double_arrow
Article Archive

double_arrow Ask an Expert Attorney

reCAPTCHA


double_arrow
What Our Clients Say ...

5.0
Based on 102 reviews
powered by Google
Andy Matthews profile picture
Andy Matthews
10:42 13 Mar 26
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!
Martin Hastings profile picture
Martin Hastings
17:07 13 Nov 25
Excellent, professional service
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
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

Progress towards the Unitary Patent and the UPC

by | Jul 21, 2014

As we have previously discussed, the examination of a patent seems to progress at a glacial place, and unsurprisingly, reform to the patenting process is equally gradual. It is therefore surprising to see that the advance towards the Unitary Patent – the “European patent with unitary effect” as per the EPO website – has been making steady progress.

As of 14 May 2014, the Intellectual Property Act 2014 has received Royal Assent, completing one of the important formal hurdles of the Unified Patent Court agreement, which outlines the provisions for the creation of the Unified Patent Court.

Council Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC)

EU Regulation 1257/2012 was implemented on 17 December 2012, and authorised the creation of Unitary patent protection within the European Union. “A European patent granted by the EPO should, at the request of the patent proprietor, benefit from unitary effect by virtue of this Regulation in the participating Member States”. The participating Member States in this instance are all EU states, with the exception of Croatia, Italy and Spain. However, this Regulation remains toothless without a Unified Patent Court having jurisdiction over such Unitary patents.

The UPC agreement therefore aims to solve this issue, by creating the Unified Patent Court. Signed by 25 Member States (EU states, with the exception of Croatia, Poland and Spain) on 19 February 2013, the Court will primarily sit in Paris, with satellite Courts in London (primarily for pharmaceutical and life sciences patents) and Munich (primarily for mechanical patents), and a Court of Appeal based in Luxembourg. The agreement for the establishment of the UPC is therefore in place; however, the agreement requires ratification in 13 Member States before the Court can be established.

Being the three states of the EU from which a majority of patents are filed in Europe, Germany, France and the UK must be amongst these ratifying states. Therefore, the ratification of the UPC is in part being enabled by the 2014 IP Act substantially overcomes one of the major formal barriers to the establishment of the Court. At the time of writing, only Austria and France have formally ratified the UPC agreement, with the UK and Malta now being in a position to formally ratify the agreement at any point. This would therefore leave only Germany and eight other states to ratify the agreement, and three months thereafter, the Unitary patent system will take effect.

Unitary Patents

So, what does this mean for patents in Europe? The UPC is likely to be established at some point during the next few years, and proprietors of granted patents will be able to ‘apply’ for Unitary Effect. In practice, this will likely mean that you will actually be required to ‘opt out’ of Unitary Effect, rather than ‘opting in’. It is important therefore to note that the current provisions of the European Patent Convention are not going anywhere; European patents will still be able to be validated in individual Member States if desired, and for a transitional period of at least seven years, infringement and validity actions may still be raised in national courts as opposed to the UPC.

However, the Unitary patent will streamline matters post-acceptance of the patent application. Notably, the EPO is working towards a fully automated machine translation system, wherein, provided the language of proceedings of the patent application was in English, French or German, there will be no translation requirements for granted patents. This will likely significantly reduce costs for applicants wanting to extend their protection into multiple European states which presently require translations.

Furthermore, the renewal fees for the Unitary patent will be handled centrally at the EPO, rather than with national offices. Said fees are not presently set, so it remains to be seen whether it will be more cost-effective to apply for a Unitary patent when protection is only desired in a few Member States; at the very least, administrative costs associated with a Unitary patent should be reduced when compared to individually validated European patents.

Beneficially, the introduction of the UPC means that infringement or validity actions can be resolved centrally post-grant, whereas, at present, such actions need to be brought for each validated state. This will remove the ambiguity associated with a patent being invalidated in one state, yet still in-force in another.

Overall, will the Unitary patent represent a simplification of the European patenting system post-grant, reducing costs for applicants across the continent? That is the goal, but there are likely to be numerous legal headaches which arise, not least because of the existence of the transitional period, where some patents will have Unitary effect with others remaining independently valid in Member States.

Whether a Unitary patent will make commercial sense should you be interested in protection in only a limited number of states remains to be seen. At this time, the provisions are more of academic interest, rather than practical benefit. What should not be forgotten, however, is that existing European applications and patents can be made to have unitary effect when the provisions come into force. Watch this space for more information regarding the Unitary patent.