Space Law: UK intellectual property law in the space sector

Phil Merchant, Louise Mansion and Tom Taylor have recently contributed to Lexology’s In Depth: Space Law series, authoring a chapter focused on the application of UK intellectual property law in space.

In Depth: Space Law (formerly The Space Law Review) provides a comprehensive overview of the legal and regulatory frameworks governing space and satellite activities across key jurisdictions worldwide. In their chapter, Phil, Louise and Tom explore how existing UK IP law applies to space technologies, as well as the strategic considerations for organisations innovating in this fast-evolving sector.

[First published on Lexology: Lexology In Depth: Space Law: UK intellectual property in the space sector]

Introduction

The space sector has been an active field of scientific endeavour throughout the past century. Where space activities were once the exclusive domain of government organisations and aerospace giants, technological advances have opened the frontier to a wider number of participants and broader field of innovators. Smaller companies, universities and private ventures are now developing technologies with applications spanning telecommunications, agritech, quantum communication, logistics and even pharmaceutical and semiconductor manufacture in orbit. These emerging players rely heavily on commercialising their innovative technology, making intellectual property (IP) protection increasingly important to their success.

Recent studies by the European Patent Office (EPO),1 the United States Patent and Trademark Office2 and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)3 show a marked increase in space-related patent filings since 2010, with significant interest in emerging fields including propulsion, quantum technologies and remote sensing. These studies also reveal an increasing involvement from the private sector, small companies and universities, for whom a robust IP strategy can play a critical role in ensuring commercial viability.

In this chapter, we consider the application of current UK IP law to space technologies and examine the strategic implications for those innovating in this rapidly evolving sector.

Definitions and legal framework

IP relates to rights resulting from intellectual activity in industrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields4 and the term includes patents, trade marks (including unregistered rights in names), registered and unregistered designs, copyright, database rights and trade secrets.

A granted patent protects an invention (a technical contribution to the art); a trade mark protects an indication of origin of goods or services (a logo, company name, slogan, etc.); registered and unregistered designs protect the outward appearance of a product (but not its function); copyright protects creative works (e.g., music, artworks, written works, databases); and trade secrets protect confidential information that derives value from its confidentiality (e.g., recipes, customer lists and semiconductor fabrication processes).

Questions of IP infringement are largely decided at the national level. This is because intellectual property rights (IPRs) are granted on a by-territory basis (for example, to protect an invention, businesses and individuals will separately register patents in territories of commercial interest (e.g., a UK, US or Japanese patent). Some forms of IP protection are available on a by-region basis, including a European Union trade mark and the more recently available European unitary patent. However, due to the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union, the territorial jurisdiction of a unitary patent does not extend to the UK and EU trade marks no longer extend to the UK.

Therefore, in the United Kingdom, IP rights are enforced through the application of UK statute and UK common law provisions, and infringement is decided in the relevant UK courts. The key statutes are the Patents Act 1977, the Registered Designs Act 1949, the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). Protection of trade secrets is possible via the Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc.) Regulation 2018.

The Patents Act, the Registered Designs Act and the Trade Marks Act also set out the registration requirements for patents, designs and trade marks, respectively, and are relied upon by the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) in its capacity as the government body responsible for registering intellectual property rights in the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom is party to various international treaties and agreements that harmonise certain aspects of IP law across multiple jurisdictions and provide administratively efficient means of obtaining protection across multiple territories, including:

1. the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property signed at Paris (the Paris Convention);
2. the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights;
3. the Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT);
4. the European Patent Convention;
5. the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works;
6. the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs; and
7. the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Mark (the Madrid Protocol).

International patent applications may be filed at the UKIPO under the PCT. International patent applications filed in any country may be converted into UK patent applications. UK patents may be validated from European patents granted by the EPO. However, while the PCT and the EPO provide alternative routes to the grant of UK patents, the enforcement of UK patents falls within the jurisdiction of the UK courts and under the UK Patents Act. Similarly, the enforcement of other UK IP rights falls within the jurisdiction of the UK courts.

