The UK National Semiconductor Strategy: a first glance

​
May 23, 2023

The UK Government has released its National Semiconductor Strategy. The Strategy sets out the UK Government's vision for the semiconductor industry in the UK, and details funding and other initiatives that it plans to put in place to support the sector. It also details how the UK can be more resilient to supply chains shocks and how the UK will deal with threats to national security that arise from semiconductor technology.

So, what does the Strategy include?

The Vision

The Strategy's overarching vision focuses on three of the UK's main strengths. These are R&D, design and IP and compound semiconductors. There are no surprises here. The UK already has an excellent university-based research base with a strong track-record in spinning out successful semiconductor companies. Design and IP refers to design companies like Arm and Imagination, two huge success stories, and the many smaller companies that follow in their steps. The compound semiconductor cluster in South Wales is well known to be world-leading in it's R&D in the compound space. On the other hand the Strategy does not address manufacturing, acknowledging that the UK is not going to compete with Taiwan, China the US or even Europe when it comes to silicon-based semiconductor production. Again, no surprises here.

The Strategy is split into three core areas, which are: growing the UK sector; safeguarding the UK against supply chain disruption and protecting the UK against security. There are parallels here with other industrial policies on semiconductors. For example, the EU CHIPs Act includes provisions relating to European R&D and supply chain monitoring in Europe.

Growing the UK sector

The Government has promised up to £200M for the sector over the next three years, with the possibility of £1B over the next ten. As these numbers are relatively small compared to the tens of billions on offer elsewhere, they have of course drawn a lot of attention, and criticism. In my view, of greater importance than the amount on money will be how it is spent. Unfortunately, the Strategy does not offer a lot of detail on this, so it's difficult to comment at this stage.

The growth strand focuses on three main areas, which are: research and development, infrastructure, and skills and talent.

The R&D aspect is focussed on university spinouts and start-ups. The Strategy acknowledges that while funding is already available through various funding bodies, semiconductor companies must compete with other technologies. A more focussed approach is needed.

The Strategy identifies innovative manufacturing technologies and several emerging semiconductor technologies as areas where funding will be available. The focus is on university-based R&D and spinouts. The Strategy also proposes funding for doctoral researchers in key semiconductor technologies.

The most interesting part of the growth strand for many companies will be the launch of the UK Semiconductor Infrastructure Initiative. This will look at the infrastructure required to enable more commercial R&D in the UK. The Initiative will include the possibility of an "open-foundry" for compound semiconductors, as well as access to chip design software and prototyping facilities. This is to address the fact that these facilities are typically very expensive to access and are often based outside of the UK. This creates problems for SMEs with limited resources. However, the Initiative is currently in a consultation phase and we won't know more about the details until the Autumn.

The other aspect of this strand which is promising is a semiconductor incubator for new start-ups which will attempt to lower barriers to entry by also providing access to design tools and prototyping, as well as providing business coaching. No further details are available about how and when this will be established.

Beyond this, much of the "growing the UK sector" strand is about skills and talent. Many initiatives are mentioned from incentives for teachers in the sciences to supporting STEM outreach programs for semiconductors. Many of these initiatives seem to be pre-existing programmes. While this is a hugely important and valuable part of the Strategy, it will of course be some time before semiconductor companies feel the benefits.

The Strategy also mentions various aspects that were already announced as part of the Spring budget. For example, a higher rate of tax relief will be available for R&D intensive SMEs. A programme designed to encourage pension companies to invest in science and technology and the Government's new investment zones were also highlighted as areas that would benefit the semiconductor sector.

Finally, the Strategy also suggests the Government will look at manufacturing requirements that are ‘critical' to the UK technology sector or national security.

Safeguarding UK supply chains

Like other countries, the UK Government has acknowledged the negative impact that supply chain shocks in the semiconductor market can have on industry and national security. The Strategy includes several provisions to address this.

Firstly, the Government will publish guidance to help companies prepare for future shocks to supply chains. The Strategy also proposes various information gathering exercises to look at the impact of future shortages on critical sectors, and to ensure resilient supply to the defence sector.

As noted above, the Government will also review the manufacturing requirements of critical sectors in the UK, to establish what baseline level of manufacturing might be required to ensure the UK remains resilient.

Finally, the Strategy also proposes several initiatives that will involve international collaboration with trusted partners to improve supply chain resilience.

