Matthew Wells
Matthew is an experienced patent attorney with expertise in global patent prosecution, EPO oppositions and appeals, and litigation before the High Court and the Court of Appeal. With many years in industry, Matthew supports clients across the industrial chemistry, pharmaceuticals, climate tech and food sectors.
Matthew works with a broad range of clients, from university technology transfer offices and start-ups to SMEs and multinational companies, helping them develop and implement commercially focused intellectual property (IP) strategies.
He has particular expertise in proceedings before the EPO’s Opposition Divisions and Boards of Appeal, where he has worked on around 100 cases, including many high-profile cases involving parallel litigation. He has also supported litigation before the UK High Court and Court of Appeal, as well as the United States District Court.
Before entering the IP profession, Matthew worked as a research chemist at BP Chemicals. His work focused on proprietary chemical technologies, including fixed-bed Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and the SaaBre process for the production of acetic acid. He is a co-inventor on several patents covering technologies that have been commercially deployed.
Matthew holds a master’s degree in natural sciences from the University of Cambridge, where he specialised in chemistry and graduated with first-class honours.
- Drafting and prosecuting patent applications covering complex chemical inventions
- Advising clients on global patent strategy to meet commercial objectives
- Leading high-profile cases before the EPO’s Opposition Divisions and Boards of Appeal, often involving parallel litigation
- Supporting litigation before the High Court and Court of Appeal, and United States District Court
- Developing IP strategies for start-ups to support investment readiness and scale-up
EPO opposition highlights
- EP2590916 Mexichem vs Arkema France (T0360/19) – successful opposition (complete revocation) of a patent relating to a composition comprising 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and various other specified components.
- EP2566930 Mexichem vs Honeywell (T0739/20) – successful opposition (complete revocation) of a patent relating to use of a composition comprising HFC-134a and HFO-1234ze in a medium temperature refrigeration system.
- EP2860202 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company vs Borealis – successful opposition (complete revocation) of a patent relating to a polyethylene resin composition.
- EP2970062 Mexichem vs Honeywell (T0999/22) – successful opposition (complete revocation) of a patent relating to a process for preventing the formation of 3,3,3-trifluoropropyne during the manufacture of fluorocarbon compounds.
- EP3270893 Novozymes vs Danisco US – successful opposition (complete revocation) of a patent relating to a process for producing granules with low internally water activity.
- EP3344063 Novozymes vs International N&H Denmark – successful opposition (complete revocation) of a patent relating to a composition comprising various enzymes for the treatment of vitamin E deficiency in animals.
- EP3504001 Mexichem vs Arkema France – successful opposition (complete revocation) of a patent relating to a process for modifying the fluorine distribution of a hydrocarbon. Under appeal.
- EP3573468 Bunge Loders Croklaan vs AAK – successful defence (main claim request maintained) of a patent relating to a fat composition. Under appeal.
- EP3586950 Foshan Gold-Silver River Intelligent Equipment Co. vs Buhler – successful defence (claim 1 maintained as granted) of a patent relating to a process for preparing a battery electrolyte slurry. Involved successful defence of public prior use allegation and taking of witness evidence. Under appeal.
- EP3610871 Mexichem vs Elkington and Fife and HGF – successful defence (claim 1 maintained as amended) of a patent relating to an inhalable formulation comprising glycopyrrolate and beclomethasone dipropionate. Under appeal.
- EP3657954 Bunge Loders Croklaan vs AAK – successful defence (claim 1 maintained as granted) of a patent relating to non-hydrogenated fat composition. Under appeal.
- EP4160127 Mexichem vs The Chemours Company – successful opposition (complete revocation) of a patent relating to a heat transfer system containing a dual-row evaporator and condenser. Under appeal.
Services
- UK and European Patent Attorney
- MSci and MA (Cantab), Natural Sciences, University of Cambridge
- Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
Matthew possesses a deep understanding of our technical field and demonstrates insightful thinking across various aspects of IP strategy, effectively navigating complex technical issues. His meticulous attention to detail and responsiveness are outstanding and he consistently provides exceptional counsel for our cases. Matthew's proactive communication style ensures we remain well-informed throughout any patent procedure, and his commitment to achieving the best outcomes for us is unwavering.
Matthew has provided excellent advice across a wide range of IP from assay development to instrumentation. His cross-disciplinary approach and deep knowledge of the different aspects of IP strategy have been invaluable as we are scaling our company.
About Matthew
Experience
Areas of expertise
Qualifications
Testimonials
Awards
How We Live Our Values: Excellence
Passion and a commitment to excellence have always driven me, whether in research or as a patent attorney. That's why I fight hard for the best outcome for my clients, whether prosecuting patent applications or attacking or defending patents in EPO opposition and appeal proceedings.
In My Own Words
After several years working in R&D at the interface with IP, I realised that I wanted to get out of the lab while still being at the cutting edge of science and technology. Retraining as a patent attorney has allowed me to see potentially transformative inventions every day, without the mess of fume cupboards, microreactors and pilot plants!
For me, the most rewarding aspect of the job is seeing products and processes, protected by the patents we help our clients obtain, be commercialised and make a real difference to the lives of consumers and patients.
Related News
.avif)
UK approach to plausibility remains unchanged despite EPO’s G2/21
G1/24 - Referral to EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal on claim interpretation
EPO Board of Appeal gives clarity on interpreting G2/21 when considering post-filed data for inventive step (T0116/18)
.avif)
Description amendments: Referral to EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal now imminent
.avif)
Relief for US applicants - EPO takes a pragmatic decision on priority
When is a commercially available product excluded from prior art for lack of enablement?
EPO hints at accepting the ‘PCT joint applicants’ approach for priority