IP law and the space sector in practice

Companies and individuals file IPRs as a way to protect their commercial operations (e.g., to prevent a competitor producing products covered by a patent or marketing rival products under a protected brand name or logo). IPRs may also be used for alternative commercial benefits (including the Patent Box),5 licensing or selling IPRs, or using IPRs for security-backed lending. IPRs can also have defensive value (i.e., if an IP infringement claim is brought against a company, the existence of its own IP portfolio can allow it to assert a counter-infringement claim).

Precisely which and how many IPRs are to be filed is a commercial decision informed by the market and technical field of the rights holder.

The principal markets for space technology include the upstream market (focusing on the development and launch of space infrastructure) and the downstream market (focusing on space operations for terrestrial use or products and services derived from in-space objects such as satellites). A product or service within a supply chain may have multiple elements, each of which could be protected by IPRs. A single IPR may cover multiple products (for example, a single patent protecting an element present on multiple satellite products) or a single product may be protected by multiple IPRs (for example, within a satellite, the thruster and solar array may each be protected by separate patents, while data generated by the satellite – such as collected Earth observation data – may be protected by database rights or copyright, or both).

Furthermore, the space supply chain covers not only outer space, but also multiple locations on the surface of the Earth, as well as potentially extending into multiple territories. This cross-border implementation may require separate IPRs for each region (even if each IPR in question is directed towards the same subject matter).

In protecting their innovation, companies and individuals must therefore carefully consider both the scope of protection of their IP (i.e., what is protected in the product) and the territories in which the IPRs are registered (i.e., where the product is protected). In some cases, these considerations overlap; for instance, different parts of a product protected by a patent may be in different locations (e.g., a distributed server or assembly of a product may be performed in multiple locations).

While cross-border IP enforcement is a feature of many technical fields, the space sector provides a more unusual angle: parts of the supply chain may involve actions taking place in outer space, which is subject to non-appropriation and does not per se fall within the ownership of any nation state. As such, an additional consideration arises – how, if at all, can IPRs be enforced against acts being performed in outer space? And furthermore, how can IPRs be best utilised to provide protection for operations taking place at least in part in outer space?

Jurisdiction and territory – extensions and limitations

IPRs provide for exclusive rights with geographic limits. For example, a UK patent can be used to restrict a third party from carrying out infringing acts in the United Kingdom; conversely, it could not be expected that a UK patent could restrict third-party actions in neighbouring countries. Rather, for this, distinct patent protection would be required in that neighbouring country.

Outer space is famously subject to non-appropriation, but international space law does enable a state's jurisdiction to be retained for some elements and activities located in outer space.

Article VIII of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies 1967 (the Outer Space Treaty) specifies that:

A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body.

Detail on registration of space objects is provided by the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space 1975 (the Registration Convention). The Registration Convention provides that a space object should be registered by the 'launching state' and defines the 'launching state' as:

1. A State which launches or procures the launching of a space object;
2. A State from whose territory or facility a space object is launched.

It is further provided that where there are two or more launching states, the state parties should agree between them which is to register the object.

Therefore, the Outer Space Treaty and the Registration Convention, when read together, indicate that whichever country registers an object, due to launching, procuring the launch, or being the territory of the launch or providing the launch facility, shall retain jurisdiction and control over that object. For example, the United Kingdom will retain jurisdiction over space objects that are registered by the UK on the basis of the UK being either the state that procures the launch of the object or the territory from which the object is launched.

Given that UK-registered space objects fall within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom under the Outer Space Treaty and the related UK legislation (the Outer Space Act 1986 and the Space Industry Act 2018), it could be contemplated that UK IP law could, in principle, be considered to apply to all objects launched into outer space that are contained on the UK registry and under the jurisdiction and control of the United Kingdom. In which case, it might be argued that acts performed in or on a UK-registered object in outer space could be considered to be performed within the United Kingdom (even though no part of outer space itself forms part of the territory of the United Kingdom).

The United Kingdom is also a signatory to the International Space Station (ISS) Intergovernmental Agreement (ISS-IGA). Article 21 of the Agreement specifically deals with intellectual property and provides that:

for purposes of intellectual property law, an activity occurring in or on a Space Station flight element shall be deemed to have occurred only in the territory of the Partner State of that element's registry, except that for ESA-registered elements any European Partner State may deem the activity to have occurred within its territory.

