The Patent Process - By Keltie (Video)

Article 50 of the EU AI Act introduces sweeping transparency obligations for AI providers and deployers, requiring disclosure of AI interactions, marking of AI-generated content, and labeling of deepfakes. These rules carry significant commercial and IP implications for businesses using AI to create marketing materials, synthetic influencers, and other valuable assets.

Generative AI has created a legal vacuum where synthetic images and deepfakes can be created and shared without consent, yet English law offers no standalone "image right" to protect individuals. With celebrities like Lisa Riley and over 80 performers demanding reform, the question is whether the UK's patchwork of intellectual property, data protection, and common law protections can adequately address this rapidly evolving threat to personal autonomy and reputation.

As AI voice cloning technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible, the Save Our Voices Now campaign calls for statutory rights allowing individuals to own and control their voice as intellectual property. This article examines whether existing UK law sufficiently protects one of our most personal and recognisable attributes, exploring copyright, trade marks, passing off, and the practical steps individuals and businesses can take.

The Emotional Perception saga has become a defining case for patenting AI inventions in the UK. Most significantly, the Supreme Court judgement1 of February 2026 has reformed the examination of mixed-typed inventions in general, i.e. inventions containing a ‘mixture’ of technical and non-technical features.

Trademark phishing campaigns are rising, with businesses increasingly being targeted by highly sophisticated, AI-driven trademark scams. Alice Wright analyses a prominent registration scam recently circulating in the UK to offer advice on how to identify trademark scams, what immediate steps to take if targeted, and how to proactively protect your business through legitimate channels.

The ongoing commercial rivalry between fast-fashion giants Shein and Temu has evolved into one of the most significant intellectual property disputes in the e-commerce sector. This landmark case examines critical questions about copyright ownership, platform liability, and the legal responsibilities of online marketplaces in the digital age.

The UK High Court has delivered a landmark ruling on online marketplace liability, dismissing Shein's copyright infringement claims against Temu and clarifying when platforms can be held responsible for third-party content. The judgment examines the boundaries of copyright ownership in complex supply chains and establishes important precedents for how marketplace operators should respond to infringement allegations.

The High Court has awarded the Swatch Group US$11.6 million in negotiation damages against Samsung for trade mark infringements involving watch face apps on the Galaxy App store. Rejecting both parties' extreme valuations of US$170 million and US$301, the court established important principles for assessing damages when brand owners don't license their marks and no comparable market royalties exist.

Understanding the financial commitment of patent maintenance is essential for long-term IP protection. UK patents require annual renewal fees starting four years after filing, with costs increasing progressively each year.

The United Kingdom has long maintained a highly distinctive and user-friendly mechanism within its domestic intellectual property (IP) framework: the series trademark. For decades, this system has allowed businesses – ranging from local startups to multinational corporations – to secure protection for slight variations of their brand identity under a single application.