Data centres are increasingly at the epicentre of technology growth, and intellectual property (IP) features prominently in the development of the next generation of data centres. The UK hosts roughly 500 data centres, a figure likely to grow with AI demand, increased processing power and greater storage needs. Accompanying this growth is an increased importance in the role of IP, as patentees seek to maximise value from, and protect, their innovation.
The surge in AI demand has driven significant investment and innovation in AI enabling infrastructure. More capable AI solutions require more powerful hardware and that hardware needs a home – the data centre. As a result, hardware and software solutions across the entire technology stack are evolving, with significant innovation in many aspects of data centre operation, including in liquid cooling and thermal management; analytics for monitoring and orchestration; power consumption to align with sustainability goals; grid resilience; workflow and data storage optimisation; and structural/electrical organisation.
Significant capital investment combined with rapid innovation is, and always has been, fertile ground for new IP. Data centre innovation is no exception. For example, by the end of 2025 there was a reported increase of more than 50% in patent filings for technologies directed to AI data centre cooling when compared to statistics for similar patent filings in 2019.1 Anyone who has used an AI app on a mobile device will have noticed how quickly it heats up—scale that to data centre workloads.
As might be expected, patentees operating in this space span the globe. Examples of key stakeholders include Google, IBM, Intel, Samsung, State Grid Corporation of China, and Huawei. In addition, patent pool administrators and assertion entities, such as Via Licensing and Valtrus Innovations, have recognised the value being generated in next generation data centres and are cultivating portfolios to address the relevant technologies.
Alongside the increase in patent filings in the field, there has also been a marked uptick in patent litigation concerning data centre technologies. While the early indications show that the most significant increase in patent litigation has been in the US courts, it is fair to say that patent owners with interests across data centre operations and activities are increasingly looking to IP enforcement to protect their investments.
Valtrus is one such company. The Irish based entity holds an extensive portfolio which originated from Hewlett Packard Enterprise, spanning, by way of example, servers, cloud and data centre management, memory, processors, WLAN, network analytics and power. Valtrus has asserted US patents in the Eastern District of Texas against several operators and stakeholders, including Dawn Acquisitions LLC (trading as Evoque Data Center Solutions) (Vertiv Corporation intervened given allegations relating to Vertiv supplied products), Equinix, and Google. The Evoque and Equinix cases settled; the Google case was dismissed for lack of standing. Valtrus’ asserted patents covered a range of technologies, including resource access control, atmospheric controls, cooling systems and fluid supply, sensor assemblies, deployment methods, power controls and energy management.
US trends often foreshadow activity in the UK and Europe—and patent litigation has already reached the UK. For example, ThroughPuter, Inc., which previously commenced (and settled) multiple patent infringement proceedings against Microsoft (one in the Western District of Washington and another before the UK patents court), has since commenced newer proceedings before the UK Patents Court against Google and Amazon. The patents which ThroughPuter has asserted relate to task scheduling and data processing/networking architecture.
The UK Supreme Court’s decision in February 2026 in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents has reframed the UK approach to considering (and ultimately granting and upholding) patents for computer implemented inventions.
Historically, the various UK statutory exclusions to patentability set out in s.1(2) Patents Act 1977 (in particular the ‘program for a computer … as such’ exclusion in s.1(2)(c)) proved to be not-insignificant hurdles to overcome, both during patent prosecution and, of course, when presented in revocation proceedings by way of a potential answer to an infringement allegation. However, in its recent decision, the UK Supreme Court has aligned the UK approach to the exclusions more closely with that adopted in Europe, where the exclusions have typically been considered to be easier to navigate successfully. The European Patent Office and National Courts of Member States had, for some time, adopted the position that a claim addressing a software invention would not fall foul of the statutory exclusion, and thereby be excluded from patentability, if the claimed invention embodied or involved the use of physical hardware (however mundane) and made a technical contribution.
This alignment with the European approach has been perceived by many to make the UK a more friendly jurisdiction for patentees in the technology sector and potentially opens the door to opportunities to patent new software inventions relevant to data centres, where previously there were none.
Patents are territorial rights. To establish infringement in the UK, a patentee must demonstrate relevant infringing acts taking place in the jurisdiction: making, disposing of, offering to dispose of, using, importing or keeping a product, or using/offering to use a patented process (and dealing in products obtained directly by such process) which might potentially amount to an infringement. There can also be liability for supplying means relating to an essential element of a patented invention where it is obvious those means are suitable for putting the invention into effect in the UK.
Data centres are, by nature, physically located within a jurisdiction. Against UK based operators and suppliers, proving an alleged act of infringement is taking place within the UK should not be a high hurdle. The main focus of the substantive issues in any infringement claim will therefore likely be whether the accused product or activity falls within the scope of claim – in other words, whether the claimed invention is actually being worked – or is an immaterial variant thereof. Such proceedings will likely be technical in nature.
The UK courts have significant experience of patent litigation cases and are well suited to deal with highly technical and complex subject matter. For instance, many English judges who hear patents cases have technical backgrounds, as do the solicitors and barristers who represent their clients. Furthermore, parties can and often do call upon experts in the relevant technical fields to give evidence, both in written form by way of detailed expert reports and orally during trial by way of examination and cross-examination.