Therefore, for European Space Agency (ESA) Member States, the ISS-IGA provides the option to consider their territory to extend to the ESA module (for the purposes of intellectual property). This provides an argument for the territory of the United Kingdom to be extended to include the ESA module of the ISS (and therefore a limited number of outer space activities can be considered to be performed in the United Kingdom).

However, the above arguments (based on the Outer Space Treaty in relation to activities of or on space objects or based on the ISS-IGA for activities on the ESA module) would need to be consistent with national UK IP law and the territorial reach of UK IPRs as defined within that law.

The meaning of patent infringement is set out in Section 60(1) of the Patents Act. Under this Section, to directly infringe a patent, a person must undertake specific acts in relation to a patented process (use or offers for use) or product (makes, disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses, imports or keeps) in the United Kingdom and without the proprietor's consent.

Section 60(2) of the Patents Act also provides for 'contributory infringement', which has a dual territorial limitation: a person or company will infringe a UK patent if they supply or offer to supply in the United Kingdom any means relating to an essential element of the invention for putting the invention into effect when they know, or it is obvious, that those means are suitable for putting, and are intended to put, the invention into effect in the United Kingdom.

The rights conferred by a registered trade mark are set out in Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, which provides that a registered trade mark is infringed by use of the trade mark in the United Kingdom without the proprietor's consent.

Section 16 of the CDPA provides the owner of the copyright in a work the exclusive right to carry out prescribed acts in the United Kingdom (e.g., copying the work and issuing copies of the work to the public).

However, despite these definitions, infringement under these acts is not strictly limited to the United Kingdom. The territorial reach of the Patents Act is extended by Section 132, which extends the Act to include the Isle of Man; the territorial waters of the United Kingdom; the UK continental shelf as defined in the Continental Shelf Act 1964; and acts carried out in areas specified in relevant sections of the Petroleum Act 1998.

Similarly, the territorial reach of the Trade Marks Act is extended by Sections 107 and 108 to the Isle of Man, territorial waters of the United Kingdom and, in certain conditions, the continental shelf. The territorial reach of the CDPA is extended to the territorial waters of the United Kingdom and, in certain conditions, the continental shelf, and separate Orders in Council have extended parts of the CDPA to other territories including the Isle of Man.

Therefore, while there are some territorial extensions to the acts, these are explicitly provided. Given that there is no corresponding provision for space-related territory extensions for UK-registered IPRs, it seems unlikely that the territory of the United Kingdom as regards patent, trade mark, design or copyright infringement would extend to space objects that fall within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, at least based on the current legislation. It would seem another explicit provision would be required.

It is notable that other countries have promulgated space-focused IP legislation along these lines. For example, the United States, also a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty and the Registration Convention, has implemented an explicit provision for its own patent law. Under US Code Title 35 Section 105 (Inventions in outer space):

Any invention made, used or sold in outer space on a space object or component thereof under the jurisdiction or control of the United States shall be considered to be made, used or sold within the United States.

In a similar vein, as part of legislation to ratify the ISS-IGA, Germany exercised its right to extend its domestic IP law to actions taking place on the ESA-registered element.6 Additionally, during the early drafting of the European Community Patent Regulation, an article was proposed that explicitly extended the draft legislation to space objects under the jurisdiction and control of European Member States.7 The Community patent was never realised, however, and the legislation for its successor (the Unitary patent) does not contain a corresponding section.

There do not appear to be any moves to enact any similar territory extensions in the United Kingdom. Even the territory extension provided for by Article 21 of the ISS-IGA does not appear to have been explicitly adopted by the United Kingdom (despite assurances seemingly made to ESA in 1993).8

In view of the extension of the UK territory to UK-registered space objects (explicit or otherwise) currently seeming unlikely, commercial entities seeking to protect their IP must focus on the protection available on Earth and must therefore consider which terrestrial territories to prioritise for protection.

For example, IPRs may be enforced against space objects at the point of manufacture on Earth or their sale within a territory. IPRs could also be enforced against any object that is returned to Earth, including any products that are manufactured in space and returned to Earth for use or sale.

Another option is to enforce IPRs against space objects as they cross national borders after manufacture and before launch. One strategy could therefore be to obtain protection in the location of the launch facility, and with the imminent availability of launch capability in the United Kingdom, we may see an influx of space-related IP being protected in the UK.

