New minister takes charge of IP

24 Sept 2025News

Kanishka Narayan MP appointed Minister for intellectual property, promising to support the UK's innovative economy

Kanishka Narayan MP has been appointed as the new Minister with responsibility for intellectual property, following his recent confirmation as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on 7 September 2025. This appointment comes at a significant time when the UK's intellectual property system is recognised as one of the world’s best, playing a vital role in fostering creativity and innovation throughout the economy.

Adam Williams, the CEO of the Intellectual Property Office, expressed his enthusiasm regarding the appointment. He stated, "I am delighted to welcome Kanishka Narayan MP as the new Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, with responsibility for intellectual property." Williams highlighted the importance of intellectual property in enabling brilliant ideas to flourish, reinforcing the UK's position in the global market.

Williams continued, "The UK is widely recognised as having one of the world’s leading IP systems, and intellectual property plays a crucial role in unlocking the creative and innovative potential across our economy." He indicated confidence in Narayan's ability to assist in continuing the government's growth mission, ensuring that innovative ideas are properly protected and encouraged to reach their potential. As the new minister steps into this critical role, the focus will remain on enhancing support for creative initiatives within the UK.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

Latest Articles

Employment tribunal cases rising sharply

Recent Ministry of Justice figures reveal a significant increase in open Employment Tribunal cases and challenges faced by employers

SRA updates guidance for litigation supervision

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has enhanced its supervision guidelines to clarify litigation conduct after recent court rulings

Millions of fathers lack parental responsibility

Many fathers may be surprised to learn about their parental responsibility rights and how to secure them

Re Poundstretcher: cross-class cramdown survives even when six landlord classes say no

The Chancery Division sanctions Poundstretcher's restructuring plan despite six dissenting landlord classes, applying the Adler and Petrofac framework.

Ponsford v Sali: a property partnership's messy divorce shows why documentation wins partnership disputes

The Chancery Division takes a pragmatic, evidence based approach to untangling a property partnership built on undocumented cash dealings.

North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State: failing the flood sequential test is not the end of the story

The Planning Court confirms that a failed flood risk sequential test still gets weighed in the planning balance, not treated as an automatic refusal.

Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) v Housing Secretary: when landfill buries a quarry's right to be reviewed

The Planning Court applies Pilkington and Hillside to find a 1954 quarry permission can no longer be revived under the ROMP regime.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction: be careful what you call "agreed" in extension of time correspondence

The TCC enforces a £955,943 adjudication award after rejecting a contractor's late attempt to recast email exchanges as a binding settlement.

Ward v Donnellan: when both sides lie, "no order for costs" is not a free pass

The Court of Appeal overturns a no order for costs ruling, finding a judge let a dishonest claimant off too lightly.

London Borough of Camden v BW: when a single missing fact can decide a capacity case

The Court of Protection finds an expert's failure to explore one consequence, losing a placement, was enough to undermine his capacity assessment.

Griffiths v Essex County Council: EAT clarifies causation in discrimination remedy awards and sends pension loss back for recalculation

A single act of indirect disability discrimination can ground a full loss of earnings award, even where a later constructive dismissal claim was framed only...