining patents, design rights, trade marks and licensing arrangements.

Modern racket design has come a long way since the likes of John McEnroe and Björn Borg were playing on centre court. It remains an active area of technical development, typically focused on frame geometry, aerodynamics, vibration control and energy transfer, with these advances protected primarily by patents.

Manufacturers continue to refine racket designs to optimise swing speed, control and comfort, while remaining within the rules of the game. These inventions are commonly protected through international and European patent filings, reflecting the global nature of the tennis equipment market. Patents are often supported by registered design rights covering the visual appearance of racket frames and grips, while trade marks protect model names and branding.

Tennis balls are subject to strict International Tennis Federation requirements governing size, weight and how bouncy they are. At first glance, this high level of standardisation appears to limit innovation. In practice, manufacturers continue to invest in development, particularly in durability and sustainability.

Recent advances have focused on extending ball lifespan and improving manufacturing efficiency, while maintaining performance characteristics suitable for competitive play. Environmental considerations are also becoming increasingly important, given the large volume of balls used worldwide each year.

Footwear and performance apparel represent some of the most IP‑intensive products in tennis. Protection is typically achieved through a layered combination of patents, registered designs and trade marks.

Patents protect functional features such as sole structures and cushioning systems designed to enhance performance and reduce injury risk. Registered design rights protect distinctive shapes, patterns and surface features, helping brands differentiate products in a competitive consumer market. Trade marks reinforce brand recognition and frequently extend to player‑specific product lines.

There has been significant innovation to prevent dodgy or dishonest line-calls in professional matches.

Hawk-eye technology is used for highly accurate electronic line-calling to support or even replace match officials on court. The system uses patented ball-tracking technology and high-speed cameras to calculate the ball’s trajectory and determine precisely where it lands relative to the court lines.

Net tension plays a critical role in competitive fairness, especially on serve. Inconsistent tension across courts can affect play and officiating decisions. As a result, systems have been developed to objectively measure net tension and detect service lets, improving consistency and reducing uncertainty during matches.

Wimbledon owns extensive trade mark registrations covering its name, its crossed‑rackets logo and its distinctive green and purple colour scheme. These rights are actively enforced to prevent unauthorised use by third parties and to preserve the tournament’s premium brand positioning.

These trade marks underpin a carefully controlled licensing model supporting long‑standing partnerships with official suppliers, luxury brands and technology providers. Revenue generated through these relationships is reinvested into the tournament and the wider development of British tennis.

Elite players increasingly operate as licensable brands, monetising image rights alongside on‑court performance.

Carlos Alcaraz exemplifies a performance‑led commercial model. His endorsement portfolio combines sporting equipment partnerships with Nike and Babolat alongside luxury brands. Success at Wimbledon plays a significant role in enhancing the value of these relationships, given the tournament’s global visibility and prestige.

Emma Raducanu demonstrates how strong personal brand positioning can sustain commercial value beyond immediate match results. Alongside equipment and apparel deals, she maintains lucrative partnerships with luxury brands such as Dior and Tiffany & Co,.

In modern tennis, innovation does not sit in opposition to tradition, it underpins it. From the engineering of rackets and the refinement of tennis balls to advances in officiating technology and the commercialisation of player identities, intellectual property provides the legal and commercial framework that enables progress while preserving the integrity of the game.

As demonstrated across equipment, apparel, tournament branding and athlete endorsements, IP rights do more than protect individual inventions or logos. They create ecosystems in which investment, creativity and competition can thrive on a global scale. For tournaments such as Wimbledon, they safeguard heritage and reputation; for manufacturers, they incentivise continuous technical development; and for players, they unlock new avenues of commercial opportunity.

World Intellectual Property Day 2026 offers a timely reminder that the spectacle seen on court is supported by a sophisticated and often unseen network of rights and innovation. As tennis continues to evolve, intellectual property will remain central, not only in shaping how the game is played, but in defining how it is experienced, consumed and sustained for future generations.

Embracing Innovation: Bristol as a Hub for Aerospace Engineering and Deep Tech

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 10:30:00 Z

Introduction

Wynne-Jones IP continues to expand its footprint in Bristol, strengthening our presence across the South West. Our office in Temple Meads puts us close to the businesses and institutions shaping one of the UK’s fastest-growing technology and creative economies.

We work with innovators, founders, and research teams, who each require tailored and effective intellectual property strategies. Our focus is simple: protect what matters, reduce risk, and enable growth.

Bristol has a proven track record in aerospace engineering and Deep Tech. It combines heritage with momentum. The result is a city built for innovation.

Bristol’s Aerospace Engineering Strength

Bristol is a recognised centre for aerospace. Global leaders operate here alongside ambitious startups and scale-ups. Together, they are advancing sustainable aviation, unmanned systems, and next-generation materials.

This is not theoretical innovation. It is applied, commercial, and fast-moving. Businesses here are solving real engineering challenges and bringing new technologies to market.

What Drives Growth

Bristol’s position is not accidental. It is built on three core strengths:

· Specialist talent The city draws on a deep pool of engineering, technical, and design expertise. Leading universities supply skilled graduates and research capability aligned to industry needs.

· Connected ecosystem Startups, corporates, and academic institutions work side by side. Incubators and innovation centres create structured pathways from concept to commercialisation.

· Sustained R&D investment Funding continues to flow into advanced materials, automation, AI, and clean technologies. This aligns with national priorities, including the transition to net zero.

Deep Tech in Practice

Bristol’s innovation extends well beyond aerospace. It is a leading Deep Tech cluster, where advanced technologies are applied to complex, high-value problems.

This includes artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and data-driven engineering. New infrastructure and facilities are accelerating this progress, giving businesses access to specialist labs, equipment, and scale-up support.

The emphasis is practical. Innovation here is designed to perform in the real world.

Bristol’s Deep Tech community is bolstered by its well-established digital cluster, as well as major new facilities, including the University of Bristol’s new £500 million Temple Quarter Enterprise Campus, which will home the Bristol Innovations Zone (BIZ), providing flexible co-working and event spaces, specialist labs, state-of-the-art equipment, skills training, support services and events, as well as OMX, a new 30,000 sq ft laboratory and scale-up facility.

From Innovation to Impact

The strength of Bristol’s ecosystem lies in execution. Companies are not just developing technology. They are deploying it across sectors such as energy, transport, healthcare, and advanced manufacturing.

This focus on application drives efficiency, sustainability, and commercial value. It also increases the importance of getting IP strategy right from the outset.

Navigating IP Complexity

Innovation at this level creates IP challenges. Technologies evolve quickly. Collaboration is common. Markets are global.

Without the right strategy, valuable IP can be exposed, diluted, or lost.

We work behind the scenes to prevent that. Our role is to give you control, clarity, and protection at every stage of development.

Key IP Considerations

· Patent strategy We provide tailored patent filing strategies that reflect your technology, timelines, and commercial goals. Protection is targeted, not generic.

· Trade secrets Not every innovation should be patented. We help you decide when confidentiality delivers stronger, more flexible protection.

· Collaboration agreements Joint development creates shared risk. We structure agreements that define ownership, rights, and responsibilities from the start.

· International protection Innovation rarely stays within one market. We guide you through multi-jurisdictional IP, ensuring consistency and compliance.

Conclusion

Bristol is entering a new phase of growth in aerospace and Deep Tech. The opportunity is significant. So is the risk.

Wynne-Jones IP is positioned to manage both. We protect your intellectual property with precision and discretion, so you can move faster with confidence.

If you are building, scaling, or investing in innovation, we are ready to support you, quietly, effectively, and with your commercial outcome in focus.

Claim Interpretation at the European Patent Office- Whats happened since EPO decision G1/24?

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 12:00:00 Z

Keywords: patents, European Patent Office (EPO), description, claims, Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA), G1/24, claim interpretation

Headline

Last year, the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) completely overturned the general approach that the EPO had taken for decades in interpreting patent claims. Instead of insisting that the claims must be inherently clear and interpreted without reference to the description, in decision G1/24 the EBA decided that the description and drawings must always be ‘consulted’ to interpret the claims- and certainly when assessing patentability. This constituted a minor earthquake for European patent professionals since it was such a fundamental change. But how does it change the drafting and prosecution of European patent applications on a day-to-day basis? As is usually the case, the seminal decision sets out the new legal landscape, but it is for subsequent decisions to help provide the roadmap. In this article, we review the landmark decision G1/24 and also discuss some of the subsequent decisions of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal relevant to G1/24. We also try to pick the bones out of all of this and provide some practical advice, although it is clear it will be some time before a truly settled position is reached.

Background

There have been many schools of thought about how claims of an EP patent application should be interpreted and how far applicants must go in amending the description.

Indeed, the two burning questions are:

1) Should the claims should be interpreted for assessing patentability by reference to the description, or are there are only specific scenarios in which the to do so?

2) Should the description always be amended to align with the scope of the claims?

The recent decision, G1/24 deals with these questions, but whether this decision provides clarity or further confusion, is itself up for debate. In fact, the second question has now triggered a separate referral - G1/25 (see our article linked here on this matter).

What is G1/24 all about?

The initial referral was from case T 0439/22, where the opposed patent in question related to a heated aerosol-generating material for use with an electrically operated aerosol-generating device. Claim 1 specified that the material is a “gathered sheet”.

Opponent’s argument: if "gathered sheet" was interpreted in light of the description, it would have a broader meaning, which would thus lead to a lack of novelty.

Patentee’s argument: if the term “gathered” was assigned its alleged “usual meaning” in the art, claim 1 would remain novel.

So, which interpretation is correct? And how does this impact how/whether the description should also be amended accordingly?

What is the legal basis for interpreting claims?

First we take a look at what the legal basis there is surrounding claim interpretation.

Art. 84 EPC: “the claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought" and "shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description"

Art. 69 EPC: “the extent of protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the claims”, supplemented by Article 1 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC which essentially states that the extent of protection is not defined by a strict, literal meaning of the claims, but also in light of the description/drawings. However, at the same time the claims should not be interpreted so broadly to serve only as a guideline. In other words, there is a fine balance between these two extreme positions. It is noted that Art. 69 and its Protocol applies to the assessment of the extent of the protection and not to the interpretation of the claims when assessing patentability.

What do previous decisions say about the legal basis for claim interpretation?

· T 0438/22: Art. 69(1) EPC only applies post grant, while Art. 84 EPC is used for examination. Description should be adapted in line with the claims.

· UPC Nanostring: Art. 69(1) EPC always applies when interpreting the claims

· T 056/21: The description only needs to be referred to when there is ambiguity in the language of the claims and there is no legal basis in the EPC for forcing description amendments

Clearly, there were conflicting views at the EPO about how to interpret claims for patentability.

What were the questions referred to the EBA for G1/24…and what were the answers?

1. Is Article 69(1), second sentence, EPC and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC to be applied to the interpretation of patent claims when assessing the patentability of an invention under Articles 52 to 57 EPC?

No - Art.69 EPC is used to determine the extent of protection and concerns the effects of a patent and not interpretation of claims in opposition or prosecution. Meanwhile, Art. 84 EPC is designed to guide drafting not interpretation.

Thus, it was decided, there is no clear legal basis under the EPC for claim interpretation when assessing patentability. Practically, however, consistent principles have been developed through case law which are analogous to the principles of Art.69 and Art.84 EPC and are already used by the EPO.

2. May the description and figures be consulted when interpreting the claims to assess patentability and, if so, may this be done generally or only if the person skilled in the art finds a claim to be unclear or ambiguous when read in isolation?