The Unitary Patent (UP) became available in June 2023 alongside the UPC as a venue for UP litigation. The UP (or opted-in European patents) provide patentees with exclusionary rights across all participating EU member states. 18 member states have ratified the relevant legislation at the time of writing and are participating in the UP and UPC system, with a further six signatories to come.
The UPC offers a single forum in which to bring infringement and revocation proceedings. A patentee can bring one action in the UPC to address activities across multiple participating states where a UP or opted in European patent is concerned. The UK is not part of the UPC (post Brexit), so separate UK proceedings tend to remain necessary to enforce/restrain UK acts of infringement in the UK.
Notwithstanding the above, a developing body of UPC case law is exploring and extending the jurisdictional reach of the UPC (including where defendants or alleged infringing acts straddle non participating territories) – so called ‘long-arm’ jurisdiction. By way of example, and at the time of writing, a referral is pending before the CJEU on the question of whether the jurisdictional reach of the UPC extends to non EU defendants and to non UPC EU acts (Dyson v Dreame). The UPC Court of Appeal has determined the UPC’s jurisdiction is limited where there is no defendant in a participating UPC state (Adobe v KeeeX). In other early cases, the UPC has asserted jurisdiction to address issues relating to non UPC patent designations, where the defendant is domiciled within a UPC member state.
Whether a UK located data centre that incorporates technology covered by a European patent could be drawn into proceedings before the UPC will depend on the facts. Operators running facilities across multiple EU jurisdictions may well find themselves subject to infringement proceedings before the UPC. Conversely, data centre operators running facilities solely in the UK will likely avoid being drawn into UPC litigation. In these cases, the UK Patents Court would likely be the appropriate forum for determining infringement claims.
It’s notable that certain high-profile individuals and companies are exploring locating data centres in space. Determining the appropriate jurisdiction for a patent infringement claim with respect to a data centre located in orbit would certainly put a whole new spin on the concept of long arm jurisdiction…
Data centre projects involve a multiplicity of players: equipment manufacturers and suppliers, construction specialists, technology companies, AI developers and operators, to name a few. Varying levels of involvement in data centre operations and processes can make it tricky for a patentee to pin a complete infringement case on a single entity, meaning that patentees looking to enforce their rights must consider their intended targets carefully. Data centre operators hosting a broad set of technologies ‘under one roof’ present an easier target for patentees looking to maximise coverage and potential liability for any single infringement claim.
The range and number of different entities involved in developing and running a data centre naturally entails a complex web of agreements. Supplier contracts will likely include indemnities covering loss and damages suffered by the purchaser/data centre operator in the event that the purchaser/data centre operator is sued by a third party for IP infringement for its use of supplier equipment. These indemnities should be reviewed to ensure the agreed level of coverage is sufficient relevant to any apparent IP infringement risk.
Supplier agreements may include litigation control provisions that determine which party should take control of proceedings should a claim be commenced by a third party for infringement of its IP. It is prudent to be aware of such provisions, because, for example, if a data centre operator is sued with respect to multiple patents and technologies, it may wish to retain control of the entire defence to those infringement proceedings to secure the best prospects of success and/or settlement, rather than share control with a supplier where the supplier’s technology is also the subject of the infringement claim.
Interoperability between products and technologies rely on technical standards – a common set of rules that enable devices and technologies from different manufacturers to communicate with one another. Patents that overlap and as a result are unavoidably used to implement a standard, (which are referred to as SEPs) are usually subject to fair, reasonable and non discriminatory (FRAND) licensing commitments through standards setting organisations. In other words, in order to facilitate use of technology standards and avoid anti-competitive market exclusion, SEP owners are obliged to grant licences under their SEPs on FRAND terms to implementers.
There is no single legal definition of FRAND; case law—originating in telecoms—now spans video coding/streaming and other interoperable technologies relevant to data centres. This is a rapidly growing area of law, and FRAND related obligations are a common source of friction between SEP owners and implementers of technologies that implement standards. Where licensing negotiations between a SEP holder and an implementer break down, it is common for litigation to follow, which may involve patent infringement claims for SEP infringement; the SEP holder seeking an injunction to prevent further usage of the SEP technology until a licence is agreed; SEP invalidity and revocation claims; and asking the court to determine what terms amount to FRAND.
Whilst various jurisdictions globally have established themselves as venues for global FRAND rate-setting, such as China, the US, Germany and the UPC, the UK courts are currently the most prominent and proactive in making global FRAND determinations.
Data centre operators should understand whether they implement standards and, if they do, which ones; have an appreciation for and appraise themselves of the surrounding SEP landscape; and understand the available licensing options. Early legal advice can reduce risk and support commercial predictability.
Patent activity around data centre technologies is rising and will likely grow in the UK. Operators and suppliers should:
Being proactive on IP management reduces disruption, improves leverage in licensing negotiation and helps to keep the focus on deploying resilient, efficient and innovative data centre infrastructure.
1 AI data centre cooling patents rise 50% amid energy concerns (https://datacenter.news/story/ai-data-centre-cooling-patents-rise-50-amid-energy-concerns)
