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 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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

Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
Gift this article