PHARMACEUTICAL IP

IP Stars: Evolve recognised in 2026 Publication

  • Sector: Patent law

We are delighted to announce that Evolve IP has been recognised in the 2026 IP STARS rankings. This distinction reflects our team’s ongoing dedication to exceptional intellectual property support, featuring key individual accolades for our patent attorneys.

Steven Gurney has been recognised as a Patent Star. This specific ranking is awarded to senior practitioners who demonstrate proven excellence in high-stakes patent strategy, prosecution, and litigation. Steven is highly commended for his “incredible technical expertise in life sciences” combined with a “commercial and pragmatic approach”. He is further praised by peers and clients for his “technical excellence, responsiveness, creativity and future-focussed” mindset.

Rose Hughes has been named a Notable Practitioner. Highlighting her exceptional work and strategic insight, Rose is praised for her “insightful understanding of European Patent Law” and her ability to “apply it at the cutting edge”.

Congratulations to Steven and Rose for these well-deserved recognitions, and a sincere thank you to our clients and peers whose continued trust and valued feedback have allowed us to achieve this ranking.

Related insights...

Evolve Intellectual Property ranked in IAM Patent 1000

We are proud to announce that Evolve IP has been ranked in the 2026 publication of the IAM Patent 1000: United Kingdom – England and Wales. This year’s guide highlights our deep technical expertise in life sciences and our practical, strategic business focus. Congratulations to our patent attorneys, Steven Gurney who is ranked Silver and Rose…

Evolve Intellectual Property recognised in Legal500 rankings

Evolve Intellectual property is delighted to once again be recognised in the 2026 edition of Legal 500 for our growing specialised life science IP Practice in Cambridge, UK. The publication highlights Steven Gurney (founder and European, UK, and Australian patent attorney) for his work protecting key biopharmaceutical assets and for his focus on complex prosecution…

G1/25: What are the consequences?

Following the release of G1/25, questions have been circling as to what the decision means for the pending referral in G 1/26 and what the consequences (good or bad) are for applicants and patentees.

AI in the patent industry: Beware the MCP Trojan horse

As patent attorneys, we should all know by now not to put client confidential information to a non-enterprise version of an LLM. However, as the capabilities of AI tools become more complex, so too does the necessity of understanding what exactly they are doing and where our data goes, beyond the simple prompt.

BREAKING: When real doubt hits – G1/25 changes the description adaptation requirement for the worse

G 1/25, issued today, holds that the description must be adapted only where an “inconsistency” between the claims and description causes non-compliance with another requirement of the EPC.

New referral on claim interpretation and relevance of G1/24 to added matter confirmed (G1/26)

We now have confirmation of a new referral to the EBA on claim interpretation (G1/26). As previously hinted, The Board of Appeal in T 0873/24 has decided to refer questions on the application of G1/24 to the assessment of added matter.

AI in the patent industry: Bubble trouble and the affordability myth

Whenever we write about AI, responses have started to move away from talk about hallucination, confidentiality or quality. The new concern is one of economics, i.e. will the whole AI thing just become too expensive and are we putting ourselves at risk by outsourcing to AI.

Podcast: Staring into the AI abyss

INSIGHT epi – The podcast for European patent professionals

AI in the patent industry: The risks of AI shadow use

In many patent firms, permission to use AI tools is currently restricted to the most senior individuals. Whilst almost every firm seems to have a dedicated “AI task-force” these days to trial new software, this group is usually restricted to partners or senior associates, whilst trainees and more junior associates are denied access to AI…

Be careful what you wish for: Method of treatment claim for an antibody genus found to satisfy both written description and enablement requirement (Teva v Eli Lilly)

In a remarkable departure from what we might have expected it to do following Amgen v Sanofi, the US Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit in Teva v Eli Lilly upheld a jury verdict finding that a method of treatment claim for a broad genus of antibody satisfied both the written description and enablement…
All Insights