Boult Wade Tennant
People » Dr Nigel Tucker

Dr Nigel Tucker

Partner

Reading

Contact
Download V-card
Address
Memberships
  • CIPA
  • EPI
  • Institute of Physics
Qualifications
  • European Patent Attorney
  • Chartered Patent Attorney
  • Chartered Physicist
  • PhD Surface Science, University of Liverpool
  • BSc Physics, University of Liverpool

While my academic background lies in physics (I have a PhD in Surface Physics), I have spent most of my professional life specialising in the field of aerospace. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly having an impact in this field, and I have now worked on many patent applications resulting from these developments.

I spent an early part of my career as an in-house Patent Attorney for BAE Systems, with responsibility for their research and development centres, and I have been constantly involved in aerospace work since moving to Boult. Hence, I have developed a great deal of expertise in the field. Inevitably, this has included more or more experience of working on AI-related patent applications as this exciting new tool has been increasingly applied to aerospace problems.

An example is the use of AI in non-destructive evaluation of structures, such as those found in aircraft and other vehicles. Such systems often make use of networks of sensors that monitor the structure and look for signals indicative of damage such as cracks within composite structures that will grow and eventually lead to failure of the structure. These sensors generate a huge amount of data, both from healthy and increasingly damaged structures that are now being used to train AI to identify damage and even potential damage at an earlier stage.

Another major area of application for AI is that of automation. I am seeing this being applied increasingly in aerospace, particularly in unmanned vehicles that are seeing ever-increasing levels of autonomy. The uses of AI and ML are becoming more and more diverse, and it will be fascinating to see how this continues over the coming years and how patent law responds.

As in any emerging area of technology, patent law around the world takes time to harmonise. Consequently, drafting patent applications relating to AI and ML requires special care to ensure that the different requirements can be met. This is also true when bringing patent applications drafted elsewhere into Europe. The amendments we make upon filing in Europe align patent applications better with the European Patent Office and UK Intellectual Property Office’s specific requirements regarding AI inventions, and lead to greater success for our clients.

Recent experience

Amending US-filed patent applications prior to filing in Europe to ensure they comply with requirements specific to the European Patent Office, thereby avoiding objections being raised that might otherwise prevent grant of a patent.

Assisting a client developing a new product with review of intellectual property and developing an IP strategy to protect multiple inventions in a cost effective manner.

Representing a client in an opposition case that is being keenly contested, first before the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office, then the Board of Appeal and, after a successful appeal, once more before the Opposition Division.

Publications
  • Contributing author on Concise European Patent Law, published by Kluwer Law International.
Relevant Search Terms
Recommended Sites
Suggested Media
Recognitions
Additional Info
Languages
“The uses of AI and machine learning are becoming more and more diverse, and it will be fascinating to see how this continues over the coming years and how patent law responds.”
Sector experience
Aerospace
  • Commercial aviation
  • Defence and security
  • Space and satellites
  • Unmanned aerial vehicles
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
Automotive
  • Electric vehicles
  • Engines
Communications and Networks
  • Cloud computing
  • Wired and wireless networks
Computing and Software
  • Artificial intelligence and machine learning
  • Communications and networks
  • Data and software security, cryptography and digital rights management (DRM)
  • Data management and storage, databases and data compression
  • Digital assistants, virtual assistants and software agents
  • Fintech and adtech
  • Machine vision
  • Metaverse, virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR)
  • Multimedia, audio/video processing and animation
  • Robotic process automation
  • Signal processing
  • Software applications and systems, mobile applications, user interfaces
Consumer Goods and Retail
  • Anti-counterfeit devices
  • Beauty
  • Fashion
  • Health, fitness and sport
  • Household goods
  • Moda
Electronics and Electrical Devices
  • Computer and IT architecture and system design
  • Medical devices
  • Optics
  • Robotics
  • Scientific instruments
  • Semiconductor devices
  • Testing systems, control systems, signal processing
  • Wearable tech and human interfaces
Energy and Green Technologies
  • Fuel cells and battery technology
  • Water, oil and gas, nuclear, fusion, fission
Industrial Manufacturing and Processing
  • Printing tech
  • Additive manufacturing
Materials
  • Advanced materials
  • Composite materials
  • Metallurgy and alloys
  • Nanotechnology
Medical Devices and Diagnostics
  • Devices
  • Diagnostic instruments
  • Digital health
  • Medtech

While my academic background lies in physics (I have a PhD in Surface Physics), I have spent most of my professional life specialising in the field of aerospace. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly having an impact in this field, and I have now worked on many patent applications resulting from these developments.