However, there are some exemptions to infringement aimed at aircraft temporarily in the United Kingdom, which may apply to space objects (e.g., space objects temporarily in the UK as they are transported to the launching facility). Sections 60(5)(e) and (f) of the Patents Act provide:

5. An act which, apart from this subsection, would constitute an infringement of a patent for an invention shall not do so if—
   5. it consists of the use of a product or process in the body or operation of a relevant aircraft, hovercraft or vehicle which has temporarily or accidentally entered or is crossing the United Kingdom (including the air space above it and its territorial waters) or the use of accessories for such a relevant aircraft, hovercraft or vehicle;
   6. it consists of the use of an exempted aircraft which has lawfully entered or is lawfully crossing the United Kingdom as aforesaid or of the importation into the United Kingdom, or the use or storage there, of any part or accessory for such an aircraft.

The applicability of this defence is limited to the use of a product or process (e.g., it does not include manufacture) and it depends on the definition of 'aircraft' and the space object in question.

Under Section(60)(7) of the Patents Act:

1. 'relevant aircraft' is defined as an 'aircraft . . . belonging to, any country, other than the United Kingdom, which is a party to the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property signed at Paris on 20th March 1883 or which is a member of the World Trade Organisation'; and
2. 'exempted aircraft' is defined as 'an aircraft to which section 89 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 . . . (aircraft exempted from seizure in respect of patent claims) applies'.

The Paris Convention itself does not provide a definition of 'aircraft'. When adopting this legislation, some countries have decided to explicitly include spacecraft within the exemption, as indicated in the WIPO's 'Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights'.9 The United Kingdom is not one of these countries, however.

The Basic Regulation of the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) defines an aircraft as 'any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the Earth's surface', and, on this basis, the CAA indicates in its publication 'What is an Aircraft?'10 that an air-breathing engine is an aircraft but a rocket is not.

As such, it seems that the temporary presence defence will only apply to space objects in the United Kingdom in limited circumstances and third parties should not assume that the temporary presence defence will be available to them in the United Kingdom. Space objects being imported into the United Kingdom for the purpose of launch might be considered to infringe UK-registered IP rights.

There is, however, scope for the legislation to be updated to extend the temporary presence provisions and exempt temporarily imported space objects from infringement. It could be envisaged that the government may deem this type of change beneficial in supporting the UK launch sector and encouraging third parties from overseas to make use of UK launch facilities.

Scope of patent claims

Another aspect that may impact the relevant territory for UK patents is the scope of claims.

It may be advisable for patent drafters to ensure that terrestrial objects and activities are foremost in the claims defining the scope of a UK patent. For example, in relation to methods such as distributed computing inventions, the claims could be targeted at actions taking place on Earth, and in relation to apparatus such as low-gravity manufacturing facilities, the claims could be targeted at the form of the products once they are returned to Earth (or to the form of the factory apparatus before it is launched).

UK case law also provides some guidance on the extent to which a claimed method must be performed in the United Kingdom, at least in respect of contributory infringement.

The case of Menashe Mercantile v. William Hill11 involved a gaming system that used both a remote host computer (located in Antigua) and a local UK-based terminal computer. Users would purchase a CD that loaded onto their UK-based computer and allowed interaction with the overseas Antigua-based computer, thereby creating an allegedly infringing system. It was accepted that the CD supplied in the United Kingdom constituted material relating to an essential element of the invention. However, it was argued that as the host computer (also an essential element of the invention) was based overseas, the invention was not put 'into effect in the United Kingdom'. This argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal, which held that the patent was being infringed because the patented system was being used in the United Kingdom and, to that extent, the host computer could be considered as being used in the UK by the user regardless of where the host computer was located.

The Menashe case was then considered in Research in Motion v. Motorola,12 which involved actions taking place in Canada, and Illumina, Inc v. Premaitha Health Plc,13 which involved actions taking place in Taiwan.