Protecting the UK against security risks

The Strategy focuses on two main areas that are relevant to national security. Firstly, it looks at the risk of UK technology getting into the wrong hands and being used against UK interests. Secondly, it looks at the threat posed by cyber security vulnerabilities built into semiconductor hardware.

The National Security and Investment Act has already been used by the Government to block the sale of UK-based semiconductor companies to Chinese-backed entities. This was the case with the sale of the Newport Wafer Fab to Nexperia. The Strategy acknowledges that the way the Government has used this legislation has come in for criticism and proposes a more transparent approach. For example, they propose providing guidance on which parts of the sector are regarded by the Government to be more sensitive. The Strategy also proposes the potential expansion of export controls to certain semiconductor technologies.

In terms of cyber security, the Strategy acknowledges that the UK has a leading part to play in ensuring hardware-based security is up to the job, given the strength we have in hardware design and IP. The Strategy proposes various initiatives to continue the UK's role in this field, including convening experts from across the sector to discuss security improvements and facilitating discussions with our international partners on the issue of security.

The Strategy also focus on the RISC-V instruction set, acknowledging the UK's strong position in this technology. The Strategy proposes Government support for academic research and collaboration with industry to further the UK's capabilities in this area.

What does this mean for UK businesses?

The vision and focus on semiconductors should be broadly welcomed by the UK semiconductor sector. However, there are definite winners and losers here. Universities, spinouts and start-ups appear to stand more to gain than some of our established semiconductors companies.

The compound semiconductor cluster in South Wales and the companies making up the design and IP part of the supply chain will be pleased to see that the UK's strengths in these areas recognised.

The focus of the strategy is on university spinouts and start-ups. Anyone operating at this this end of the spectrum will be pleased to see promises of Government funding for certain types of manufacturing capability and emerging technologies. The provision of extra support for academic training and tax relief for R&D intensive start-ups will also be welcomed.

The strategy also places a lot of emphasis on longer term skills and talent provisions. While much of this forms part of existing initiatives, ensuring a pipeline of talent for semiconductor technologies will benefit the entire ecosystem in the UK.

There is however a significant group of companies who may feel there is not much in here for them. These are the established larger companies, some of whom have manufacturing capacity in the UK. They might have been hoping for more support in terms of R&D tax relief, public sector procurement, export support and other financing and investment initiatives. These provisions seem to be absent from the Strategy. While it might be argued that these companies don't require Government support, we don't operate in a bubble. This part of the UK sector will certainly be considering carefully how initiatives in the US and EU compare to what is available here.

Additionally, the fact that several aspects of the Strategy have been deferred until the Autumn will be seen as further delays by many. For example, we will have to wait for the consultation on infrastructure to complete in the Autumn before we know more about how design platforms and pilot lines might be implemented in the UK.

Finally, there appears to be little in here from an Intellectual Property (IP) perspective. While the vision talks about supporting the design and IP segment of the market, there is little in the Strategy about how this might be done. We might have hoped to see better R&D tax relief, or a modified patent box, but there does not appear to be anything in the Strategy about this.

The Latest Thought Leadership pieces in the Content Hub

No items found.
Stay in the Know

The Patent Strategist

Get expert insights and the top patent stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Heading
This is some text inside of a div block.
This is some text inside of a div block.

