Seizing a greener future for the UK

​
Laurence Brown
​
August 8, 2023
#
Energy
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

The announcement this week from the UK Government of funding for new Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) schemes has had a mixed reception. It's a shame the announcement was hand-in-hand with new oil and gas licenses, as if it's a free pass for increased fossil fuel emissions.

Of course it isn't a free pass, but the potential for UK CCS is huge and the government is right to pursue it. There's enormous development needed to reach the 20 to 30 million tonnes captured per year target by 2030. (For comparison, in 2022 the UK's CO2 emissions were 331.5 million tonnes). If the technology can work on that scale by the 2030 deadline, it opens up much opportunity. The latest patent filing data shows that industry is stepping up to the challenge, with more patents for CCS filed than ever before in 2021**. What's more, there's been a huge increase in filings in China. Perhaps this is not surprising, considering how much coal generation China is still using.

I'm looking forward to the benefits of a CCS future. First, the "low hanging fruit" is lowering the CO2 emissions of generating electricity from Gas. Gas is still a huge part of the energy mix in the UK. With effective CCS, gas could continue to provide energy diversity and security, for those cloudy, still days when solar and wind can't deliver. Crucially, gas generation is not limited by how sunny or windy it is. It can allow the grid to respond to demand peaks without costly energy storage schemes or deliberately building overcapacity into the renewable provision. Gas with CCS might even be overall less environmentally damaging than some alternatives too, especially against building high capacities of battery storage purely to smooth the demand curve. What's more, in the UK, gas power stations tend to be situated close to where gas connections make landfall, ideally locating them for carbon capture schemes out to depleted oil and gas fields.

Looking further ahead, the idea of sucking CO2 from the atmosphere more generally is attractive. So attractive it's often criticised as providing no inventive to reduce CO2 emissions. I disagree, with such huge potential storage in all the UK's depleted oil and gas fields, there's the possibility that a future UK could become a carbon sink with genuinely negative carbon emissions.

**Patent filing activity is a good indicator of the degree of innovation. Looking at new patent families filed up to 2021, and which were classified for CO2 capture and storage, shows a plateau from 2012 to 2020, with a sharp rise in 2021. I've only considered data to 2021 because patent applications are published 18 months after filing, so 2021 is the latest complete year data is available for. The graph below is from Patently.com.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​