Yes - The description and any drawings are always to be consulted when interpreting the claims for patentability, not only where there is lack of clarity or ambiguity.

3. May a definition or similar information on a term used in the claims which is explicitly given in the description be disregarded when interpreting the claims to assess patentability and, if so, under what conditions?

Inadmissible as considered encompassed in Question 2.

The key takeaway then is that the claims and description should be looked at together when interpreting the claims. This would appear to align closely with the UPC’s approach, perhaps intentionally to avoid divergence that could influence applicants’ choices between the Unitary Patent and national validations.

However, what does “always consulting the description” actually mean in practice…?

Applying G1/24 to the original T0439/22 case

For the T0439/22 case, the EBA said the definition of “gathered sheet” in the description had to be used , ultimately resulting in a broader interpretation and lack of novelty.

The EBA found no reason to ignore the definition provided by the patentee in the specification, commenting that the choice to define “gathered” in the description indicated this term did not have a commonly accepted meaning in the art in the first place.

But how has G1/24 been applied elsewhere?

We take a look below at how G1/24 has influenced other decisions by the Boards of Appeal so far. · T 1561/23: "G 1/24 does not even explicitly require that the definition of a term from the description must be used for the interpretation of a claim". Definitions in the description do not override the claim language unless they are explicitly clear and relevant. So, it seems like it’s important to consider a) context of the term in the description (i.e. is it a specific embodiment or is it something more generic) and b) whether the definition provided is clear and meaningful to actually be relied upon to interpret an integer in a patent claim. In our view, this might help to avoid situations in which the patent applicant might too easily be able to pick and chose the interpretation of the claims as it suits them in order to avoid prior art.

· T 2027/23: "a claim should not be interpreted, based on features set out in embodiments of an invention, as having a meaning narrower than the wording of the claim as understood by the person skilled in the art".

· T 0412/24: "a sensible claim construction cannot be reinterpreted on account of the description being 'consulted' or 'referred to'"

· T 2034/23: "consultation of the description does not, however, mean that claimed features must always be construed as narrowly as any specific embodiments of the invention found in the description".

· T 0873/24: this case has resulted in yet another referral to the EBA. The case shows there is an interface between G1/24 and added subject matter. This interface is currently unclear (hence the referral) and it could give rise to unexpected consequences.

· T 0439/22: this is the case which resulted in the G1/24 referral. It has now been considered further in opposition-appeal proceedings, and our comments are provided below.

· G 1/25: a new referral to the EBA to determine the EPO’s future approach on whether the description should be amended in line with the claims. We will keep you advised as matters progress.

These decisions suggest that the description should be referred to but that it does not have to be used to narrow or broaden the meaning of a term in the claims. Thus, the

requirement from G1/24 to always consult the description might seem to have been applied somewhat “loosely” here compared to in T0439/22.

Where does this leave us with claim interpretation?

In light of the above, what seems clear-cut is that the description and claims do need to be looked at jointly as part of the overall disclosure.

What remains unclear however is to what extent the description should be relied on.

Perhaps in order to answer this question most reasonably, context is key.

In the T0439/22 case, a broader definition which didn’t contradict the usual meaning in the art was explicitly given in the description, and thus in the context of the whole disclosure and technological field, this definition carried weight and was relied on accordingly.

In other words, the specific inclusion of a broader definition of a term in the description is a deliberate act which cannot simply be dismissed when it might be more preferable to do so. Such an approach would leave us in a realm of legal uncertainty.

In other cases however, where the description is simply illustrating how a term might be used or implemented (e.g. via specific embodiments and examples), such a narrow read onto the scope of the term would indeed seem unjustified. “Consulting the description” in these circumstances might therefore look more like seeking guidance on how to interpret a term rather than replacing the meaning of a term in the claims with a rigid definition from the description.

A really sticky situation arises when there are contradictory definitions in the description vs well-known definitions in the art. In such a case, the issue snowballs beyond just claim interpretation, gathering sufficiency and clarity problems along the way.

How did this all affect the description amendments in T0439/22?

In T0439/22, to avoid revocation, the patentee deleted the paragraph containing the “gathered” definition.

The definition read:

“…the term 'gathered' denotes that the sheet of tobacco material is convoluted, folded, or otherwise compressed or constricted substantially transversely to the cylindrical axis of the rod.”

On the one hand we have a definition here which broadens the ordinary meaning of “gathered” by including additional possible configurations which caused a lack of novelty.

On the other hand however, by deleting the definition, the limiting rod shapes with compression transversely to the cylindrical axis is also lost. In other words, the deletion permits other configurations (e.g. non-rod) to be included in the scope of the claim, thereby unallowably broadening the scope after grant. The message here seems to be, think very carefully about how a definition is drafted and think about any unintended consequences and upshots.

Had this definition been deleted before grant, then the patentee would not have been able to reintroduce it, falling into the inescapable Art.123(2)-(3) trap.

Thus, could aligning the description with the claims increase the risk of added-matter issues arising down the line? Whether or not we should continue to amend the description in line with the claims will be determined by decision G1/25 in due course.

Final thoughts and impacts

T 0439/22 makes one thing abundantly clear: when a description contains a definition that departs from the usual meaning in the art, the EPO is unlikely to treat it casually, but will rather view it as a deliberate inclusion.

Before including additional definitions, practitioners should duly consider:

-What is the “accepted” definition in the art? And is there any evidence of this?

Taking these points into account, is a further definition even needed?

-Is the proposed definition unnecessarily broad/vague or overly limiting?

Could this then undermine the claims later down the line?

- Can the claims themselves be drafted clearly enough without the need to rely on description definitions?

What these decisions have at their core provided clarity on, is just how important it is for the claims to be clear in themselves without need to consult the description. In our view, it would be unwise to think of G1/24 as a ‘get out of jail card’ to put right issues with patentability and claim drafting. Also, any definitions used in the description should be drafted very carefully.

If you would like to discuss the best way to provide clearly drafted claims and whether or not to include definitions in the description of your patent or patent application, please contact us. Wynne Jones can advise on effective strategies for drafting patent applications carefully and in line with EPO practice.

Ashleigh Kirs (European Patent Attorney)

Ian Lambert (Director, UK Chartered and European Patent Attorney)

Luke Littler Moves to Trade Mark His Face Amid Growing Celebrity Trend and UK Image‑Rights Challenges

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 11:00:00 Z

Teenage darts sensation Luke Littler has applied to the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) to register his face as a trade mark, seeking to protect his likeness. The objective is clear: Secure control and prevent unauthorised commercial use, including the rising threat of AI‑generated deepfakes.

Littler’s image already features widely across licensed merchandise - from dartboards and computer games to food products - reflecting his status as one of the most marketable figures in modern darts. As visibility grows, so does risk. Trade mark protection offers a defined, enforceable framework to manage that exposure.

This application is part of Littler’s wider brand-protection strategy. He has already protected his nickname “The Nuke” in the United Kingdom K and United States. However, the advances in AI technologies now enable highly realistic replication of faces and voices at scale. In response, celebrities are turning to formal IP filings such as trade marks to safeguard their identities. The UK, notably, lacks a standalone image‑rights law.

Passing‑Off: The UK’s Primary, but Limited, Remedy for Protecting Image Right

In the absence of statutory image rights, celebrities and public figures in the UK rely heavily on the common law rights of ‘passing‑off’ (a form of unregistered trade mark right), among other Intellectual Property (IP) rights. Passing‑off can protect celebrities where their goodwill is misrepresented and damage results, but the test is difficult to satisfy because of evidential burdens - particularly in cases involving lookalikes or digital imitation. Passing-off is reactive, not preventative.

Trade mark registration changes that dynamic. It provides a defined and easily enforceable asset. It creates clarity around ownership. It strengthens enforcement options without requiring proof of reputational damage.

Part of a Growing Celebrity Trend

Littler is not alone in turning to trade marks to secure control over his likeness. Hollywood actor Matthew McConaughey is among those who have recently filed to protect their facial image in the United States as concerns mount about AI‑driven impersonation and misuse. This reflects a broader international movement among public figures to formalise control over their personal identity in the digital era.

Another UK sports figure, Chelsea footballer Cole Palmer, also has a number of trade mark registrations in his IP armoury and successfully registered both his facial image and autograph at the UKIPO in October 2025, alongside the term “Cold Palmer”. His successful filing highlights the increasing willingness of UK

celebrities to use trade mark law to safeguard their persona – either alongside, or instead of, passing off claims.

An Evolving Digital Landscape Demands Strategic Protection

Littler’s application, currently under examination at the UKIPO, illustrates how athletes and entertainers are adapting to a world where deepfake technologies pose a genuine threat to their personal and commercial identity.

Image is an asset. Assets require protection, strategy and structure. In a legal environment where passing‑off provides partial protection, trade mark registration has become an essential strategic tool - one that is rapidly growing in popularity as celebrities seek to stay ahead of emerging risks.

The landscape is shifting quickly and those that act early gain leverage. Those who wait often find themselves defending ground they could, and should, have protected.

Strategic IP does not need to be loud to be effective. It needs to be deliberate, well-structured, and aligned with long-term commercial objectives. When done properly, it operates quietly in the background – preserving control, strengthening positions and allowing our clients to focus on growth with confidence.

How We Work Seamlessly Across Borders - UK expertise, AIPEX, and a trusted global network

Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:00:00 Z

Intellectual property protection isn’t automatically global - IP rights are territorial. This means that protecting your brand or innovation through a patent, registered design or trade mark in the UK does not, on its own, protect your idea in other countries.

For businesses with international ambitions, even at an early stage, this is a critical strategic consideration.

Your IP strategy should align with:

· Your main commercial markets,

· future expansion plans,

· countries where distributors, licensees or manufacturers operate.

Taking a proactive, jurisdiction-focused approach helps ensure your protection is enforceable, commercially relevant, and cost-effective - avoiding both over-spending on unnecessary filings and under-protecting key markets.

If you plan to operate internationally, you will need an IP firm with genuine global reach and a high-quality network of foreign attorneys. Without this infrastructure, international protection can quickly become fragmented.

Businesses may find themselves:

· Juggling multiple foreign firms independently,

· receiving inconsistent advice across jurisdictions, and/or

· facing delays, duplicated costs, and potentially increased legal risk.

A well-integrated international network removes these bottlenecks by centralising coordination and maintaining strategic consistency across borders.

We are incredibly proud at Wynne-Jones IP to be a part-owner of AIPEX BV, a pan-European IP firm that provides direct access to local, on-the-ground European attorneys.

Through this structure, our clients benefit from:

· More than 250 attorneys and 500 IP professionals,

· coverage across 12 European jurisdictions, and

· deep local expertise combined with centralised UK coordination.

Post-Brexit, this European presence is especially valuable. UK-only protection no longer extends into the EU, and seamless access to European representation is now a strategic necessity rather than a convenience.

In addition to our European capability, we work regularly with carefully selected and trusted associates in key global markets, including:

· United States

· China

· Japan

· South Korea

· India

· Australia

These are not ad hoc referrals. They are long-standing professional relationships built on shared values, standards, responsiveness, and mutual trust - ensuring consistent quality of advice wherever protection is required.

A global network is only effective when it is built on people, not just geography. Shared values, clear communication, and strategic alignment are essential.

At Wynne-Jones IP, our cross-border collaboration is defined by:

Strategic jurisdiction mapping: We identify where protection is commercially meaningful, based on your business model, supply chain and growth plans.

Centralised international coordination: We manage foreign agents directly, so you don’t have to navigate multiple firms or conflicting advice.