The Illumina case involved patents for non-invasive techniques for detecting foetal abnormalities. The alleged infringer's process involved DNA preparation and sequencing taking place in the United Kingdom but further data analysis being carried out in Taiwan. The outcome of the Taiwanese analysis would be returned to UK-based laboratories. It was argued that there was no infringement as the detection and analysis steps (crucial to the inventive concept of the patents) would take place outside of the United Kingdom. It was held that the crucial question was where, 'in substance', is the patented process being used; on the facts of the Illumina case, the claimed methods would, in substance, be performed by laboratories in the United Kingdom. It did not matter where the computer was located if the process is operated 'in substance in the UK'. Otherwise, if infringement could be avoided by an overseas server, it would make it much too easy to avoid infringement of patents of this nature given the ease of digital transmission and the ability to off-shore computer processing.

The same logic would apply in the cases referred to above whether the server is located in another country or in outer space (in Menashe, Lord Justice Aldous specifically used the example of the host computer being located on a satellite).14 Therefore, while each case will depend on the individual facts, there is a clear precedent that there may be a finding of UK patent infringement where any data processing is conducted on a space object but, in substance, the patented process is taking place in the United Kingdom.

There is a clear benefit in drafting patent claims carefully and in such a way that maximises the chances of ultimately stopping the infringer based on land in the United Kingdom (or another territorial jurisdiction).

Assessment of infringement and trade secrets

One additional consideration is that to enforce a patent, an allegedly infringing article or process must be assessed against the patent to determine if infringement is taking place. Companies seeking to enforce their patent rights may conduct thorough investigations or purchase a product (a 'trap-purchase') to perform this assessment. For space-focused activities, however, this may be difficult – the space object cannot be easily observed once it is in space and may not be open to inspection even on Earth prior to launch.

IPR holders can still attempt to enforce their patents against a competitor they suspect to be infringing and require disclosure of relevant material in advance of civil proceedings. However, this type of action is not guaranteed to be successful and cannot be purely speculative – the claimant is at risk of a strike-out order if reasonable grounds are not provided. While the United Kingdom has a system of disclosure whereby alleged infringers often provide process or product descriptions (PPDs) describing their systems in detail, to get a claim off the ground (leading to a PPD being provided) there needs to be a proper basis for an infringement allegation. Accordingly, it is preferable for a patentee to not have to rely on speculation, inferences or assumptions about how a space-based system is operating. It follows that implementers acutely aware of potentially infringed patents may be deliberately opaque when describing their systems in public.

In parallel to this risk, it is observed that to obtain a patent for an invention, the patent application must be published (thus revealing the technical details of the invention to the world). This is known as the 'patent bargain' and is the foundation underlying the patent system; an inventor will get to enjoy a time-limited monopoly in exchange for sharing their knowledge widely. Of course, this system of bargaining is vulnerable when inventors have legitimate concerns that they will not in fact get to enjoy monopoly rights. If it is possible to keep an invention secret, innovative companies need to balance the benefits of patent protection against the drawbacks of publication; if it is assessed that enforcing a patent will be difficult, some companies might prefer to forgo patent protection to avoid publication.

In these cases, companies may instead prefer to rely on protection via trade secrets. A trade secret is a form of secret information that derives its value from the fact that it is secret. By definition, it does not require disclosure to the public but the scope of protection is more limited than a patent; for example, a trade secret does not protect against independent creation by a competitor. Moreover, trade secrets can assist innovators when dealing with 'unpatentable' subject matter (e.g., certain computer programs and software). Due to the nature of certain space-related technologies, it is conceivable that some companies ought to consider trade secret protection as an alternative to patent protection. A considered balance of patent versus trade secret protection should form part of any detailed IP strategy.

Brands in the age of commercial space travel

Space is a new frontier in terms of providing opportunities for commercialisation of both products and services and has the potential to become a 'billionaires' playground'. For example, state-sponsored exploration is now not the only form of space travel; private companies including Elon Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (better known as SpaceX) and Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin are just two well-known examples of brands operating in the space travel sector. The global space tourism market was valued at over US$876 million in February 2025 and is projected to exceed US$13 billion by 2030.15

As no space-specific legal regimes are in place in relation to IP, companies wishing to protect their brands must do so using traditional national IP frameworks.

