The words 'Intellia Foods', a UK Registered Trademark application UK00004314133 for classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 30, 31, 40

Our trademarks

The word 'UPP', a UK Registered Trademark UK00004132645 for classes 1, 5, 9, 30, 31

The word 'Prota', a UK Registered Trademark UK00004133440 for classes 1, 5, 29, 31. The word 'Prota+', a UK Registered Trademark application UK00004313855 for classes 1, 5, 29, 31

The logos above, a UK Registered Trademark UK00004136982 for classes 1, 5, 7, 29, 31, 35, 44

The word 'Harvesta', a UK Registered Trademark UK00004137021 for classes 7, 44

The word 'Intellia', a UK Registered Trademark UK00004137024 for classes 35, 44

The word 'Fiba', a UK Registered Trademark UK00004137025 for class 5 and application UK00004314178 for classes 29 and 30.

The word 'Ova', a UK Registered Trademark UK00004137028 for classes 1, 3, 5, 29

The word 'Ola', a UK Registered Trademark UK00004137030 for classes 1, 5, 29, 30

The word 'Nutra', a UK Registered Trademark UK00004137034 for classes 1, 30 and application UK00004314213 for classes 5,29,30

The word 'Necta', a UK Registered Trademark UK00004137035 for classes 1, 5, 30

The word 'Bia', a UK Registered Trademark UK00004137037 for class 1

The word 'Reacta', a UK Registered Trademark UK00004137041 for classes 1, 9, 10, 11

The word 'Binda', a UK Registered Trademark application UK00004313869 for classes 1, 30

The word 'Matra', a UK registered Trademark application UK00004313863 for classes 1, 5, 29

The word 'Myca', a UK Registered Trademark application UK00004313857 for classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 31

The word 'Ita', a UK Registered Trademark application UK00004313892 for classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 31

The word 'Ota', a UK Registered Trademark application UK00004313893 for classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 31

The word 'Isa', a UK Registered Trademark application UK00004313895 for classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 31

Intellectual Property ('IP') is seen as core to value creation and defensibility, and its management is owned by the CEO, reassessed annually in Q4, and reviewed by the board. Our IP approach is commercially driven and focussed on defensibility, and primarily based on the assets of patents (1 granted in the UK and filed in the US and EU, 1 published in the UK, and three more imminent with more expected), know-how and trade secrets. Patent development and filing constitutes the majority of IP-related costs. We protect trade secrets through a combination of process compartmentalisation, restricted access to critical know-how, contractual confidentiality with employees and partners, and deliberate decisions to retain key process parameters and operational learnings outside of patent filings. Trademarks are a subsidiary part of our IP, supporting commercialisation, partnerships, and velocity, rather than constituting the core "moat". All IP is the property of the Company.

Our brand architecture is tiered: a corporate/master brand ('Tier 1'), a small number of externally visible commercial brands ('Tier 2'), and a larger set of dormant or internal roadmap brands ('Tier 3'). The roadmap marks are defensive placeholders; we do not build identity systems, packaging, or marketing behind them until revenue-linked. At any time, we cap externally active brands to minimise confusion, and we will prune non-core brands unless tied to revenue or regulatory pathways. The brand architecture is designed to reflect that our primary revenue driver is ingredient sales, the secondary revenue driver is equipment leasing/sales/data services and that there is a tertiary option of licensing.

Our supporting trademark strategy is to take a staged, capital-efficient approach aligned to commercial deployment. As a B2B business we are keenly aware that brands exist to protect partnerships and revenue, and are not an end in themselves - trademarks are options, not trophies, and not activated until they impact revenue. However, food is a crowded domain in terms of brands, and so it requires forethought to deliver a coherent and distinctive identity across the broad range of opportunities that we could access and, most importantly, reduce the risk of being forced to re-brand.

Tier 2 trademarks pertaining to revenue-generating ingredients (Prota™, Fiba™), the key cost-defining technology (Harvesta™) and the data offer (Intellia™) have been used externally in trade (customer/partner materials, datasheets, and website) since 2024. Commercial shipments under Fiba began in 2025, we expect 'Prota' to follow in mid-2026 and 'Necta' in late-2026. We expect to be selling/leasing Harvesta from mid-2026 and deploying Intellia from 2027. From 2025 we have been in early discussions as to licensing our full technology stack outside of Europe and the US, and for this reason 'Bia' and 'Reacta' have been adopted to frame the processes we would license beyond the Harvesta equipment.

We have also filed trademarks around intended product and platform segmentation where brand conflict could be costly, but we are activating these narrowly to avoid dilution of effort. Where possible, we have filed marks with broad class coverage (e.g., multiple adjacent classes in foods/supplements) as part of intentional 'future-proofing'. Non-core marks will be periodically reviewed and allowed to lapse unless tied to an active commercial or regulatory path.