Consistency in strategy and wording: Maintaining uniform claim scope, trade mark specifications and design protection across jurisdictions reduces legal gaps and strengthens enforceability.

Proactive deadline and portfolio management: International filings involve complex timelines, translations and formalities. Our coordinated approach ensures deadlines across multiple countries are tracked and managed seamlessly.

Enforcement and risk escalation: If infringement arises abroad, we work with trusted local counsel to escalate enforcement efficiently and proportionately.

Commercially-focused advice: We translate complex legal considerations into practical business decisions, helping you prioritise markets and manage budgets strategically.

International IP work relies heavily on relationships. Cultural understanding, responsiveness and professional trust between attorneys in different jurisdictions directly impact the speed and quality of outcomes.

Our network is built on long-standing collaborations with attorneys who share our commitment to clarity, consistency and client service - not simply a directory of overseas contacts.

By integrating UK expertise with European capability through AIPEX BV and a trusted global network, we provide a seamless, future-ready approach to international IP protection - supporting your innovation wherever your business grows.

Unregistered Rights in the UK: A Strategic Asset or a Legal Blind Spot?

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 10:00:00 Z

In a system often viewed as register-centred, the UK’s robust framework of unregistered rights continues to present a quietly powerful, and sometimes overlooked, risk.

Businesses focusing solely on registered intellectual property rights may underestimate the disruptive potential of claims based on goodwill, reputation, and prior use.

The Legal Landscape: More Than Just the Register

The UK legal system offers significant protection to unregistered rights, most notably through the doctrine of passing off. To succeed, a claimant must establish the classic trinity: goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. Unlike registered rights, which confer exclusivity through formal registration, unregistered rights arise organically through use in the marketplace.

Goodwill, the attractive force that brings in custom, is crucial. It is territorial, fact-specific, and often more nuanced than the neat boundaries of a registered trade mark or design. This creates both opportunity and uncertainty: rights may exist where the register suggests none.

Registered and Unregistered Rights: Bridging Protection Gaps

Registered and unregistered rights frequently co-exist in parallel, but not always harmoniously. A registered right is a powerful asset, but it does not always provide absolute immunity. It can still face challenges or conflicting claims. A registrant may face opposition or infringement claims based on earlier unregistered rights, particularly where goodwill can be demonstrated.

Equally, unregistered rights can fill strategic gaps, for example, when branding evolves beyond the scope of a registered trade mark or design, or where businesses operate in niche or local markets without acquiring formal protection.

Evidential Expectations: The Real Hurdle

While unregistered rights are flexible, they are evidentially demanding. Claimants must substantiate goodwill with clear and robust evidence and information such as sales figures, marketing materials and spend, customer reach, and geographic extent.

This burden can be decisive. Unlike a registration certificate, which speaks for itself, unregistered rights must be built on a case-by-case basis. Weak or poorly documented use can quickly unravel an otherwise credible claim. Precision matters: success hinges entirely on the strength of the evidence.

When Unregistered Rights Prove Their Worth

Unregistered rights often come into play in disputes involving:

· Early-stage brands that have not yet secured registration,

· Local businesses with a strong regional reputation,

· Rebranding exercises where legacy goodwill persists,

· Tackling product lookalikes and imitations in the marketplace where registered rights may not provide sufficient coverage,

· Filings where a third party seeks to appropriate an established yet unregistered sign.

In such cases, passing off can provide a critical remedy where the register is silent.

For example, in Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc (Jif Lemon), the Court protected the distinctive lemon-shaped container as goodwill-rich get-up despite limitations in registered trade mark protection, illustrating how passing off can extend beyond the limits of registration.

Similarly, in United Biscuits (UK) Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd (Penguin v Puffin), the Court upheld the passing off claim based on misleading packaging for chocolate-coated biscuits’ packaging, even where registered trade mark claims were not the primary or successful route.

These cases reinforce that, where goodwill is established, passing off remains an essential tool to protect branding when formal registration may fall short.

Mitigating the Risk: Practical Steps

Given their latent nature, unregistered rights require proactive management:

· Go beyond the register: Clearance searches should extend to marketplace use, online presence, trading names, domain names, and industry-specific directories.

· Document use: Maintain records of branding, sales, and marketing to support any future claim to goodwill.

· Consider early registration: While unregistered rights offer protection, registration provides certainty and procedural advantages.

· Monitor the market: Identify potential conflicts early, particularly, in sectors where informal or local trading is common.

Conclusion

Unregistered rights remain a distinctive feature of the UK legal landscape. They are powerful, but inherently uncertain and at times difficult to support. For rights holders and applicants, the key risk lies not in their existence but in their invisibility. A strategy that fails to account for them is not merely incomplete - it may be exposed. In a jurisdiction where unregistered earlier use can trump registration, the register is only ever part of the story.

If you would like to discuss your brand protection strategy, our expert trade mark team would be pleased to advise.

What is Patent Analytics?

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 09:00:00 Z

Unlocking Business Value Through Patent Analytics

Patent Analytics has gained significant traction in recent years - but what does it actually mean for your business, and why should you care?

Patent Analytics examines global patent data to generate clear, commercial insight. It strengthens innovation strategy. It informs commercial and investment decisions. It highlights risk early when action is still cost-effective.

Patent Analytics Matters for Industry

Patent data is one of the richest sources of competitive intelligence available and most businesses only scratch the surface.

Whether you’re developing new products, entering new markets, or assessing technology partners, Patent Analytics helps you to move with confidence. Decisions become evidence-based. Risk becomes visible. Strategy becomes sharper.

Here how it delivers value:

1. Reduce risk in product development

Innovation requires investment. Before committing significant R&D budget, a pre‑filing patentability search can assess whether similar inventions (known as prior art) already exist.

Early visibility can:

· Prevent wasted development spend,

· improve claim drafting strategy, and

· reduce the likelihood of future disputes.

Small adjustments at this stage often avoid costly corrections later.

2. Identify emerging competitors and technologies

Patent filing activity is a leading indicator of market movement.

By analysing trends in a particular technology area, you can identify:

· Fast‑growing startups,

· new entrants into your market,

· adjacent technologies gaining commercial traction.

These insights inform partnership strategy, licensing opportunities, and potential M&A activity. They also ensure you are not surprised by innovation happening just outside your immediate field of view.

3. Benchmark your IP portfolio

Your patent portfolio is a business asset. Your Crown Jewels. It’s true value, however, depends on context.

Patent Analytics enables you to compare your position against competitors and industry benchmarks. It reveals:

· Where you lead,

· where you lag,

· gaps in geographic or technical protection,

· core technology strengths worth deeper investment.

This clarity supports better allocation of budget and stronger commercial positioning.

4. Monitor competitor behaviour

Innovation leaves a trail. Patents cite earlier technologies, creating a traceable chain of development.

Tracking citation data - who cites you, and who you cite - provides a cost‑effective lens into:

· Competitor R&D direction,

· Overlapping technical focus,

· potential infringement risks at an early stage.

It’s a cost-effective way to maintain strategic awareness without intrusive investigation. Quiet intelligence. Continuous oversight.

How Patent Analytics Works

Public databases, such as European Patent Office’s Espacenet, provide access to millions of patent documents. They are an excellent starting point.

Professional Patent Analytics goes further.

Commercial platforms aggregate and organise global patent records at scale. The enable detailed examination of:

· Patent ownership and applicant behaviour,

· filing timelines and jurisdiction trends,

· inventor networks and collaboration patterns,

· Technical keyword and claims analysis,

· Citation mapping across technology sectors.

However, software alone is not enough. The value lies in expert interpretation.

Patterns emerge only when data is filtered, contextualised, and aligned with your commercial objectives.

Turning Data Into Business Advantage

There is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Effective Patent Analytics begins with your goals. You may want to:

· Strengthen your innovation pipeline,

· support investment decision,

· de-risk product launches,

· maximise the commercial return on your IP.

The objective remains constant: Deliver clear, actionable insight that reduces uncertainty and supports strategic decision-making.

At Wynne-Jones IP, we approach patent analytics with discretion and precision. We work behind the scenes, translating complex data into focused intelligence that protects and advances your business interests.

If you’re ready to explore how patent analytics can support your next strategic move, we would be pleased to speak with you.

Got Oats? The Supreme Court Milks Clarity on Trade Marks in Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB

Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:00:00 Z

In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB [2026] UKSC 4, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom addressed a dispute between the traditional dairy industry and the rapidly expanding plant-based sector.

The case focused on two issues: whether Oatly’s “POST MILK GENERATION” slogan used the protected term “milk” as a designation for non-dairy products and whether the phrase could still be allowed because it described a characteristic of Oatly’s products.

These questions were central to the trade mark analysis: because the slogan would not be understood as identifying the commercial source of oat-based goods, it could not serve as a distinctive indicator of origin. The Supreme Court ultimately confirmed that Oatly’s “POST MILK GENERATION” trade mark was invalid for oat-based products, sending a clear message to brands about the limits of slogans that reference regulated product terms.

Background

The proceedings were brought by Dairy UK Ltd, the trade association representing the UK dairy industry, against Oatly AB, a prominent producer of oat-based dairy alternatives.

Dairy UK challenged aspects of Oatly’s marketing. They argued that certain statements and the branding risked misleading consumers and eroded the regulatory framework around acceptable dairy-related terminology.

At first instance, the High Court largely rejected Dairy UK’s challenge. It found that the average consumer would understand that Oatly’s products are plant-based and distinct from dairy.

The Court of Appeal, however, took a different view. While it did not find widespread consumer confusion, it found that some aspects of Oatly’s messaging could suggest a broader association with dairy products.

Alongside those advertising and labelling issues, the courts considered a central question: could “POST MILK GENERATION” function as a trade mark?

The POST MILK GENERATION Trade Mark

Oatly had secured trade mark registration for “POST MILK GENERATION” in relation to various plant-based food and drink products.

Dairy UK argued that the phrase lacked distinctiveness. In their view, it functioned primarily as a promotional statement, not a badge of origin. The phrase described a perceived shift in consumer behaviour – a move “beyond milk”. That type of language, they said, should remain available to the wider market.

The Supreme Court’s decision

The Supreme Court agreed with Dairy UK. Oatly’s “POST MILK GENERATION” trade mark lacked a sufficient level of distinctiveness required for protection in connection with oat-based goods.

The Court confirmed that slogans are not excluded from trade mark protection, but the threshold remains the same. A trade mark must identify the commercial origin of goods, not simply convey a promotional statement.

The Court also noted an important regulatory principle. Under the food labelling rules, the term “milk” is reserved for mammary secretions from animals. Plant-based products must make their origin clear.

Applying the perspective of the reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect consumer, the Court found that “POST MILK GENERATION” would be understood primarily as a statement about a broader cultural and dietary trend. It signals a broader movement rather than identifying the commercial source of the goods.

Hence, it was decided that Oatly’s slogan could not serve as a trade mark since consumers would perceive it as a general statement about a post-dairy movement rather than as an indicator of origin. In practical terms, that is decisive. It means that a phrase that describes a market shift cannot easily distinguish one business from another. Oatly’s trade mark registration was therefore deemed invalid for oat-based goods.

On the advertising issues, the Court restored the High Court’s approach. Clear plant-based labelling means consumers were unlikely to confuse oat drinks with dairy products. The same consumer awareness, however, reinforces why the slogan reads as a general statement rather than a distinctive indicator of origin.

What this means for brands

The judgment does not weaken brand protection; it refines it.

Three practical points for your business:

· A campaign slogan does not automatically qualify for trade mark protection. It depends on whether the message is capable of identifying origin, not just whether it resonates.

