double_arrow
Article Archive

double_arrow Ask an Expert

reCAPTCHA

What Our Customers Say...

5.0
Based on 101 reviews
powered by Google
26dragon76 profile picture
26dragon76
15:31 23 Jul 25
A truly exceptional experience – thank you Albright IP!

I want to personally thank Charlie Heal , Emily Fox, Cara McAtee, and the entire team at Albright IP for their hard work, dedication, and professionalism in helping me submit my first ever patent: the Baffer Ball fire suppression system.

From the very first meeting, Charlie and Emily made everything feel clear, comfortable, and respectful. They listened carefully to my ideas, even though I’m not from a technical or legal background – I’m a painter and decorator by trade. But they believed in my vision and treated it with such care and seriousness that I felt truly supported as an inventor.

Over several months, we worked closely by email and phone. Charlie and the team guided me step by step to build one of the strongest, clearest, and most professional patent drafts I could have hoped for. The claims they wrote are powerful, and the language used shows how deeply they understood my invention. They didn’t just file a document – they helped shape a legacy.

Charlie, even though he is young, is incredibly professional and experienced. I am amazed at how he managed such a complex project with kindness, patience, and precision. Emily and Cara were also fantastic throughout.

This was not just paperwork – this was my dream since childhood. And Albright IP helped me make that dream real.

💬 I look forward to working with them again on future patents. The Baffer Ball is just the beginning – and I am proud that Albright IP was there from Day 1.

Thank you so much again — from the bottom of my heart.
— Morteza
Jilna Shah profile picture
Jilna Shah
07:13 13 Jul 25
I've been working with Marc Maidment on pursuing a patent for my business, and I honestly couldn’t ask for a better attorney. As someone with no experience with the patent process and how it works, Marc takes the time to explain everything clearly and thoroughly, breaking down complex legal processes in a way that is easy to understand.

He’s not only incredibly knowledgeable, but also warm and approachable. No question has ever felt too small, and he genuinely cares about the success of my business. I’d highly recommend Marc to anyone looking for a dedicated, trustworthy, and skilled patent attorney.
Jon Baker profile picture
Jon Baker
15:23 19 Mar 25
Albright IP have been brilliant from my first call all the way through to submitting our Patent Application. I look forward to working with them on future IP projects. Jon Baker - Design 360 Ltd
See All Reviews


double_arrow
Need a Product Designer?


double_arrow
Helpful Tips

Do I have to identify the designer?
It is possible to waive the name of the designer when filing a European Community Design, but you should be sure that you have the rights to the design

Recent changes to the Korean Patent Act

by | Aug 17, 2011

The Korean Patent Act and the Korean Utility Model Act were revised in May 2011, making it mandatory for patent or utility model applications to disclose information on prior art related to the invention.

Up until 01 July 2011, when filing a patent application at the Korean Intellectual Property Office, there has been no requirement to disclose information on prior art related to the invention in the patent specification. Nevertheless, it had been customary under Korean patent practice to describe background art in the specification, and the lack of such disclosure can often be regarded as failure to provide adequate information and fulfill the description requirements for the specification.

As of 01 July 2011, an application filed on or after this date at the Korean Intellectual Property Office is required to disclose information on prior art related to the invention in the patent specification. The same also applies when filing for a Korean Utility Model on or after the same date. Failure to meet this requirement will result in the application being rejected during the examination stage.

The Korean Patent Act has been revised and requires that “the specification must describe ‘background art of the invention’”. Furthermore, to meet this requirement the prior art disclosed must relate to the invention as disclosed in the claims. The disclosure may include references to specific prior art documents, such as the publication number of a patent, or in the case of other publication, an author, title, publisher or date.

According to the Examination Guidelines of the revised Korean Patent Act, there is no requirement to detail or describe the content of any cited prior art. It is sufficient to only reference prior art documents providing the cited prior art documents contain adequate background information related to the invention.

Nevertheless, when referencing prior art, it is advisable to include a brief description of the cited documents. In cases where the invention is related to an entirely new inventive concept and as such no related prior art is available, background art related to the main technical feature of the invention may be mentioned.

For any application filed on and after 01 July 2011, objection will be raised if the patent specification does not disclose any prior art related to the invention. The applicant can address the objection by filing amendments and adding relevant prior art information to the specification. However, care should be taken as to not introduce added matter, which is impermissible, to the application.

Applications filed before 01 July 2011 will not be affected by this recent change. Furthermore, failure to reference relevant prior art in the patent specification does not constitute a ground for invalidation after grant of the patent.

ASK AN ATTORNEY

reCAPTCHA