Skip to content


Ian Wood, Consultant

Ian is an intellectual property specialist.


Ian is an intellectual property specialist with over 30 years experience in this field, and is head of the firm's Intellectual Property team. This experience extends to all aspects of intellectual property, including dispute resolution and advising on the acquisition, maintenance and exploitation of IP rights.

Ian is predominantly involved in patent and trade mark (both registered and unregistered) work and also advises extensively on matters relating to copyright, designs (registered and unregistered), confidential information, domain names and internet issues generally.

He has been involved in many substantial (and often highly technically complex) intellectual property disputes covering a wide range of technologies. Many of these disputes have been multijurisdictional.

Ian has also advised the European Commission in connection with WTO disputes regarding international obligations on patents. He is regularly invited to speak on IP issues at leading industry events, most recently on several occasions on the proposed European unitary patent and the unified patents court and on the IP implications of Brexit.

Ian is admitted to practise in England and Wales.


  • Advising on patents ranging from those involving materials science (including thermoplastics, advanced ceramic and metal coating technologies, and adhesives, including the use of silicone gels in wound care products) to those covering chemicals, pharmaceuticals and telecommunications equipment and devices
  • Acting in parallel proceedings in the USA, Sweden, Germany, Spain, China and Malaysia
  • Advising on several patent infringement actions which are regularly cited as authorities, including Mölnlycke -v- Procter & Gamble, Honeywell -v- ACL, Unilever -v- Akzo & Chefaro, VISX -v- Nidek and Zeno Corp -v- BSM-Bionic
  • Acting in leading edge cases including BP -v- Kelly, the leading case on colour trade marks, and Aerotel v WaveCrest, the first case in which a UK patent was revoked because the underlying invention was simply a business method (and therefore excluded from patentability)