· Movement-driven language carries risk. Phrases that only capture cultural or market trends may struggle to meet the distinctiveness test.

· Strategy at the outset saves cost later. Clearance, positioning, and structured brand development reduce the risk of invalidity challenges and enforced rebranding.

In fast-moving sectors such as plant-based foods and drinks, the line between persuasive marketing and protectable IP can be fine. The commercial consequences are not.

Protecting your brand position

Trade marks are long-term assets. They work best when built with clarity and purpose from the start.

Early, measured advice reduces risk. It strengthens protection. It keeps your brand accelerating without distraction.

If you would like to review your portfolio or sense-check a proposed slogan, our trade mark team would be pleased to support you – discreetly, commercially, and with your wider objectives in view.

To Amend or not to Amend? New Referral to the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal

Mon, 16 Mar 2026 12:00:00 Z

Keywords: patents, European Patent Office (EPO), amendment, description, claims, Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA), G1/25, description amendments

Background

A long-running debate in European patent practice is now under formal review. The question is simple: must the description always be amended to match the claims?

The issue has been referred to the G 1/25 Enlarged Board of Appeal referral. A decision is pending. Its outcome could shape how every European patent application is prosecuted.

For now, applicants and patentees still face the same practical question: should you continue amending the description to align with the claims?

The requirement itself is closely associated with the practice of the European Patent Office. Many other patent offices do not impose the same level of scrutiny.

At the EPO, the practice is set out in the EPO Guidelines for Examination and has been applied since the introduction of the European Patent Convention in 1973.

What remains contested is the legal basis.

Some practitioners point to provisions on clarity and support under Article 84 EPC and the extent of protection under Article 69 EPC. Others argue that the Convention contains no explicit requirement to amend the description in this way.

That divide has now reached the Enlarged Board.

Case Summary

The referral arises from T 697/22, an opposition case involving a hydroponic plant-growing medium owned by Knauf Insulation.

During opposition proceedings, the patentee submitted an auxiliary request together with amendments to the description. The Opposition Division maintained the patent on that basis.

On appeal, the Board refused the description amendments. The opponent then argued that the remaining description was inconsistent with the claims.

This left the patentee in a difficult position. The claims were acceptable, but the description could not be amended as proposed. The result was a procedural stalemate.

To resolve the issue, the Board referred questions to the Enlarged Board under G 1/25 Enlarged Board of Appeal referral.

The Questions Referred

The Enlarged Board has been asked to clarify three key points.

1. If an inconsistency arises between amended claims and the description during opposition or opposition-appeal proceedings, must the description be amended to align with the claims?

2. If alignment is required, what provision of the EPC provides the legal basis?

3. Does the same principle apply during examination and examination-appeal proceedings?

The third question carries the widest impact. If the answer is yes, as many expect, the decision will affect the prosecution strategy for all European patent applications.

Risks Created by Description Amendments

The patentee in the referral argued that mandatory alignment can create new legal risks.

One concern is added matter. If unclaimed subject matter in the description influences how the claims are interpreted, removing that text could change the interpretation. That shift may trigger an objection under Article 123(2) EPC.

Another risk involves enablement. Removing descriptions of unclaimed embodiments may inadvertently delete technical information needed to support the invention.

These concerns have gained further weight following the Enlarged Board’s decision in G 1/24 Enlarged Board of Appeal decision. That ruling confirmed that the description must always be consulted when interpreting the claims.

In practical terms, this increases the importance of the description and raises the stakes when it is amended.

At Wynne-Jones IP, we recognise the force of these arguments. Description amendments can solve one problem while quietly creating another.

What This Means in Practice

The Enlarged Board has not yet delivered its decision in G 1/25 Enlarged Board of Appeal referral. Until then, the European Patent Office is expected to maintain its current practice.

In other words, description alignment remains the working standard.

Applicants should therefore continue to amend the description where required. But those amendments should be made carefully and strategically.

Two practical safeguards help reduce risk:

· Draft clear, self-contained claims. The clearer the claims, the less reliance there is on the description during interpretation.

· Review examiner-proposed description amendments closely. Remove or amend text only where necessary. Avoid deleting technical detail that may later support the invention.

This is not an administrative step. It is a strategic decision point in European prosecution.

Strategic Support

Description amendments can influence claim interpretation, validity, and enforceability. They deserve close attention.

If you would like to discuss the most effective approach to description amendments for your European patent or application, the team at Wynne-Jones IP can help. We work with clients to implement amendments that comply with EPO practice while protecting the commercial strength of their patents.

Ashleigh Kirs European Patent Attorney

Ian Lambert Director, UK Chartered and European Patent Attorney

New USPTO Pilot Program for Patent Acceleration

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 12:00:00 Z

USPTO Launches Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has introduced a new initiative: the Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program, effective 27 October 2025.

Its objective is clear. Test whether examining a reduced claim set improves examination speed and quality.

For applicants navigating long USPTO timelines, this is a notable development.

The Current Position on Accelerated Prosecution

At present, most USPTO applications face an average delay of around 22 months before a first Office Action issues. For fast-moving businesses, that is significant.

The previous Accelerated Examination pathway, limited to environmental and anti-terrorism technologies, ended on 10 July 2025.

The established alternative remains Track One Prioritized Examination, available since 2011. Track One enables applicants to secure a final disposition within approximately 12 months of an accepted request. It is effective, but costly, with fees in the region of $4,500.

The new pilot introduces a lower-cost option, with tighter eligibility criteria.

How the Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Works

Entry is straightforward:

File the required form
Pay a petition fee of $150

The USPTO will accept requests until the earlier of:

27 October 2026, or
When approximately 200 applications per Technology Center are docketed

With around eight Technology Centers handling utility applications, the practical cap is about 1,600 cases.

Importantly, you cannot petition if the application has already been examined or is already queued for examination.

Eligibility Requirements

To qualify, the application must:

Contain one independent claim
Include no more than ten total claims
Include no multiple dependent claims
Be limited to four requests per inventor
Have been filed before the program’s Federal Register publication
Not include a non-publication request

If you have already filed with more than ten claims, a preliminary amendment may bring the application within the required limit.

These conditions are strict. They are designed to test efficiency through simplicity.

What This Means for You

This program effectively allows eligible applications to move ahead of the existing examination backlog. For the right filing strategy, it can materially shorten time to grant.

However, the scheme is not universally suitable.

If your commercial strategy requires:

Multiple independent claims (for example, product and process protection), or
A broader claim structure with layered dependencies,

then narrowing to ten claims may compromise scope.

Track One remains more flexible. But it comes at a premium.

The decision is strategic. It depends on what you need protected, how quickly you need certainty, and how aggressively you want to invest in acceleration.

Strategic Perspective

Capacity is limited. If this route aligns with your commercial objectives, early action is prudent.

Used intelligently, the Streamlined Claim Set Pilot can:

Reduce time to grant
Lower acceleration costs
Create earlier enforceable rights
Strengthen investor confidence

It is not simply about speed. It is about timing your protection to match your market.

Our View

This pilot reflects a broader shift at the United States Patent and Trademark Office toward efficiency-driven examination models. Businesses that adapt early will benefit.

We work closely with trusted US counsel to design streamlined, commercially aligned filing strategies. Where acceleration makes sense, we move decisively. Where it does not, we protect breadth and long-term value.

If you would like to explore whether this pilot fits your portfolio strategy, we are ready to advise, discreetly and precisely.

Ashleigh Kirs (European Patent Attorney)

Ian Lambert (Director, UK Chartered and European Patent Attorney)

G 1/23: an impact assessment – T 1044/23 and T 1719/21

Tue, 03 Mar 2026 15:00:00 Z

Executive Summary

In June 2025, the European Patent Office issued landmark decision G 1/23 [1]. We reviewed the ruling in our earlier analysis, “G 1/23 – Can the EPO make a product disappear?”[2].

The message was direct. A product placed on the market before a European patent application’s filing date forms part of the state of the art, even if its composition or internal structure could not be reproduced without undue burden before that date.

In simple terms: if it was publicly available, it counts.

Several months on, the first Board of Appeal decisions applying G 1/23 provide clarity on two critical issues: novelty and inventive step. These decisions reshape risk analysis when considering commercially available products, trade secrets, and patent filing strategies. Below, we distil what matters, and what you should do next.

Keywords: G 1/23; state of the art; novelty; inventive step; problem-solution approach; EPO

Introduction

G 1/23 confirmed a decisive shift.

A publicly available product cannot be ignored when assessing the patentability of an invention simply because a skilled person could not analyse and reproduce it before the filing date of a patent application directed to that invention. Non-reproducibility is no longer a shield.

This matters commercially. Many businesses rely on proprietary manufacturing methods. Historically, uncertainty remained around the extent to which complex products could be cited as prior art. That uncertainty has now narrowed.

We are beginning to see how the Boards of Appeal apply this principle in practice. Two decisions, T 1044/23 and T 1719/21, provide practical guidance on both novelty and inventive step. Together, they define how exposed your innovation strategy may be once a product reaches the market.

T 1044/23 - The First Application of G 1/23

Overview

Decision T 1044/23 [3] was the first direct application of G 1/23.

The patent concerned a polyethylene composition for injection moulding. During opposition proceedings, two commercially available resins were cited against the patent. The Opposition Division initially disregarded them because their manufacturing methods were not enabled.

That reasoning pre-dated G 1/23.

Novelty

Following G 1/23, the opposition division’s decision was appealed, and the Board reversed course. The resins were commercially available before the filing date. Evidence confirmed they fell within the scope of claim 1. Under G 1/23, reproducibility was irrelevant.

The outcome was decisive: the claim lacked novelty.

Commercial implication: If a product on the market falls within your claim scope, lack of reproducibility will not save the patent.

Inventive Step

Problem-solution approach

At the EPO, inventive step is assessed using the established “problem-solution approach.” [4,5] The structure is disciplined and predictable:

1. Identify the closest prior art.

2. Determine distinguishing features.

3. Assess the technical effect of those features.

4. Define the objective technical problem.

5. Ask whether the solution would have been obvious.

G 1/23 does not change this framework. It changes what may enter it.

Closest Prior Art

The Board confirmed that a commercially available product can represent the closest prior art, even if it is non-reproducible.

The reasoning was practical. If a product is on the market, it can serve as a starting point for further development. A skilled person may use it as-is or modify it.

The Board clarified two important points:

· When selecting the closest prior art, it is irrelevant whether the product’s manufacturing method is known.

· It is also irrelevant how much modification would be required to reach the claimed invention.

These issues arise later, at the obviousness stage.

The Board drew an analogy similar to the “Coca-Cola” example discussed in G 1/23. One can add lemon juice to Coca-Cola to reduce sweetness without knowing its secret recipe. The secret recipe does not prevent it from being a realistic starting point.

For businesses, this means competitors’ commercial products, however opaque, can be used for an inventive step attack.

Obviousness

Here, the distinguishing feature was polymer density. The objective technical problem was framed as: how to provide an alternative composition.

The decisive question was whether the skilled person could arrive at the claimed density without undue experimental effort.

The Board found no credible evidence that such modification could be achieved without significant experimentation, particularly given the proprietary manufacturing process and interdependence of the product’s properties resulting from changes to the process.

The attack failed.

This is the nuance. While non-reproducible products qualify as prior art, modifying complex materials, such as polymers, may still require inventive skill.

Where interdependence of a product’s properties results from changes to manufacturing processes, altering one property can destabilise others. In such cases, inventive step may survive.