I spent an early part of my career as an in-house Patent Attorney for BAE Systems, with responsibility for their research and development centres, and I have been constantly involved in aerospace work since moving to Boult. Hence, I have developed a great deal of expertise in the field. Inevitably, this has included more or more experience of working on AI-related patent applications as this exciting new tool has been increasingly applied to aerospace problems.

An example is the use of AI in non-destructive evaluation of structures, such as those found in aircraft and other vehicles. Such systems often make use of networks of sensors that monitor the structure and look for signals indicative of damage such as cracks within composite structures that will grow and eventually lead to failure of the structure. These sensors generate a huge amount of data, both from healthy and increasingly damaged structures that are now being used to train AI to identify damage and even potential damage at an earlier stage.

Another major area of application for AI is that of automation. I am seeing this being applied increasingly in aerospace, particularly in unmanned vehicles that are seeing ever-increasing levels of autonomy. The uses of AI and ML are becoming more and more diverse, and it will be fascinating to see how this continues over the coming years and how patent law responds.

As in any emerging area of technology, patent law around the world takes time to harmonise. Consequently, drafting patent applications relating to AI and ML requires special care to ensure that the different requirements can be met. This is also true when bringing patent applications drafted elsewhere into Europe. The amendments we make upon filing in Europe align patent applications better with the European Patent Office and UK Intellectual Property Office’s specific requirements regarding AI inventions, and lead to greater success for our clients.

Recent experience

Amending US-filed patent applications prior to filing in Europe to ensure they comply with requirements specific to the European Patent Office, thereby avoiding objections being raised that might otherwise prevent grant of a patent.

Assisting a client developing a new product with review of intellectual property and developing an IP strategy to protect multiple inventions in a cost effective manner.

Representing a client in an opposition case that is being keenly contested, first before the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office, then the Board of Appeal and, after a successful appeal, once more before the Opposition Division.

Publications
  • Contributing author on Concise European Patent Law, published by Kluwer Law International.
Relevant Search Terms
Recommended Sites
Suggested Media
Recognitions
Additional Info

Insights

G 1/25 decision – description amendments are required, but in more limited cases

The Enlarged Board's G 1/25 decision confirms description amendments are only needed where unresolved inconsistencies with the claims cause non-compliance with the EPC.

A reminder to get claims right for computer-implemented methods of modelling

An EPO Board of Appeal decision reinforces the lessons of G 1/19. Careful claim drafting for computer-modelling inventions is essential to establish inventive step and preserve amendment options.

A reminder to check texts proposed for grant carefully (T 0216/26)

A recent EPO Board of Appeal decision confirms that applicants can correct errors in grant texts through appeal, but may still have to pay the appeal fee if they failed to identify the mistake earlier.

Sufficiency of alternatives within a claim (T 1186/24)

A recent EPO appeal decision highlights the risks of claim alternatives, confirming that each alternative must independently meet sufficiency requirements.

An appetiser before the main course of the G 1/25 decision on description amendments?

T 1043/24 aligns with the anticipated outcome of G 1/25, confirming that description amendments are needed to address inconsistencies with amended claims while allowing unclaimed embodiments to remain if clearly identified.

Anticipated referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal now confirmed – G 1/26

The EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal will consider key questions in G 1/26 on claim interpretation, the role of the description and the assessment of added subject matter under Article 123(2) EPC.

Preliminary opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal on description amendments (G 1/25)

The Enlarged Board’s preliminary view in G 1/25 indicates description amendments are needed when claim changes create EPC non-compliance, under Article 84, in both opposition and examination.

Another referral in the wake of G1/24 – should the description be consulted when considering added subject matter?

Minutes from T 873/24 suggest a new referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal on whether G 1/24—requiring consultation of the description when interpreting claims—also applies to added subject matter assessments.

An update on late-filed divisional patent applications

Board of Appeal decision T 700/25 casts doubt on J 1/24’s limited path to filing divisionals after grant, reaffirming that applicants should file before the parent patent grants.

The EPO President’s comments on description amendments (case G1/25)

In G1/25, the EPO President confirms that amended claims must be matched by description amendments under Article 84 EPC, in both examination and opposition.

Clarity of dependent claims and consequences for amendments in opposition proceedings

Recent EPO case T 866/24 highlights concerns over clarity of dependent claims and the limits of G 3/14, with important implications for G 1/24 and the pending G 1/25 decision.

Enlarged Board of Appeal Issues Ruling in G 2/24

The Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 2/24 upheld G 3/04, ruling that third parties intervening at appeal are parties as of right, not appellants and can't continue proceedings if appeals are withdrawn.

INSIGHTS