The reasons for doing so are numerous. Primarily, it would protect the company's investment in developing its brand and market presence. Recognition in the minds of consumers or commercial partners of the origin of goods and services develops through use of a brand name. As such, trade marks are critical for protecting brands in the emerging space tourism market, just like in any other consumer-facing industry. This industry's potential can be likened to that of today's commercial airliners: they serve functions that are both business and consumer-facing and constitute some of the world's most recognisable brands. These companies are competing with each other to provide the best (or cheapest) products and services and they want to distinguish themselves from their competitors accordingly. Registered rights, including trade marks protecting a brand and its core products or service offering, are also required for optimising commercialisation of brands through licensing, attracting investment, etc.

It is also a defensive mechanism. With registered trade marks, or unregistered rights in a name generated through use, third parties can be prevented from using a name that is too similar and would cause confusion in the market or that would damage the reputation in a trade mark.

It is easy to envisage a future where protection is expanded to cover space (for example, via an expansion to the Madrid Protocol system). However, for now, companies operating brands in space will need to assess in which Earth-based jurisdictions they are operating (manufacturing, importing and offering goods or services for sale, etc), and conduct clearance searches and file trade marks accordingly. The same goes for designs.

A trade mark is registered in one or more 'classes' of goods and services. When it comes to trade mark prosecution (the practice of applying for and securing registered trade mark rights), and specifying a class, the existing Nice classification system of goods and services can be used. Therefore, when registering a trade mark, a class (or classes) of goods and services should be selected that best covers a company's commercial activities. The range of goods and services can cover different parts of a product's manufacture and supply chain. For example, for space-based manufacture, the mark should cover products of these exploits when returned to Earth and sold to medical companies and consumers on Earth (because the marketing and engagement of the space-based service would likely take place on Earth).

As an example, consider a company wishing to commercialise in-orbit manufacture of products. Suitable classes that could be selected may include Class 39 (transport and packaging and storage of goods), Class 40 (manufacturing) and Class 42 (scientific research and design). Particular goods and services could be specified within each class – for example:

1. Class 39: launch, on-orbit and re-entry services, namely transporting the payloads of others to, through and from space;
2. Class 40: provision of in-space manufacturing services, custom manufacturing and processing of materials in a micro-gravity environment; and
3. Class 42: research and development of technology in the fields of in-space manufacturing, and scientific research and analysis of data in the fields of in-space manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and biology.

Although a third party might technically be able to undertake activities such as space tourism flights without infringing certain Earth-based national rights (in jurisdictions that lack the extension provisions discussed above), any competitor would still need to design and build its spacecraft, sell tickets, market its services and carry out launch and re-entry operations from Earth. As such, the practical reality is that the requisite protection (in this example) is sufficiently provided by the existing IP protection frameworks, as long as protection is secured in the relevant jurisdictions where these goods and services will be made available on Earth.

Conclusions and outlook

Space technologies, like other technical fields, may be protected by current IP frameworks, and the appetite for filing patents for space-focused technologies continues to increase in both the upstream and the downstream markets.

As it stands, the United Kingdom does not explicitly extend its national IP law to cover acts performed in outer space. It is furthermore questionable whether the retention of UK jurisdiction for space objects under international law would have the effect of extending the scope of the relevant UK IP statute to cover acts performed by or taking place on UK-registered space objects.

However, an IP strategy that is crafted to focus on terrestrial activities may still provide effective protection against the actions of many space-focused organisations. At present, most infringing acts including making, using, selling and importing are more likely to take place on Earth (at least in substance). For example, claims focusing on the manufacture of space objects may be enforced at the point of manufacture, therefore avoiding the need for uncertain litigation to be pursued focusing on the space-based activities.

While there do not appear to be any plans to introduce space-focused IP legislation, it is becoming clear that actions taking place in space have the potential to form a significant part of a commercial enterprise. This includes the manufacture of high-value products (e.g., pharmaceuticals and semiconductor products), the implementation of AI-driven image processing and communication processes. The future promises even further high-value in-space developments, such as mineral extraction and human habitation. It may be that as these technologies mature, existing IP frameworks may no longer be suitable to ensure adequate commercial protection for innovators and additional legal clarifications will be required.

To support commercialisation for innovators in the United Kingdom in the future, we would hope to see UK legislation developed to extend the territory of the United Kingdom to space objects under the registry of the United Kingdom, and to extend the existing temporary presence defence to include spacecraft.

Footnotes

Subscribe to receive more articles like this here.