T 1719/21— The ENGAGE® 8400 Polymer

Overview

Decision T 1719/21 [6] concerned a patent in the family protecting the ENGAGE® 8400 polymer, the very product central to G 1/23.

Inventive Step

Closest Prior Art

Again, the Board took a firm position: a commercially available product can serve as the closest prior art, reproducible or not.

The Board focused on realism. If the product’s properties and uses align with the patent’s objectives, it qualifies as a promising starting point.

Questions about synthesis conditions or reproducibility belong to the obviousness analysis, not to the initial selection of closest prior art.

Obviousness

The distinguishing feature was fluorine content. The technical effect was improved volume resistivity after crosslinking, relevant for solar cell encapsulation.

The Board asked a precise question: did the prior art motivate the skilled person to lower fluorine content to achieve that effect?

It did not.

Without that pointer, the invention was acknowledged as inventive. No deep analysis of synthesis conditions or reproducibility was required.

This contrasts with T 1044/23 and illustrates a strategic reality: the choice of closest prior art can shape the entire outcome.

What This Means for Your Business

1. Public Disclosure Is Now a Clearer Risk

If your product is publicly available before filing, it can destroy novelty, even if competitors cannot reproduce it.

Market entry without filing is no longer a calculated gamble. It is a measurable exposure.

2. Trade Secrets and Patents Must Be Aligned Early

You can no longer rely on non-reproducibility to preserve patentability in Europe once a product is on sale.

Trade secret and patent strategies must be coordinated before launch. Delay reduces options.

3. Inventive Step Is Fact-Driven

Reproducibility no longer blocks an inventive step attack outright. However, it can still influence whether modification would have required undue effort. For complex products, such as polymers, advanced materials, and process-sensitive technologies, interdependence of the products’ properties on manufacturing processes may preserve inventive step.

Each case turns on evidence. Technical depth matters.

4. Small Differences May Still Succeed, But Rarely

The case law shows that minor distinctions from a commercial product can, in some circumstances, support patentability. But this is the exception.

The default assumption should be defensive: once a product is public, protection becomes harder.

Practical Actions

· File before launch. Align R&D and IP timelines.

· Audit commercial disclosures. Sales, samples, and marketing materials can all count.

· Stress-test claims against your own products. If it falls within your scope, so can a competitor’s.

· Document technical interdependencies. This evidence can be decisive in defending inventive step.

· Integrate patent and trade secret strategy from day one.

Final Position

G 1/23 closes a loophole. Commercial reality now drives legal analysis more directly.

Public availability means exposure. Non-reproducibility is not immunity. Inventive step remains nuanced, but evidence-led.

We operate where technical detail meets strategic protection. If your product is approaching market, or already there, the right filing and disclosure decisions must happen quietly, early, and with precision.

That is where value is protected.

References

[1] https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/g230001ex1

[2] https://www.wynne-jones.com/news-events/articles/g-123-can-the-epo-make-a-product-disappear/

[3] https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t231044eu1

[4] https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2025/g_vii_5.html

[5] https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2025/g_vii_5_2.html

[6] https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t211719eu1

By Nick Davies MPhys, PhD | Chartered and European Patent Attorney

Patent Emergency

Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:00:00 Z

What to Do If You’ve Disclosed Your Invention Before Filing a Patent Application

You’ve shared your invention. Maybe in a pitch. A demo. A conference. Online.

You haven’t filed a patent application.

Do not assume the opportunity is lost.

Speak to your patent attorney immediately. Timing matters. Strategy matters more.

In many cases, there is still a path forward.

First: Assess What Was Actually Disclosed

What you revealed may not be the invention that would ultimately be defined in your patent claims.

Patents are granted on what is claimed, not on broad concepts or commercial descriptions. If your disclosure did not clearly and completely teach the claimed invention, you may still be able to file validly.

This is a technical assessment. It requires careful analysis of what was said, shown, or published and how that aligns with the proposed claims.

We focus on the detail. That is where protection lives.

Second: Was the Disclosure Truly Public?

Not every disclosure destroys patent rights.

If the information was shared under confidentiality, whether through a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or an implied obligation of confidence, it may not count as public disclosure.

Similarly, if the disclosure occurred through an abuse of confidence, such as a breach by a third party, many jurisdictions provide safeguards.

Context matters. Evidence matters. Documentation matters.

We help you assess all three.

Grace Periods: A Strategic Safety Net

Some countries recognise that innovators move fast. They allow a limited window to file a patent application after a self-disclosure. This is known as a grace period.

A grace period allows you to secure patent protection even after making your invention public, provided you act within a defined timeframe.

The rules vary:

· Some countries allow 6 months from the date of disclosure.

· Others allow 12 months.

· Requirements differ. Formal declarations may be needed.

· The scope of protection may be affected if handled incorrectly.

Importantly, the UK and the European Patent Office do not provide a general grace period for self-disclosures. In contrast, several commercially significant markets do.

This creates both risk and opportunity.

If global protection is part of your growth strategy, we coordinate jurisdiction-specific analysis to preserve as much protection as possible. Quietly. Efficiently. Precisely.

What You Should Do Now

1. Stop further disclosure immediately.

2. Document exactly what was disclosed, when, and to whom.

3. Preserve emails, slides, recordings, and agreements.

4. Contact your patent attorney without delay.

The sooner we assess the situation, the more options we can protect.

Innovation moves quickly. So do we.

An early disclosure is not the end of the road. It is a technical problem that requires strategic containment.

Our role is simple: protect your position, limit exposure, and secure the strongest possible patent rights, behind the scenes, where it counts.

Countries which allow a 6-month grace period

· Albania

· Andorra

· Kazakhstan

· Russia

· Tajikistan

· Uzbekistan

· Eurasian Patent Organisation

Countries which allow a 12-month grace period

· Algeria

· Argentina

· Armenia

· Australia

· Azerbaijan

· Bahrain

· Barbados

· Belarus

· Belize

· Bhutan

· Bolivia

· Brazil

· Canada

· Colombia

· Costa Rica

· Dominica

· Dominican Republic

· Ecuador

· El Salvador

· Estonia

· Ethiopia

· Georgia

· Ghana

· Guatemala

· Honduras

· Japan

· Jordan

· Kenya

· Kyrgyz Republic

· Latvia

· Malaysia

· Malta

· Mauritius

· Mexico

· Morocco

· Mozambique

· Nicaragua

· Oman

· Papa New guinea

· Paraguay

· Peru

· Philippines

· Republic of Korea

· Sri Lanka

· Taiwan

· Thailand

· Trinidad and Tobago

· Turkiye

· Uganda

· Ukraine

· USA

· Uruguay

· Zambia

Important Exceptions: Unlawful Disclosure and Exhibitions

While the UK and the European Patent Office do not provide a general grace period for voluntary self-disclosures, the position is more nuanced.

Both the UK and the European Patent Office, along with many other jurisdictions, recognise limited exceptions.

You may still be able to file validly where:

· The disclosure resulted from an unlawful act, such as a breach of confidence or breach of agreement; or

· The invention was displayed at an officially recognised international exhibition.

These provisions are narrow. They are evidence driven. And they are strictly applied.

In practice, very few exhibitions qualify as “officially recognised” under the relevant international framework. Many trade shows and industry events do not meet the threshold, no matter how prominent they appear commercially.

Assumptions are risky. Verification is essential.

How This Fits with Broader Grace Period Regimes

Most countries that offer a grace period for self-disclosure also include similar protections for:

· Disclosures made unlawfully; and

· Displays at qualifying exhibitions.

However, the scope, evidential requirements, and filing deadlines differ by jurisdiction. Some require formal statements at the time of filing. Others impose strict time limits measured from the first disclosure.

The detail determines the outcome.

What This Means for You

If your disclosure arose from a breach of agreement, misuse of confidential information, or an exhibition display, you may still have options, even in jurisdictions that do not recognise voluntary grace periods.

But these exceptions are technical. They require:

· Clear evidence of the circumstances of disclosure

· Precise timing analysis

· Jurisdiction-specific filing strategy

We assess exposure quickly. We preserve what can be preserved. And we position your application to withstand scrutiny.

When disclosure happens, the response must be controlled, strategic, and immediate.

That is where we operate.

Countries which allow a 6-month period to file after unlawful disclosure and/or display at an exhibition

· African Intellectual Property Organization

· China

· Egypt (for exhibition only)

· EPO (including the contracting states individually such as UK).

· Hong Kong

· Indonesia (for exhibition or research only)

· Israel (exhibition only)

· Madagascar

· Nigeria (exhibition only)

· Saudi Arabia

· Syrian Arab Republic

· Tunisia (breach only)

· Zimbabwe (breach only)

Countries which allow a 12-month period to file after unlawful disclosure or exhibition

· Cote d’Ivoire

· India

· New Zealand

· Pakistan (exhibition only)

· Panama (breach only)

· Singapore

· Patent Office of the Cooperation council for the Arab States of the Gulf

No Fixed Time Limit in Some Jurisdictions

Some jurisdictions take a broader approach.

Countries such as Israel and South Africa do not impose a specific deadline for filing where the disclosure resulted from an unlawful act or breach of agreement. Instead, the law provides that such a disclosure will not be taken into account if it occurred at any time before the filing date.

That is a meaningful distinction.

In these jurisdictions, the focus is not on racing a six- or twelve-month clock. The focus is on proving the disclosure was unlawful or in breach of confidence.

Evidence remains critical. The burden does not disappear. But the absence of a fixed statutory window can materially improve your position.

We analyse this jurisdiction by jurisdiction. Your filing strategy should reflect where you do business, not just where the rules are most forgiving.

Grace Periods – Utility Models

When patent protection is compromised or uncertain, another option may be available: a utility model.

A utility model is an intellectual property right similar to a patent. It includes:

· A written technical specification

· Defined claims that set the scope of protection

The core difference is duration and, in some cases, examination procedure.

Utility models typically offer a shorter term of protection than patents, commonly up to 10 years, but they can still provide commercially valuable exclusivity. In some jurisdictions, the term “utility patent” is used to describe a similar right.

For the right technology, in the right market, a utility model can be a decisive commercial tool.

Utility Models and Grace Periods

In several countries, it is possible to file a utility model application after a disclosure under a grace period regime.

Often:

· The grace period mirrors the patent grace period (for example, 6 or 12 months).

· Protections for unlawful disclosure or exhibition display also apply.

· Formal requirements must be satisfied at filing.

In some jurisdictions, utility models offer a more flexible or pragmatic route to protection following disclosure.

This is not a fallback. It is a strategic alternative.

Your Position, Recovered

If disclosure has occurred, the solution is rarely one-dimensional.

We assess:

· Whether patent protection remains viable

· Whether unlawful disclosure provisions apply

· Whether exhibition exceptions can be relied upon

· Whether a utility model offers stronger or faster protection

· Which jurisdictions align with your commercial priorities

Our objective is simple: preserve enforceable rights where they matter most.

Disclosure creates exposure. Strategy restores control.

Countries which allow a grace period for Utility Models

· Cambodia (12 month)

· Czech Republic (6 month)

· Germany (6 month)

· Romania (6 month)

· Austria (6 month)

· Hungary (6 month)

· Bulgaria (6 month)

· Slovak Republic (6 month)

Other Strategic Avenues

There may be additional options.

Some jurisdictions contain legislative nuances, practical “quirks” in how their IP laws operate. In the right circumstances, these can be used to preserve protection despite earlier disclosure.

But precision is essential.

The country lists referenced above are not exhaustive. Laws evolve. Deadlines shift. Interpretation changes through case law and practice.

