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 Court of First Instance (CFI)’s decision in Suinno v Microsoft. In this case, the CFI had concluded that an employee of a company, even if sufficiently qualified, could not act as the company’s representative before the UPC because, according to the CFI, they were not independent in accordance with the rules of the UPC. The IP Federation’s position is that in-house lawyers and attorneys should have the same rights as private practice lawyers, whether it is in the area of privilege or rights of representation.
Although not procedurally possible for the IP Federation to intervene formally in the case, it wrote to the UPC Court of Appeal’s Presiding Judge – Judge Grabinski – expressing its concern with the CFI’s decision. The letter – and CIPA’s – attracted wide press coverage. The Court of Appeal’s subsequent reversal of the CFI’s decision aligned with the IP Federation’s and CIPA’s submission, confirming that an employee of a company could represent its employer if it did so independently.
The case also exposed a glaring omission in the UPC’s rules: interested third parties face real hurdles when trying to present arguments and evidence to the CoA on issues that matter to a decision, but are not being argued by the parties. It is a gap that requires consideration in any future change to the rules.
Elsewhere, the IP Federation joined forces with CIPA in a high-profile intervention before the UK’s Supreme Court in the Emotional Perception AI case, which related to the patentability of an artificial neural network that recommends media files. Given that the Supreme Court’s decision could redefine the patentability of AI-driven inventions, the IP Federation chose to intervene. In its intervention, cited repeatedly during the hearing, the IP Federation expressed the importance of clarity and consistency in the assessment of computer-implemented inventions. The intervention appears to have had a clear impact on the Supreme Court, where it was specifically referred to by Lord Briggs at the beginning and end of the hearing. At the time of writing, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case remains pending. Something to look forward to in 2026.
In addition to engaging in court proceedings, two decisions of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal in 2025 (G 1/23 and G 1/24) aligned with the arguments presented by the IP Federation in its amicus briefs submitted to the Board – nicely notching up a couple more successes in 2025.
President’s Introduction
I feel honoured to be writing the introduction to the 2025 IP Federation Review as the current President of the IP Federation. The IP Federation...
Sarah Vaughan, President, IP Federation
A Year of Quiet Upheaval in UK IP Policy
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...
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