Tier 3 trademarks include a small set of filed roadmap marks across by-products and new feedstocks, extend beyond those currently used, and are intentionally not activated until commercially launched. Our view is filing early, with trademarks covering primary elements of the long-term product roadmap, preserves optionality at low cost: Filing to ensure unfettered brand development before launch is cheap; quickly rebuilding brands post-launch after conflict is expensive and distracting. Thus, well-considered, limited and controlled up-front trademark expenditure manages and reduces future risk. We monitor trademarks for lapse, but our earliest trademarks are not due for renewal until 2034 and we will evidence usage to prevent "non-use" challenges that could potentially arise from 2029.

For instance, we are working with partners to trial our 'Necta' as a low-cost mycelium feedstock that shows potential for nutrient uptake in to the mycelium, and have trademarked around both mycelium from broccoli substrate ('Myca') and the use of Fiba as a scaffold or 'matrix' ('Matra') that adds texture/mouthfeel and potentially nutritional benefits to mycelium-hybrid food products. We highlight that we are not "frontier alt-protein"; we are "feedstock architects" delivering an optimised platform that others plug into - we support fermentation players rather than compete with them. This is an example of how trademarks can be used as boundary-setting tools for joint development as well as how we focus on turning roadmap items in to value. We do not expect Myca and Matra to be activated until 2027/28 as mycelium-based products currently generally require clearances as 'novel foods', and this takes extended time. We do not currently pursue strain-specific patent claims in mycelium-based systems or precision fermentation, as our strategy prioritizes open collaboration over competitive strain ownership. If mycelium economics or regulatory complexity threaten to contaminate our core ingredient platform, we will stop at feedstock supply.

'Ova’ is being used for initial marketing of a protein fraction/by-product from one of our processes. Early testing suggests it can deliver emulsification functionality as a vegan replacement for egg in some formulations and applications. We do not expect Ova to be sold at commercial scale until 2027 or later. In the medium-term, once partner interest is secured, we are also planning to test whether specific fractions in Ova that are net cationic at typical haircare formulation pH, show measurable conditioning performance versus standard benchmarks, and demonstrate substantivity/conditioning performance versus standard cationic polymers or hydrolysed proteins. Haircare applications of Ova are therefore an optional adjacency, are not in core plan and will be subject to partner-validated gating.

'Binda' is a trademark for a potential product based on further limited processing of our Fiba product to act as a gelling agent (6x+ water absorption in internal testing) and a potential replacement for methylcellulose in some applications.

As a further example, we have tested cauliflower in the same process used for broccoli, and it performs well at up to 18% concentration in certain foods, and this product set is branded as 'Ola'. Ola is not expected to be activated until after we have broccoli-based products being produced and sold at 1,000+ tonne scale. Other brands ('Isa', 'Ota') pertain to other feedstocks that we reasonably believe are likely to work in the same process (or with limited modification). 'Ita' is reserved to brand broccoli-based products once there are non-broccoli-based products being marketed.

We actively monitor our registered and pending trademarks through periodic reviews and post-A round will use third-party watch services, with a focus on protecting marks that are actively deployed or commercially material. Where potential conflicts arise, we will prioritise early, proportionate responses, reserving formal enforcement for cases that present genuine commercial or reputational risk. We aim to ensure our trademarks function as effective boundary-setting and value-protection tools without becoming a source of unnecessary cost or distraction. We have not needed to enforce any rights to-date and have resolved disputes around the 'Ola' and 'Ova' trademarks quickly and with limited costs.

To date, we have prioritised UK filings to preserve priority dates while remaining capital efficient. International filings (EU/US) for core marks (Prota, Fiba, Harvesta) are planned post-Series A via Madrid or direct filings as part of planned market expansion. For EUIPO filing, the trigger will be first EU customer. In the US, we will use Intent-to-Use filings for the USPTO for 4-5 filings, to hold priority during technical and regulatory lead times. Conversion to use-based registration will follow first US commercial shipments.

If/when conflicts arise, we will apply a proportional response ladder: (1) narrow classes/specification and adjust branding hierarchy where non-material, (2) negotiate coexistence/consent where commercial risk is low and confusion can be contractually managed, (3) rebrand non-core marks when cheapest, and (4) formal opposition/enforcement where a Tier 2 mark is revenue-linked or reputationally material. We have contingency naming at Tier 1 ('Freya' and 'Intellia Foods'), should it be required, put in place after the book 'Ultra Processed People' (a critique of the food industry and a New York Times bestseller) had potentially compromised the name 'UPP' as a food-related brand.

In summary, we have taken a staged, capital-efficient approach: actively deploying only trademarks that are tied to revenue, while selectively filing around key roadmap "lanes" to preserve optionality and reduce future risk. This approach mirrors the discipline seen in later-stage platform companies, but is being implemented earlier relative to capital raised. As a result, we are delivering clearer partnership boundaries and lower future rebranding risk than most peers.

The word 'Freya', a UK Registered Trademark UK00004066737 for classes 1, 5, 29, 31, 32