Grace periods are not harmonised. Each jurisdiction applies its own rules. Some require:

· Formal declarations at filing

· Evidence of the circumstances of disclosure

· Strict compliance with procedural steps

· Specific wording in the application

Missing a technical requirement can undermine an otherwise valid strategy.

This is not an area for assumptions. It is an area for coordinated, jurisdiction-specific action.

Conclusions

If you have publicly disclosed your invention before filing a patent application, the position is exposed, but it is not automatically lost.

There may be:

· Claim-based arguments that preserve novelty

· Confidentiality or unlawful disclosure exceptions

· Exhibition protections

· Grace period opportunities

· Utility model alternatives

· Jurisdiction-specific strategic routes

What matters most is speed and accuracy.

Speak to your patent attorney as soon as you identify the issue. Early intervention allows us to:

· Contain further risk

· Secure evidence

· Prioritise key markets

· File within critical windows

· Structure claims to maximise defensibility

When disclosure happens, the response must be controlled and deliberate.

We work behind the scenes to stabilise your position, protect commercial leverage, and secure the strongest enforceable rights available.

Ian Lambert European and UK Chartered Patent Attorney (EPA, CPA) | Director

Ashleigh Kirs European Patent Attorney (EPA)

Changes to the EPO PACE Programme

Tue, 17 Feb 2026 09:00:00 Z

The Headline

The European Patent Office (EPO) has increased its processing efficiency. As a result, accelerated search under the PACE programme is no longer available from 1 February 2026.

For applicants, this reflects progress at the EPO. It also changes how acceleration strategies should be approached.

We outline what this means for you and how to respond.

What Has Changed

Since November 2015, the PACE programme has allowed applicants to request accelerated processing during both the search and examination stages of a European patent application.

Previously:

Accelerated search aimed to issue the European Search Report within six months of filing.
Accelerated examination aimed to ensure Examining Division communications were issued within three months of the relevant trigger date.

Accelerated processing could be requested simply by selecting the relevant option on the EPO form.

From 1 February 2026, accelerated search is no longer available.

Why? Because the EPO now issues European Search Reports in an average of five and a half months (based on 2024 figures). In practical terms, accelerated search has become the default standard.

Accelerated examination under PACE remains unchanged.

What Remains Available

PACE examination requests:

Are free of charge
Require no justification
Can be filed once the Examining Division assumes responsibility
May be filed only once per application
Are not published and are not visible on the public file

For businesses seeking faster grant, PACE examination remains a valuable mechanism.

But it must be handled carefully.

The Commercial Perspective

Speed in prosecution is rarely just administrative. It is strategic.

You may want acceleration to:

Support investment or funding rounds
Strengthen licensing discussions
Deter competitors
Secure enforceable rights quickly
Align grant with product launch

PACE examination can support these objectives.

However, the request can be nullified if procedural deadlines are not met. For example:

Requesting extensions of time
Missing renewal fee payments

Acceleration requires discipline and forward planning.

We treat it as a strategic decision, not a box-ticking exercise.

Our Advice

The removal of accelerated search does not reduce your options. It reflects improved EPO efficiency.

If speed to grant matters for your business, PACE examination remains a strong tool. The key is aligning it with your wider commercial strategy and managing the process tightly.

We assess:

Whether acceleration adds real commercial value
Whether your internal timelines support it
How it fits within your broader European and international filing strategy

We move decisively when acceleration creates advantage. We avoid unnecessary steps when it does not.

Next Steps

If you are considering accelerating a European patent application or reassessing an existing filing in light of these changes, we can advise on the most effective route forward.

At Wynne-Jones IP, we focus on outcomes. We protect your position quietly and strategically, ensuring your patent portfolio supports growth, investment, and enforcement across Europe.

Ashleigh Kirs – European Patent Attorney
Stuart Greenwood – UK Chartered and European Patent Attorney
Ian Lambert – Director, UK Chartered and European Patent Attorney

Wynne-Jones IP to Continue Partnership with CyNam to Foster Technology Innovation in Gloucestershire

Mon, 16 Feb 2026 12:00:00 Z

Wynne-Jones IP, a leading intellectual property company with offices in Cheltenham and Gloucester, is delighted to announce its continued strategic partnership with CyNam for a 3rd year.

CyNam, headquartered in Cheltenham, the heart of the UK's cyber technology ecosystem, has rapidly evolved from a modest meetup networking group in 2015 into a thriving community of more than 5000 members. Their mission is to facilitate the growth of Cheltenham and Gloucestershire's cyber technology industry by providing a dynamic platform that connects cybersecurity and tech experts, local SMEs, and innovative startups with vital resources such as knowledge, guidance, funding, and business opportunities.

Wynne-Jones IP, renowned for its expertise in software, optoelectronics, semiconductors, and other cyber-tech, recognises the pivotal role IP plays in business. Through this strategic partnership, Wynne-Jones IP will contribute its knowledge and experience to support the development of the Gloucestershire cyber technology ecosystem. This partnership reflects Wynne-Jones IP's commitment to helping local businesses protect their intellectual property assets while fostering a culture of innovation in the region.

Commercial Relationship Manager for Wynne-Jones IP, David McLellan, commented on the partnership: “Renewing our sponsorship for a third year reflects the value we see in CyNam’s work across the regional cyber and technology sector. The organisation has built a strong and connected community, and we are pleased to continue backing an initiative that helps raise the profile of innovation in Gloucestershire. Through this partnership, we are proud to support the wider conditions that allow new technologies and businesses to develop and succeed.”

Hollie Wakefeild, General Manager of CyNam, also expressed her enthusiasm for the collaboration: “We’re thrilled to extend our partnership with Wynne-Jones IP. Their insight, guidance, and commitment to securing innovation make them a natural fit within the CyNam community. By helping businesses protect the ideas and technologies that underpin their growth, Wynne-Jones IP plays a vital role in strengthening our region’s cyber and tech ecosystem. Together, we’ll continue ensuring local businesses and founders have the support they need to push boundaries and bring new technologies to life.”

Happy Chinese New Year!

Mon, 16 Feb 2026 12:00:00 Z

AI and Patent Drafting

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 09:30:00 Z

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Gemini are now part of everyday business. They generate content, analyse data, and even draft legal documents.

It is no surprise that clients ask whether they can draft patent applications too.

The short answer: AI is powerful. But it is not a substitute for a patent attorney.

Used correctly, LLMs can enhance efficiency and consistency. Used carelessly, they can create risk — commercial, legal, and reputational.

Our role is to ensure you benefit from the upside without exposing your business to the downside.

AI Is a Tool. Strategy Is Human.

LLMs can process language at scale. They recognise patterns. They reformat text. They check structure and consistency.

They do not understand your commercial objectives. They do not anticipate enforcement years down the line. They do not weigh litigation risk against filing scope.

Patent protection is not just about defining an invention. It is about positioning your technology for investment, growth, and defence.

That requires judgement.

Think of AI as an advanced instrument panel. The pilot is still essential.

The Real Risk: Confidentiality

When you use a public AI platform, you transmit information to a third party.

Depending on the provider’s terms, your data may be:

· stored

· reviewed for quality assurance

· used to train future models

· processed outside the UK

Once information leaves your control, the risk profile changes.

For patent matters, that risk is serious. Disclosure of inventive details before filing can undermine patentability. Even if the legal position regarding entering inventive details into AI tools is not fully tested, uncertainty alone can create problems later — particularly in due diligence or litigation.

There is also the risk of unintentionally transferring personal or sensitive commercial data across jurisdictions.

If confidentiality matters — and it almost always does — caution is essential.

The Accuracy Problem: Hallucinations

LLMs generate responses based on probability, not understanding.

They can produce text that appears authoritative but is factually wrong. This includes:

· incorrect technical descriptions

· misinterpretation of prior art

· fabricated case law

· inaccurate legal principles

In patent drafting, small errors can have long-term consequences. An unsupported statement or mischaracterised feature can narrow scope or weaken enforceability.

Errors in prosecution can enter the public record and remain there permanently.

AI output must always be reviewed by someone who understands both the technology and the law.

Why AI Alone Is Not Enough

A strong patent application requires:

· deep technical understanding

· alignment with your commercial goals

· detailed knowledge of UK, European and international legal frameworks

· foresight about examination, opposition, and enforcement

These decisions shape how investors view your IP. They influence valuation. They determine how defensible your market position becomes.

An AI system cannot make those strategic calls.

It can assist. It cannot lead.

Public vs Private AI Systems

There is an important distinction.

Public LLMs are convenient and fast. They offer limited control over data handling.

Private LLMs, deployed within secure infrastructure, offer greater control and customisation. They require investment and oversight but reduce confidentiality exposure.

For businesses serious about IP protection, this distinction matters.

We assess risk first. We implement tools second.

Our Approach: Controlled Innovation

AI will shape the future of professional services. Ignoring it is not an option.

But neither is blind adoption.

We use technology where it strengthens outcomes — improving consistency, checking structure, enhancing efficiency. Always under professional supervision. Always within secure parameters. Always aligned with your commercial objectives.

You receive the benefit of innovation without compromising protection.

That is the balance.

The Outcome for You

You want patents that:

· withstand scrutiny

· support investment

· deter competitors

· survive enforcement

You also want discretion.

We operate behind the scenes to secure your position while you focus on growth.

AI is part of our toolkit. Expertise remains the foundation.

At Wynne-Jones IP, your intellectual property is handled with strategic care, technical precision, and commercial awareness — supported by technology, directed by experience.

Because tools evolve. Protection should not weaken.

UK Supreme Court reshapes patent law for AI inventions

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 12:00:00 Z

The UK Supreme Court has reshaped the legal framework for AI patentability, aligning UK practice more closely with the EPO. We explain what this means for AI innovators.

Artificial intelligence now underpins modern business. It drives search engines, diagnostics, predictive maintenance and autonomous systems.

Yet for innovative companies, one question has persisted:

Can AI-based inventions be patented in the UK — or will they be dismissed as “just software”?

Until now, the answer was not always clear.

On 11 February 2026, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents [2026] UKSC 3. The decision reshapes how AI and computer-implemented inventions are assessed in the UK. It also brings UK practice closer to the European Patent Office (EPO).

For businesses investing in AI, this is a material shift.

The case in brief

The patent application covered an AI-driven recommendation system built using an artificial neural network (ANN). The system analysed measurable features of music files, such as tempo and rhythm. It mapped those features into a mathematical model intended to reflect human emotional responses described in text. The objective was to improve recommendation accuracy.

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) refused the application. It concluded that the invention was a computer program “as such” and therefore excluded from patent protection. The High Court upheld that decision under the long-standing Aerotel test.

The Supreme Court has now revisited that approach.

The legal shift that matters to you

For nearly 20 years, UK law applied the four-step Aerotel test to assess whether a computer-implemented invention is excluded. The focus was on identifying a “technical contribution” at the eligibility stage. That framework often led to early rejections.

The Supreme Court has moved away from that test.

Instead, UK law will now align more closely with the EPO’s approach, particularly the framework developed in decision G 1/19.

This is the practical consequence:

Fewer AI inventions should be excluded at the outset simply because they involve software.

But the analysis does not disappear. It moves.

What changes in practice?

Under the revised approach, the first question, which presents a relatively low hurdle, is whether the claim relates to excluded subject matter “as such”? If the claim involves technical means — for example, hardware — it will usually pass this stage.

The real scrutiny comes next.

At the second stage, only features that contribute to a technical solution can support novelty and inventive step. Non-technical elements — such as business logic, presentation of information or abstract mathematical ideas — are filtered out.

