London, United Kingdom Engineering and Design practice group

"They deliver well, they have got very bright people and I think what we get from them is good quality."

(Client comment - Client satisfaction survey)

With a heritage stretching back to 1894, Boult Wade Tennant has long been regarded as a quality firm producing quality work. As a firm, we nurture attorneys with exceptional technical skills, a wealth of legal experience and a depth of commercial awareness. These assets combine to provide our clients with a real advantage. You only have to look at the recent reviews and league tables to see that this is a view shared by our clients and peers alike.

We place an emphasis not only on the quality of our work, but also on the quality of the service we provide to our clients. Always approachable, down-to-earth and jargon-free, it is our aim to work with you, not just for you. By getting to know you and your business, we can offer practical solutions to the problems you face. “Partnership” and “team work” are more than just words. They are part of who we are: enthusiastic team players, equipped with the necessary technical, legal and commercial knowledge that allows us to partner you in whatever may lie ahead.

News and information

Advocate General concludes parthenotes are not human embryos for patent purposes

In September 2013, we reported on a Referral to the CJEU from the UK High Court concerning interpretation of the term “human embryo” as it appears in the European Biotech Directive.  Read more

Managing Intellectual Property names Boult Wade Tennant patent attorneys as stars

The IP stars list is part of MIP's annual World IP survey, covering more than 80 countries and based on research amongst peers and clients.  Read more

Alice v. CLS Bank - are business methods still patent eligible in the US?

It was hoped by many that the decision of the US Supreme court in Alice v. CLS Bank (released last week) would bring some clarity to the question: what software inventions can be patented under US law? The decision shied away from grand pronouncements however. Instead the Supreme Court preferred to frame their judgment with close reference to previous case law (particularly Mayo v. Prometheus (2012) and Bilski v. Kappos (2010)).  Read more