double_arrow
Article Archive

double_arrow Ask an Expert Attorney

reCAPTCHA


double_arrow
What Our Clients Say ...

5.0
Based on 104 reviews
powered by Google
Dieter Schänzer profile picture
Dieter Schänzer
1 month ago
Absolutely superb outfit - highly competent in their field. I trust them implicitly and would deal with them again over any other IP firm. On a human level - very nice people too.
M profile picture
M
3 months ago
Albright IP offers highly competitive and transparent pricing, communicates promptly and professionally, and handles cases with impressive efficiency. I would highly recommend their services.
Andy Matthews profile picture
Andy Matthews
4 months ago
What can I say about Albright IP? They state 'Excellence in Intellectual Property' and that is exactly the service I received. I was really worried about the patent application for my new product and the team at Albright swept in and saved the day in a swift and professional manner, making me feel completely at ease and in safe hands from the outset. I cannot recommend Alright IP enough they are simply a fantastic company!
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

UK Patents to grant faster than ever before… and more expensively than ever as well

by | Jul 1, 2013

UK Patents

The UK Intellectual Property Office have announced a public consultation on a new ‘superfast’ patent service.  Under the proposed system, a patent could be granted as quickly as 90 days from filing, as long as the applicant is prepared to stomach an additional fee of around £3500 – £4000.

 

According to the IPO, the £3.5-4k fee “reflects the significant costs of conducting the patent application process in such a short timescale.”  But even the lower end of that price range represents over fifteen times the IPO’s current fees for processing an application.

 

Treating patent applications more urgently for applicants who can afford to pay significant extra fees is unlikely to be a popular move with cash-strapped small businesses.  One of the most important jobs of the patent system is to protect small inventors from larger competitors who would steal their ideas.  Patents level the playing field by providing an inventor with a legal right to stop others from using an invention, regardless of how much more quickly and cheaply those others might be able to churn out copies.  A system where the IPO treats rich applicants more favourably than poor ones is hardly in keeping with that aim.

 

The ‘superfast’ accelerated procedure would also reduce the period in which interested third parties may file observations on pending patent applications.  At present, applications must be published and open for public comment for at least three months before grant.  This gives the man in the street the chance to point out that a supposed ‘invention’ has actually been around for years, and to provide evidence of that.  Although the system is little-known and therefore little-used, the IPO recently concluded a successful experiment, finding that with a decent online system and a bit of publicity, the public will in fact say something useful about pending patent applications.  Reducing the opportunity for this to happen would again seem to be a backward step, allowing big businesses with deep pockets to speed patent applications past public scrutiny.

 

Getting a British patent granted typically takes three to four years, but various options are already available to accelerate the procedure.  The current accelerated procedures are free-of-charge, and can bring the time between application and grant down to around nine months.

 

Though the UK IPO’s press release refers to the “new” proposals, a paid-for accelerated service was proposed back in 2007.  A public consultation at the time attracted all of seventeen responses, most of which were in favour of leaving the system exactly as it was.  Even those who supported the idea in principle thought that an extra fee of £400 – £600 was too high in 2007, so it seems somewhat unlikely that five to ten times that fee will find much favour in 2013.

 

Author

  • Frederick Noble cropped

    Frederick is a UK and European Patent Attorney who enjoys working in a diverse range of technical areas. His patent practice spans from artificial intelligence through to products for the building trades and DIY.

    As well as patent prosecution, Frederick handles patent, trade mark, design and copyright infringement matters, where he has a strong track record of settling disputes on favourable terms for his clients.

    Frederick is a director of Albright IP. He is an experienced Chartered British Patent Attorney, European Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator, and an IP Litigator (UK Higher Courts).

    Frederick's Attorney Profile Page: Frederick's Profile

    Ask Frederick a Patents question:

    reCAPTCHA

    View all posts