This mirrors the EPO’s structured approach. It provides greater predictability, especially for businesses filing in both the UK and Europe. In practical terms, this means that while fewer AI inventions may be rejected outright at the eligibility stage, there is likely to be more focused debate about which aspects of an AI system are genuinely “technical” and therefore capable of supporting inventive step.

The bar for assessing whether an invention is excluded from patentability has not disappeared. However, the structure of the analysis has shifted in a way that is likely to be more predictable and, in appropriate cases, more favourable.

Are neural networks just “computer programs”?

The Court confirmed that an artificial neural network is, in substance, a mathematical model capable of implementation on different hardware. It therefore falls within the concept of a computer program.

However, that does not end the analysis.

A computer program is only excluded if it is a program “as such”. Where a claimed AI system involves a technical means, it is not automatically barred from protection.

The case has been sent back to the UKIPO for reassessment under this revised framework.

What this means for your AI strategy

If your business develops AI, machine learning or data-driven systems, this decision has direct implications.

1. Greater alignment with Europe UK and EPO approaches are now closer. This reduces divergence and improves consistency across jurisdictions.

2. Lower risk of early-stage refusal Applications are less likely to be rejected simply for being software-based.

3. Technical framing is decisive You must clearly define the technical problem. You must show how your system improves processing, performance, resource efficiency, signal handling or hardware interaction.

4. Drafting strategy is critical In AI cases, protection often turns on how the invention is presented. The technical narrative must be precise, evidence-based and commercially aligned.

This is where outcomes are shaped. Quietly. Early. Decisively.

The commercial reality

The Supreme Court decision resets the framework for assessing computer related inventions. The Supreme Court did not decide that the specific AI invention in this case must be granted a patent. Instead, it remitted the case to the UKIPO to apply the revised framework and then assess novelty and inventive step in the usual way.

The message, however, is clear. The UK is not retreating from AI innovation. It is aligning with a more structured and internationally consistent model.

For businesses investing heavily in AI R&D, that reduces uncertainty. It rewards genuine technical advancement. It creates a more stable platform for long-term protection.

That said, success will still depend heavily on how the invention is framed. The patentability of AI-based systems often turns on how clearly the technical problem and technical effect are articulated in the application. Early strategic input at the drafting stage can make a material difference to the scope and robustness of protection ultimately obtained.

We work behind the scenes to ensure that your innovation is positioned correctly from the outset — structured to withstand scrutiny and aligned with your commercial objectives.

If you are developing AI-driven products or data-based systems, we can help you assess how this decision affects your patent strategy in the UK and internationally.

Protection should be deliberate. Structured. And built to last.

Read the full decision here:

UK Supreme Court judgment: https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0131_judgment_1da6c10a83.pdf

Supreme Court press summary: https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0131_press_summary_2d6299425a.pdf

EPO Fee Increases Effective 1 April 2026

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 09:00:00 Z

From 1 April 2026, the European Patent Office (EPO) will introduce broad fee increases across procedural patent filing fees. The average increase is approximately 5%. Only a limited number of fees will remain unchanged.

Context

While unwelcome for patent applicants, these increases follow a familiar pattern. The EPO has implemented annual fee rises in 2022, 2023, and 2024. This update marks the first increase since 2024 and reflects the EPO’s return to a biennial fee review cycle.

Key Details

The EPO appears to have protected early-stage filing costs. Fees for filing a European patent application, excess page fees (beyond 35 pages), opposition filings, and appeals will remain unchanged. This mirrors the approach taken in the 2024 fee adjustments and limits cost pressure at the entry point of the system.

A summary of the changed fees is provided below:

Fee Type

Fee as of 01 April 2024 (€)

Fee as of 01 April 2026 (€)

European or

supplementary search fee

1520

1595

International search /

supplementary

international search by EPO

1845

1885

Designation

685

720

Excess claims (16-50th claim)

275

290

Excess claims (>51)

685

720

Examination of EP app

1915

2010

Examination of

international application

(no supplementary EP

search report)

2135

2240

Grant

1080

1135

3rd year renewal

690

725

4th year renewal

845

885

5th year renewal

1000

1050

6th year renewal

1155

1215

7th year renewal

1310

1375

8th year renewal

1465

1540

9th year renewal

1620

1700

10-20th year renewals

1775

1865

A complete list of updated fees can be found on the EPO website.

https://www.epo.org/en/legal/official-journal/2026/01/a2

What This Means for You

Advance planning can reduce exposure to higher costs. Where possible, we recommend completing fee-bearing actions before 1 April 2026. For organisations managing large portfolios of pending European patent applications, early payment of eligible renewal (annuity) fees may deliver meaningful savings.

Our Support

We can assess how these changes will affect your patent portfolio and advise on practical steps to take now. Wynne Jones provides strategic guidance and proactive portfolio management, including through our bespoke renewals service; working quietly in the background to protect value and control risk.

Ashleigh Kirs (European Patent Attorney)

Ian Lambert (Director and UK Chartered and European Patent Attorney)

A trade mark is for life, not just for Christmas - Why SMEs and startups must enforce their brands from day one

Thu, 05 Feb 2026 12:00:00 Z

Why SMEs and startups must enforce their brands from day one

A trade mark is intangible, but it is often a business’s most valuable asset. Its value is not fixed. It depends on how well it is managed, used, and enforced.

Without active enforcement, a trade mark can lose strength over time. That erosion may go unnoticed until it matters most - during funding rounds, expansion, or exit. At that point, a non-existent or ineffective enforcement strategy can raise red flags for investors, buyers, and commercial partners reviewing the business’s intellectual property.

For founders, protecting brand value requires a proactive enforcement and management strategy. Registration is essential. It is not the finish line.

Registration is the start, not the solution

Registering a trade mark is a critical step for any growing business. For many founders, it feels like closure. The brand is registered. Attention returns to growth.

In legal and commercial terms, this is only the beginning. Under UK law, a trade mark that is not properly used and enforced can lose its distinctiveness. In some cases, it can lose protection altogether.

This risk is particularly acute for SMEs and startups. Budgets are limited. Priorities compete. Enforcement is often deferred.

A trade mark, like any long-term asset, requires ongoing attention. Without it, value can drain away quietly.

Ignorance is not a defence

Founders often spot potential conflicts early. A consultancy with a similar name appears. A new app launches with a confusingly close brand. The response is predictable: they are too small to matter.

At an early stage, that decision can feel rational. Legal spend is constrained. The business has momentum to maintain. But trade mark rights weaken incrementally.

By the time enforcement becomes unavoidable, often during due diligence , the landscape may already be crowded. Investors then discover not one conflicting brand, but several.

Early tolerance can be used to argue acceptance. That makes enforcement harder, riskier, and more expensive.

A well-managed and consistently enforced trade mark portfolio limits encroachment. It reduces conflict. It strengthens valuation. Poor management does the opposite.

How trade marks lose protection in practice

A trade mark does not need to be removed from the register to become ineffective. Rights are commonly weakened by:

· Allowing similar brands to operate without challenge

· Ignoring misuse that becomes widespread

· Enforcing selectively rather than consistently

· Waiting until confusion is established before acting

Under UK law, a trade mark can even be revoked if, through the owner’s actions or inaction, it becomes the common name for the goods or services. Even without revocation, a pattern of inaction can significantly narrow protection.

Dilution is gradual. The more overlap that is tolerated, on the register and in the market, the weaker the rights become. Enforcement then becomes harder to justify, and harder to win.

When a brand becomes the product

Businesses that introduce genuinely new products face a particular risk. When customers, journalists, or investors begin using the brand name as shorthand for the product itself, it can feel like success.

Legally, it can be the start of a problem.

This shift often happens quietly. Media coverage uses the name generically. Marketing materials reinforce it. Competitors follow the language. If nothing is done, the brand may stop signifying a single commercial source.

Well-known examples such as ESCALATOR, ASPIRIN, JACUZZI, and KLEENEX show how strong trade marks can lose their legal power once they become generic. When that happens, the monopoly is lost—and with it, much of the value created through registration and brand building.

Consistency matters

Another common mistake is inconsistent enforcement. A business may act quickly against one perceived threat, while ignoring others that seem less important.

This approach carries risk. When enforcement escalates, often against a well-funded competitor, earlier tolerance can be used to argue that the trade mark is weak or entitled only to narrow protection.

UK courts place significant weight on consistency. Selective enforcement can undermine credibility as effectively as no enforcement at all.

Delay creates risk

In many cases, founders intend to act but postpone decisions. A similar app appears. A draft email is prepared but never sent. Growth takes priority.

Time passes. The other business builds goodwill and a customer base. Enforcement then becomes more complex and more commercially sensitive. Delay can be characterised as acquiescence, weakening the legal position and increasing risk.

Early engagement does not need to be aggressive. It does need to be timely.

Enforcement supports growth

Startups are not expected to pursue every minor infringement. They are expected to take reasonable steps to protect their brands.

Failure to do so can result in:

· Reduced ability to stop future infringers

· Weaker positions in oppositions and disputes

· Lower valuations during fundraising or exit

· Costly and avoidable rebrands

Many businesses only confront these issues when expansion is blocked or enforcement becomes too uncertain to pursue.

Practical enforcement on realistic budgets

Effective enforcement does not require constant litigation, relentless policing of the trade mark register or heavy-handed tactics. Proportionate strategies work.

Growing businesses should:

· Monitor their brands sensibly, including trade mark watching, online marketplaces, and social media

· Act proportionately, starting with informal contact where appropriate

· Use trade marks correctly and avoid generic or descriptive use

· Enforce consistently and document decisions when choosing not to act

These steps preserve flexibility and protect value as the business scales.

Final thoughts

Enforcement is not about confrontation. It is about protecting the value being built every day.

A registered trade mark that is not defended can lose strength quietly, leaving the business exposed at the point of success. The cost of measured enforcement is often far lower than the cost of losing exclusivity.

An effective enforcement strategy reduces legal risk, supports valuation, and strengthens the overall health of the business. It also makes the business more attractive to investors and buyers.

Wynne-Jones IP has a dedicated trade mark team with extensive experience in trade mark enforcement and portfolio management. If this article resonates, we welcome an initial, confidential discussion on a bespoke enforcement and management strategy tailored to your business.

UKIPO Official Fees to Rise from 1 April 2026

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 15:32:12 Z

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has confirmed increases to official fees for patents, trade marks, and designs, effective from 1 April 2026.

Current fees will remain in place until 31 March 2026. From 1 April 2026, higher fees will apply. This is the first significant adjustment in many years, with average increases of approximately 25% across all three rights.

If you have planned UK filings, renewals, or other fee-bearing actions, there is a clear opportunity to reduce costs by acting before 1 April 2026.

What this means for you

If you hold UK patents, trade marks, or designs with filings or renewals due in 2026, now is the time to review them. In many cases, applications can be filed and renewal fees paid in advance at the current UKIPO rates, even where the formal deadline falls later.

Advancing these actions can deliver meaningful savings, particularly for larger or complex portfolios. Owners of substantial UK IP portfolios should pay particular attention to renewal (annuity) payments, as eligible fees paid before 1 April 2026 may avoid the increased rates.

If you are unsure which actions can be accelerated, or whether early payment makes commercial sense in your case, we can assess the position and advise on the most cost-effective approach.

Examples of Current vs New Fees

The table below gives an indication of the scale of the increases. Full details are available in the official UKIPO fee tables linked above.

