UK: The UK, Brexit and IP law

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

UK: The UK, Brexit and IP law

On February 22 2016, the prime minister announced a referendum on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, to take place on June 23 2016. In treatment typical of the UK press, this has been christened Brexit: a term rapidly accepted into general parlance within the UK but, understandably, not outside.

This announcement has triggered extended, heated debate across all sections of society, with topics ranging from immigration to bananas. In the interests of seeking some clarity, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys, the professional bodies for UK patent and trade mark attorneys, have issued analyses of the possible outcomes.

A vote in favour of remaining in the EU maintains the status quo, but should the vote be to leave, the UK would no longer be bound by EU legislation, enabling it to change its IP laws. In that event, the EU trade mark (EUTM), Community registered design, Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court would cease to apply in the UK causing a possible mountain of requests to convert EUTMs to national registrations. The UK would remain a member of the European Patent Convention, but would no longer be part of the Select Committee meaning no say in any rule changes. Unregistered Community design rights would remain available if the disclosure of the design takes place within the EU. Supplementary protection certificates for medicinal and plant protection products would require amendments to the UK Patents Act to continue in the UK. Rights of audience at the European Patent Office would be retained for UK patent attorneys, but representation rights at the EU IPO would only be possible on joining the EEA.

As the UK would remain party to international treaties and their harmonising actions, national changes to the IP legislation would seem unlikely. Concurrently, the EU would have an indirect effect on the UK economy, but the UK less influence on that effect.

The prime minister indicated a two-year time period to negotiate arrangements for any exit, and transitional periods would certainly be required. At this stage, uncertainty prevails.

Chapman

Helga Chapman


Chapman + Co18 Staple GardensWinchester SO23 8SRUnited KingdomTel: +44 1962 600 500  info@chapmanip.com  www.chapmanip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
The keenly awaited ruling should act as a ‘call to arms’ for a much-needed evolution of UK copyright law, says Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Gift this article