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 Patents County Court is renamed to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court

by | Oct 21, 2013

Mind Patents

The Hargreaves Review was commissioned in November 2010 by the Prime Minister with the intention of promoting innovation and growth in the UK. Essentially, the commission set out to discover whether or not the framework of the UK Intellectual Property system was up to task in the digital era. As such, it placed a specific emphasis on copyright, but there were recommendations across the Intellectual Property sector.

As of 1 October 2013, the Patents County Court has been renamed to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) in response to the Hargreaves Review (the original webpage which was linked to can be found at this archive page). What a terrible development, I hear you cry; another acronym to remember! So what is the point of the change, and how might it affect businesses?

Of the recommendations more relevant to patent law, the commission suggested that the UK should be striving for further international co-operation, both in terms of dealing with the large backlog of patent applications, but also with unification of patent prosecution, going so far as to suggest the formation of a Europe-wide patent court. However, the most relevant recommendation of the report in this instance was to improve small firm access to Intellectual Property advice.

Intellectual Property Enterprise Court

The rebranding of the Patents County Court is part of the drive to make accessible the Intellectual Property system in the UK to those without the resources of multi-national conglomerates. For one thing, the renaming of the Court is designed to reflect its broader nature as a forum for all forms of Intellectual Property dispute, now being able to hear copyright, trade mark and unregistered design cases.

There have been several major changes to the court in recent times including: the introduction of a scale of recoverable costs, capped at £50000; a limit on awardable damages or profits of £500000; time limits on the length of case hearings of no more than 2 days; and the creation of a Small Claims Track for cases with values under £10000.

Overall, the changes are designed to make it considerably easier for small businesses to pursue infringement claims to protect their Intellectual Property rights without having to incur severe legal costs. The expectation therefore is that the simplification of prosecution of Intellectual Property cases of all varieties will encourage businesses of all sizes to invest in research and innovation without having to worry about being unable to assert their rights against larger corporations.

Clearly then, the renaming of the Patents County Court is part of a wider attempt to encourage small firms to feel engaged with the justice system in the Intellectual Property sector, which at first glance seems daunting and highly complex. As it stood, the ‘Patents’ in Patents County Court was misleading, and so replacing it with ‘Intellectual Property’ as a more general term seems to make sense, given the court’s role.

Still, what would have been wrong with the name ‘Intellectual Property County Court’? The court has retained the jurisdiction of the PCC and therefore remains a county court, albeit one with special jurisdiction over Intellectual Property disputes.

Perhaps the real reason for the ‘Enterprise’ returns us to acronyms. An ‘Intellectual Property County Court’ or ‘IPCC’ would have had to compete with the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These organisations have major brand recognition with which the court would have been competing. Clearly it was felt that the IPEC stood a better chance of standing out over the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour, an organisation dubiously dropping the ‘L’ from its acronym.

Overall, the change from PCC to IPEC is a positive one, better reflecting the role of the court. The wider reforms implemented as a result of the Hargreaves Review should make it easier for small enterprises to protect their Intellectual Property.

For advice and guidance relating to your Intellectual Property rights, contact the attorneys at Albright IP.

ASK AN ATTORNEY

reCAPTCHA