2025 was a year of subtle, but potentially significant, shifts in IP in the UK. After the change of government in 2024, expectations ran high for bold reforms – yet the government’s approach was more nuanced.
The launch of the government’s growth-centred Modern Industrial Strategy, born from its consultation in 2024, trumpeted “innovation” nearly 200 times across its 150 pages – yet intellectual property rights were mentioned but a handful of times. This disconnect did not go unnoticed by those involved in innovation, including the IP Federation which stressed the importance of a robust and balanced IPR system to support and protect UK innovation in its consultation response.
But 2025 was far from quiet. Responses were due to the copyright and AI consultation in early 2025, and the UK Intellectual Property Office launched an impressive further 2 major consultations – on design rights reform and standard essential patents (SEPs) – with the IP Federation actively responding and engaging in each debate.
In the copyright and AI consultation, the IP Federation championed a broad text and data mining exception for commercial use – crucial for the UK’s nascent AI industry – while advocating for an internationally-aligned opt-out mechanism (similar to the direction taken by the EU). The IP Federation also joined a number of stakeholder roundtables set up by the government on this issue, as well as more detailed working groups. A government reshuffle, however, put a pause on this important topic for much of the latter part of 2025.
The SEPs consultation saw the IP Federation advocate for improving transparency, education and alternative dispute resolution, even as its members’ views diverged on some other aspects.
Meanwhile the design rights consultation – long overdue in the digital age and given numerous overlapping rights – sparked fierce debate over possible criminal sanctions for unregistered design rights, which the IP Federation strongly opposed. This Review includes an excellent article from the fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) perspective outlining why criminal sanctions would be a bad idea. The IP Federation’s response supported reform, including having a 2-stage examination and clearer coverage of graphical user interfaces and animated designs.
Global Headwinds and the Battle for Multilateralism in Global IP Policy
If 2025 had a global theme, some might say that it was the struggle to keep multilateralism alive. While the world may seem increasingly politically...
Why would the FMCG industry be opposed to criminal sanctions for UK UDR infringement?
The UK IPO has been consulting on possible changes to UK design law. One of those changes concerned the introduction of criminal sanctions for the...
Robert Carlin, Chair of the IP Federation Design Committee. In-house Patent Attorney
Courts, Controversies and the Power of Intervention
The IP Federation’s impact was felt not just in policy circles, but in the courts. In a landmark case, the IP Federation challenged the UPC...