Latest Insights

Showing 0 of 100
Quantum IP Strategy: Own control Points, Not Patent Counts
14 October 2026
In quantum, the strongest portfolios will not be the biggest. Stuart Malcolm sets out six moves for owning the control points the market cannot route around, and the questions investors will ask.
#
Consulting
​
Targeted, Not Transformative: The UKIPO’s Considered Course on SEPs
13 October 2026
Andrew Sharples analyses the UKIPO's response to its SEP consultation, exploring proposed changes to FRAND dispute resolution, SEP transparency and licensing guidance, and what they mean for SEP holders and implementers.
#
Consulting
​
Chinese Companies in European Patent Litigation
30 September 2026
Chinese companies are becoming increasingly active in European patent litigation, both as defendants and as patent owners enforcing their own rights. This article examines the growing role of Europe and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in global patent disputes, highlighting key cases involving Chinese businesses and the strategic opportunities and risks that come with operating in European markets. It is the first in a series exploring the practical implications of European patent enforcement for Chinese companies.
#
Patenting
​
How to mitigate prior art traps for follow-on pharma patents
27 August 2026
Follow-on patents are increasingly important for pharmaceutical innovators. Learn how new EMA clinical trial disclosure rules create prior art risks and discover practical strategies to protect pharmaceutical IP and maximise patent value.
#
Consulting
​
Chinese companies and the UPC: from enforcement targets to strategic users
13 August 2026
Chinese companies are playing an increasingly significant role in UPC litigation, accounting for around 38% of infringement actions in 2025. While many remain defendants, a growing number are actively using the Unified Patent Court to enforce their own patent rights across Europe. The trend highlights the UPC's rising importance for Chinese businesses operating in sectors such as telecommunications, semiconductors, medical devices and renewable energy, and signals a shift in global patent enforcement strategy.
#
Patenting
​
Evaluating the environmental impact of patent AI.
31 July 2026
AI's environmental impact is rarely out of the headlines, but how does it compare to the benefits it delivers in practice? In this article, Laurence Brown examines the energy use of AI-assisted patent drafting, comparing it with traditional drafting workflows. While measuring AI's true environmental footprint is far from straightforward, the analysis suggests that AI-assisted patent drafting may already be more energy efficient, while delivering significant productivity gains for patent professionals.
#
Patenting
​
UPC appeals after three years: Early indications on appeal success rates
15 July 2026
Three years into the UPC, appeal overturn rates sit at 56% for both substantive and preliminary injunction cases, with Kodak v Fujifilm among the rulings reshaping outcomes on appeal.
#
Litigation
​
The UPC After Three Years: From Experiment to Enforcement Forum
15 July 2026
1,282 cases filed at the UPC in three years: infringement actions have surged while revocation filings stayed flat, easing fears the Court would become a European patent graveyard.
#
Litigation
​
Podcast: Building an AI-Native Law Firm
26 June 2026
On the Technically Legal podcast, EIP partner Laurence Brown discusses how Visser AI is redesigning patent workflows, letting the firm offer fixed fees without trading away speed or quality.
#
Patenting
​
Choosing your SEP battleground: UPC, Germany or UK?
07 June 2026
Choosing the right venue for SEP litigation can significantly influence the outcome of FRAND disputes. This article compares the UPC, German and UK courts, examining their approaches to injunctions, FRAND defences, rate-setting and enforcement. It highlights the strategic advantages of each jurisdiction and explains why many SEP owners are increasingly turning to the UK and UPC as part of their European enforcement strategy.
#
Litigation
​
Synthetic Lethality & AI: IP Strategy in Oncology
26 May 2026
This article explores the resurgence of synthetic lethality in precision oncology, highlighting how AI and machine learning are accelerating the discovery of new therapeutic targets. It also examines growing clinical activity, investment, and the evolving intellectual property challenges shaping this emerging field.
#
Consulting
​
Inside the Visser AI Launch Party
20 May 2026
EIP has officially launched Visser AI®, our hybrid intelligence service for patent drafting and prosecution. Watch the launch film from our event at The Boundary in Shoreditch, and discover how our team of European and US patent attorneys — working with the Patently AI platform , delivers faster, lower-cost work at the EPO, USPTO and beyond.
#
Consulting
​
Protecting Your Startup: Five Intellectual Property Mistakes to Avoid
20 May 2026
Early‑stage startups often focus on product development and fundraising, but overlooking intellectual property (IP) can seriously damage long‑term value. This article explores five common IP mistakes startups make, with a particular focus on patents. It covers the risks of filing patents without professional advice, making public disclosures too early, failing to put enforceable contracts in place with third parties, misunderstanding what patent rights actually provide, and neglecting to develop a clear IP strategy. By highlighting these pitfalls and offering practical guidance, the article helps startups protect their innovations, strengthen their commercial position, and improve their prospects with investors.
#
Consulting
​
Technology, Patents, and Sport
13 May 2026
VAR, goal-line tech, AI 3D player avatars, wearable trackers, the technology reshaping the 2026 World Cup and elite sport rests on a patent system that makes the R&D investment behind it worth taking.
#
Patenting
​
Patents or Trade Secrets? When to Patent in Deep Tech Innovation
11 May 2026
Deep tech companies face unique IP challenges due to long development cycles, high upfront investment, and complex technologies that combine products and processes. This article explores when patents, trade secrets, or a combination of both offer the strongest protection. It explains how factors such as detectability, reverse engineering risk, disclosure to third parties, and employee mobility should shape IP strategy decisions. While patents are often best suited to externally visible or licensable technologies, trade secrets can be highly effective for internal processes and know‑how that deliver performance or cost advantages.
#
Patenting
​