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

The Dangers of Cheap Patents

by | Jun 18, 2013

*UPDATED – July 19*

 

(Or The Difference Between Provisional And Non-Provisional Patent Applications)

 

We are often asked by clients whether a ‘quick’ or rough patent application can be submitted in order to achieve a lower cost for patent pending status than undertaking a ‘full’ or complete patent.

 

 

Just to clarify, a quick or rough patent application is also sometimes called a Provisional patent application and may be a brief summary of your invention. A full or Non-Provisional patent application usually comprises the following sections: description, claims, abstract and drawings. In the UK, the claims and abstract, and even the drawings can all be submitted within 12 months after the original description. Similar provisions apply in other territories also, such as the USA. As such, patent application pending status can be achieved with simply a rough description of your invention via this so-called ‘provisional’ application route.

 

Users of this ‘provisional’ application method may save some initial upfront patenting costs but are rarely aware of the potentially significant pitfalls and issues with using this route.

 

One of the key dangers of using the provisional patent application route is the possibility of adding new subject matter when the provisional application is turned into a full or complete patent application. If the patent application process is to continue, this ‘conversion’ or completion stage must take place sometime within the first 12 months after the filing of your original provisional patent application. The completion stage involves adding the claims, abstract and, if necessary, drawings. It may also involve fleshing out the description with more detailed material, examples, and options for your invention.

 

However, the addition of the claims, abstract, drawings and perhaps even modification of the description about your invention all provide the potential to include matter or material which was not explicitly disclosed in the originally filed provisional patent application.

 

So what, you may ask? Well, a non-provisional or full patent application can only be backdated to the provisional patent application for the material that was originally in the provisional application. The earlier date of your provisional patent application cannot be claimed or linked to for any new material put into the non-provisional or full patent application.

 

And how does that affect me? Well, you can imagine the scenario: your provisional patent application is submitted, and you have patent pending status. You start talking about your idea to friends, colleagues, manufacturers and potential investors, safe in the knowledge that you have ‘patent applied for’ status. The response is good and the time comes to convert your provisional application and to turn it into a full or non-provisional patent application. The invention is fleshed out in the description, claims and abstract are added, and the figures are redrawn to show the latest incarnation of your invention. The full patent specification is submitted and during examination, inventiveness issues are perhaps raised by the patent examiner.

 

The only way to overcome these issues may be to use the new material added in at the time of submitting the full patent application because the provisional application was too brief and not fully thought through during preparation. However, you already disclosed the idea to those friends, colleagues, manufacturers and potential investors. You are now in a Catch 22! If you use the new material included in your full patent application to overcome the patent examiner’s objections, the patent will grant but will be invalid because of your prior disclosure and because you cannot backdate that new material to the earlier filing date of your provisional application. If you do not use the new material in order to try and maintain the link back to your first filed provisional application, then the patent examiner’s objections cannot be overcome and the patent application is refused.

 

This is the danger. It all comes down to the potential lack of information in your provisional application, the public disclosure of your invention following the filing of the provisional patent application, and then the possible inclusion of new matter or material when preparing the complete or full patent specification later on.

 

The advice given to all our clients is therefore to have a complete or non-provisional patent specification prepared at the outset. Yes, it will be somewhat more expensive at the outset, but if you are serious about obtaining good quality and robust legal protection for your invention, then it is an initial investment that will not only save you money in the longer term, but also save you many, and potentially patent threatening, problems downstream.

 

ASK AN ATTORNEY

reCAPTCHA