Patents

Service/ Action	Current Fee	Fee from 1 April 2026
Patent Application (online)	£60	£75
Search	£150	£200
Substantive examination	£100	£130
Renewal-year 5	£70	£90
Renewal- year 10	£170	£230
Renewal- year 20	£610	£810

Trade marks

Service/ Action	Current Fee	Fee from 1 April 2026
Application (1 class, online)	£170	£205
Additional class	£50	£60
Renewal (1 class)	£200	£245
Opposition (likelihood of confusion)	£100	£125
Opposition (other grounds)	£200	£250

Registered designs

Service/ Action	Current Fee	Fee from 1 April 2026
Application (single design)	£50	£60
Renewal (other grounds)	£70	£85

These examples are illustrative only. The full UKIPO fee tables include all fee categories, including late and post-registration fees.

Why fees are increasing

UKIPO fees have remained at historically low levels for an extended period. Trade mark fees have not changed since 1998, design fees since 2016, and patent fees since 2018.

The new fee structure reflects inflation over that time—approximately 32% since 2016—and the cost of maintaining and enhancing UKIPO services. Across patents, trade marks, registered designs, and unregistered designs, fees will increase by around 25% on average.

Why this matters

The way the increase is being implemented creates opportunities to reduce or avoid higher costs by acting earlier. This is particularly relevant for:

· upcoming patent, trade mark, or design renewals;

· deferred design publications; and

· planned oppositions or recordals.

For clients managing multiple rights, these savings can compound quickly. That is why the timing rules outlined below are critical to controlling overall IP spend.

How the Fee Increase Will Apply in Practice

Renewal cycles

To remain in force:

· patents are renewed annually;

· registered designs every 5 years; and

· trade marks every 10 years.

Renewal fees may be paid in advance:

· up to 3 months early for patents; and

· up to 6 months early for designs and trade marks.

A 6-month late renewal period is also available, although this incurs a separate late renewal fee.

Which Fee Applies – Old or New?

Whether the current fee or the new increased fee applies depends on:

1. the renewal due date, and

2. the date the renewal fee is paid.

This applies to the renewal fee itself. Late renewal fees are treated separately. If a renewal is paid late on or after 1 April 2026, the new late fee will apply, regardless of when the renewal was originally due.

Renewal due date	Paid before April 1 2026	Paid on/after 1 April 2026 (no late fee due)	Paid on/after 1 April 2026 (late fee due)
Before 1 April 2026	Old fee	Old fee	Old renewal fee & new late fee
On or after 1 April 2026	Old fee	New fee	New renewal fee & new late fee

Which Rights Can Be Renewed Early to Secure the Current Fee?

According to UKIPO guidance, the following renewals can be paid before 1 April 2026 at the current fee:

· Patents with a renewal due date in April or May 2026 (renewals due in June 2026 can only be paid from 1 April 2026)

· Trade marks with a renewal due date up to and including 30 September 2026

· Registered designs with a renewal due date up to and including 30 September 2026

Rights with later renewal dates cannot be renewed early enough to avoid the new fee.

Deferred Design Publication Fees

Where a registered design has been filed with deferred publication:

· publication fees paid before 1 April 2026 will attract the current fee;

· publication fees paid on or after 1 April 2026 will attract the new fee.

Oppositions, Recordals and Other Official Actions

For oppositions, assignments, licences, and changes of ownership or name, the fee payable is the fee in force on the date the action is filed and paid.

These fees cannot be paid in advance. To secure the lower fee, the action itself must be taken before 1 April 2026.

Official Fee Tables

The UKIPO’s complete official fee tables can be accessed directly via the following links: · Patent fee table · Trade marks fee table · Registered designs fee table · Unregistered designs fee table

Official UKIPO Announcement

The UKIPO’s official guidance confirming the new fees is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intellectual-property-office-new-fees-from-1-april-2026/new-fees-from-1-april-2026-for-designs-trade-marks-and-patents

Need advice or assistance?

If you would like tailored guidance on how these fee changes affect your IP portfolio, or support in accelerating filings or renewals ahead of the increase, please contact us.

We can review your upcoming deadlines, identify actions that can be brought forward, and help you decide the most cost-effective time to proceed.

Emotional Perception AI Limited (EPAI) v Comptroller General of Patents

Mon, 19 Jan 2026 12:00:00 Z

21 July 2025 marked the start of the hearing of Emotional Perception AI Limited (EPAI) v Comptroller General of Patents at The Supreme Court, the outcome of which is expected imminently. In anticipation of this important decision, we briefly recap what this dispute relates to and how we got here.

In summary, this hearing took place to determine whether the statutory exclusion on patenting a program for a computer as such applies to artificial neural networks (ANNs), and if so, whether it prevents EPAI from being granted a patent involving an application of this technology.

By way of background, EPAI developed an ANN capable of providing media file recommendations, such as providing song recommendations to a user based on a music file’s physical properties (e.g., the tone, timbre, speed and loudness associated with the contents of the music file), rather than relying on categories identified by humans.

EPAI filed a patent application directed to their ANN at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). However, the UKIPO rejected the patent application, on the basis that the ANN constituted a “program for a computer…as such”, per section 1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977, which is excluded from patentability.

EPAI appealed the UKIPO’s decision to reject the patent application to the High Court. The High Court passed judgement concluding that (i) the ANN claimed in EPAI’s patent application produces a technical effect occurring outside of the computer such that the ANN claimed in EPAI’s patent application is not a program for a computer as such and that (ii) even if one were to consider the computer program as either the training program or the overall training activity, the resulting ANN can be regarded as a technical effect which thereby prevents the computer program exclusion from applying. As a result, it was found that the statutory exclusion to patentability of computer programs as such did not apply.

The UKIPO appealed the High Court ruling to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the ANN-based music recommendation tool was in effect “a set of instructions for a computer to do something”, and therefore a computer program as such, which is excluded from patentability.

Which brings us to the hearing at the Supreme Court on 21 July 2025. There is the potential for the Supreme Court’s judgement to significantly change how inventions are tested for excluded subject matter in the UK and could harmonise UK law in this regard with EPO case law including how ANNs are assessed for patentability.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision could have a significant impact on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, including those involving artificial intelligence, and has the potential to impact innovation in this area in the UK for years to come.

Nice Classification Changes Take Effect in 2026

Wed, 14 Jan 2026 12:00:00 Z

On 1 January 2026, the 13th Edition of the Nice Classification – the international system used to categorise goods and services for the purpose of trade mark registration - came into force. This latest edition must be used for all new trade mark filings that apply the Nice Classification system, including those in the UK and the EU. The update reflects developments in how goods and services are created, used, and commercialised.

While the Nice system continues to operate across 45 classes, a number of goods and services have been reclassified and several new terms introduced. Notable changes include, for example:

“Non-smart” eyewear (including spectacles, sunglasses, and contact lenses) moving from Class 9 to Class 10;
Emergency and rescue vehicles moving from Class 9 to Class 12;
Electrically heated clothing moving from Class 11 to Class 25;
Essential oils now being classified according to their cosmetic, food, or medical use; and
The addition of artificial intelligence as a service (AIaaS) as a new entry in Class 42.

The 2026 classification applies to all new trade mark applications filed on or after 1 January 2026. Existing registrations and pending applications filed before this date are not affected.

For new applications, accurate classification is essential. In addition, these changes introduce new considerations for filing strategy, clearance searches, the scope of watch services and infringement monitoring.

If you have any questions about how these changes may affect your trade mark portfolio, please contact us for assistance.

Wynne-Jones IP Partner with Worcestershire's 2026 TechFest

Wed, 12 Nov 2025 12:00:00 Z

We are thrilled to announce our role as Official Partners for Worcestershire TechFest 2026.

Following on from a successful launch in 2025, which saw 500+ delegates attend across 10 events, Worcestershire TechFest will be returning in 2026 bigger, bolder and better.

Celebrating innovation & technology’s place at the heart of the success of the region, Wynne-Jones IP will be joining forces with BetaDen, Midlands Cyber, Worcestershire Growth Hub, Worcestershire County Council, and other partners to deliver a jam-packed two-week event calendar, showcasing the latest technologies developed here in Worcestershire, subject specialist forums, opportunities for networking & skills development, and collaboration with some of Worcestershire’s most innovative professionals.

At Wynne-Jones IP, we share a passion for innovation, creativity and the development of pioneering technologies. Our partnership with Worcestershire TechFest is a fantastic opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to the key values that drive so much of our regional growth.

Worcestershire TechFest 2026 will see even more technology entrepreneurs, leaders, and visionaries coming together to celebrate the local innovation community, and we couldn’t be prouder to be part of it!

If you want to get involved in all the action and keep up to date with breaking news around event dates and speaker announcements, then use the following link to register your interest in TechFest 2026: https://www.worcestershire-techfest.com/

We can’t wait to see you there in February 2026!

IPO Fees to Increase from 1 April 2026: What It Means for Your IP Strategy

Thu, 06 Nov 2025 12:00:00 Z

On 5 November 2025, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) announced that its official fees for patents, trade marks, and designs will increase from 1 April 2026, subject to parliamentary approval. Full details of the upcoming changes are available on the IPO website: Intellectual Property Office fees to increase from April 2026.

The IPO’s fees have not been raised since 2018 for patents, 2016 for designs, and 1998 for trade marks. During that time, the IPO has absorbed cost pressures through improved internal efficiencies, investment in digital services, and the use of existing reserves. The upcoming increases are framed as necessary to maintain and modernise the IPO’s services for the benefit of UK rights holders and the wider IP landscape.

The average fee increase is set to be around 25%. For example, the trade mark application fee will rise from £170 to £205, and the single design application fee will increase from £50 to £60. Higher fees will also apply to contentious proceedings before the IPO, as well as for the renewal of existing registered IP rights.

This represents a significant shift in the cost base of the UK IP regime for rights holders. For businesses and advisers operating in the IP space, proactive planning will be essential to manage the impact.

If you have filings or renewals scheduled in the coming months, now is a good time to review your timelines and budgets, and speak with your patent or trade mark attorney about your IP strategy in light of the upcoming fee changes. As a trusted leader in intellectual property protection and portfolio management, our team remains committed to exceptional client care. We work closely with our clients to tailor our services to their specific needs. If you have any questions about the IPO’s fee increase announcement or require support with future IP planning, then please do not hesitate to contact our attorneys.

Wynne-Jones IP attorneys enjoy innovation and R&D at Bristol Technology Festival

Thu, 16 Oct 2025 09:38:14 Z

Last week, Trade Mark Attorney Anastasia Osipovich and Patent Attorney Nick Davies attended the Bristol Technology Festival, celebrating the city’s thriving technology and innovation community.

The week began with a Rebel Meetup, a vibrant networking event bringing together founders, creators, and freelancers from across the Bristol and Bath region. Anastasia particularly enjoyed hearing from Ben Akers, founder of Talk Club, who delivered an inspiring and thought-provoking talk about his charity’s mission to champion men’s mental fitness on a global scale.

Later in the week, Anastasia and Nick explored the forefront of creative technology at MyWorld’s Live Innovation Lab – Tech Showcase held at Bristol Beacon. The event offered an impressive display of innovation and R&D, featuring AI-generated games, a VR-powered theatre experience, and a hands-on introduction to robotics.

The festival provided a fantastic opportunity to connect with the region’s innovators and experience first-hand how emerging technologies are shaping the industries of tomorrow.

For businesses and creators in the Bristol area looking for guidance on protecting their intellectual property, our team would be delighted to help. Anastasia and Nick can be contacted via our Bristol office:

Office 311

Engine Shed

Station Approach

Temple Meads

Bristol

BS1 1 QH

+44 (0) 1172 032 384