Accurate
Country-specific legal content
Drafted with legal expertise for each jurisdiction, far more thorough than AI-generated drafts that copy generic clauses across borders.
Intellectual PropertyUnited Kingdom
Free UK Patents Form 1 — Request for Grant of a Patent Template
Patents Form 1 is the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office form for requesting the grant of a UK patent under section 14 of the Patents Act 1977. Our free United Kingdom template builds a structured request the UKIPO can validate quickly — applicant identity, type and nationality with any patent attorney details, the section 13 inventor designation with derivation of right (employment, assignment, written agreement or inventor-as-applicant), the invention title, technical field and abstract summary, the Paris Convention priority claim (if any), the filing strategy (UK national, UK plus EP, UK plus PCT or PCT designating UK) with the UPC opt-out election, and four Expert clauses on the Aerotel / Macrossan four-stage patentability test, the Pozzoli structured approach to inventive step, the Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences plausibility threshold for industrial application and the EPC / UPC strategic election across the United Kingdom and European patent systems.
Free to useInstant PDFNo account required
PDF (free) + editable Word (.docx) with Expert
Patents Form 1 — Request for Grant of a Patent
Patents Act 1977 + Patents Rules 2007 · 8 June 2026
TO: Intellectual Property Office
Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport, NP10 8QQ
RE: Request for the grant of a patent under section 14 of the Patents Act 1977 — invention titled “Wavelength-selective photodetector array with adaptive bandpass control for sub-micron silicon photonics integration”
This request is made under section 14 of the Patents Act 1977 and rule 14 of the Patents Rules 2007. The applicant requests the grant of a United Kingdom patent in respect of the invention identified below. The application is filed via the One IPO digital service or by submission to the Intellectual Property Office in Newport. The accompanying specification (description, claims, abstract and any drawings) is supplied separately under the One IPO workflow. The applicant identity, the inventor designation, the invention title and technical field, the priority claim (if any) and the filing-route strategy are set out below.
Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport, NP10 8QQ
RE: Request for the grant of a patent under section 14 of the Patents Act 1977 — invention titled “Wavelength-selective photodetector array with adaptive bandpass control for sub-micron silicon photonics integration”
This request is made under section 14 of the Patents Act 1977 and rule 14 of the Patents Rules 2007. The applicant requests the grant of a United Kingdom patent in respect of the invention identified below. The application is filed via the One IPO digital service or by submission to the Intellectual Property Office in Newport. The accompanying specification (description, claims, abstract and any drawings) is supplied separately under the One IPO workflow. The applicant identity, the inventor designation, the invention title and technical field, the priority claim (if any) and the filing-route strategy are set out below.
1. APPLICANT PARTICULARS
| APPLICANT NAME | Catenary Optoelectronics Limited |
| APPLICANT ADDRESS | Module 7 Bessemer Court, Granta Park, Cambridge CB21 6GP |
| APPLICANT NATIONALITY | United Kingdom (England and Wales) |
| APPLICANT TYPE | Registered company |
| TELEPHONE | 01223 555 0277 |
| patents@catenaryopto.co.uk | |
| AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE | Westmorland Hayes Patent Attorneys LLP |
| AGENT ADDRESS | 92 Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2BP |
| AGENT REFERENCE | WH-2026-COL-PF1-204 |
2. INVENTOR DESIGNATION (SECTION 13 STATEMENT).
(a) Inventor name: Dr Felipe Andrade Costa
(b) Inventor address: 14 Wickham Avenue, Cambridge CB4 3DD
(c) Derivation of the right to grant of the patent: the inventor is or was an employee of the applicant and the invention was created in the course of duties under section 39 of the Patents Act 1977.
Section 13 of the Patents Act 1977 requires the applicant to file a statement identifying the inventor and the derivation of the right to be granted the patent. This statement satisfies that requirement.
(a) Inventor name: Dr Felipe Andrade Costa
(b) Inventor address: 14 Wickham Avenue, Cambridge CB4 3DD
(c) Derivation of the right to grant of the patent: the inventor is or was an employee of the applicant and the invention was created in the course of duties under section 39 of the Patents Act 1977.
Section 13 of the Patents Act 1977 requires the applicant to file a statement identifying the inventor and the derivation of the right to be granted the patent. This statement satisfies that requirement.
3. INVENTION TITLE AND TECHNICAL FIELD.
(a) Invention title: Wavelength-selective photodetector array with adaptive bandpass control for sub-micron silicon photonics integration
(b) Technical field of the invention:
The invention relates to integrated photonics, in particular to wavelength-selective photodetector arrays for monolithic integration with sub-micron silicon photonic waveguide platforms. The invention has industrial application in datacentre optical interconnects, light detection and ranging (LiDAR) systems, biomedical imaging and quantum-communications transceivers.
(c) Abstract summary:
A photodetector array comprising a plurality of nano-tunable resonator-coupled diode cells (R-DCs) arranged in a one-dimensional or two-dimensional grid, each R-DC having a wavelength-selective input filter electrically tuned by a piezoelectric micro-actuator, the input filter centre wavelength being controlled by a closed-loop optical-feedback circuit that adjusts the actuator drive voltage in response to a measured spectral peak of the impinging optical signal. The closed-loop control delivers an adaptive bandpass of less than 0.4 nm full-width at half-maximum across a tuning range of 35 nm in the 1500 nm to 1565 nm telecom C-band. The cell pitch is 12 microns, monolithically compatible with 28 nm CMOS readout integration. The array delivers a measured signal-to-noise improvement of 18 dB over conventional fixed-filter PIN arrays at 25 GHz modulation rates.
The full description, claims, abstract and any drawings are filed separately under rule 14 of the Patents Rules 2007.
(a) Invention title: Wavelength-selective photodetector array with adaptive bandpass control for sub-micron silicon photonics integration
(b) Technical field of the invention:
The invention relates to integrated photonics, in particular to wavelength-selective photodetector arrays for monolithic integration with sub-micron silicon photonic waveguide platforms. The invention has industrial application in datacentre optical interconnects, light detection and ranging (LiDAR) systems, biomedical imaging and quantum-communications transceivers.
(c) Abstract summary:
A photodetector array comprising a plurality of nano-tunable resonator-coupled diode cells (R-DCs) arranged in a one-dimensional or two-dimensional grid, each R-DC having a wavelength-selective input filter electrically tuned by a piezoelectric micro-actuator, the input filter centre wavelength being controlled by a closed-loop optical-feedback circuit that adjusts the actuator drive voltage in response to a measured spectral peak of the impinging optical signal. The closed-loop control delivers an adaptive bandpass of less than 0.4 nm full-width at half-maximum across a tuning range of 35 nm in the 1500 nm to 1565 nm telecom C-band. The cell pitch is 12 microns, monolithically compatible with 28 nm CMOS readout integration. The array delivers a measured signal-to-noise improvement of 18 dB over conventional fixed-filter PIN arrays at 25 GHz modulation rates.
The full description, claims, abstract and any drawings are filed separately under rule 14 of the Patents Rules 2007.
4. PRIORITY CLAIM.
Priority is claimed under article 4 of the Paris Convention from the following earlier application:
(a) Country of first filing: United States of America
(b) Earlier application number: US 18/441,892
(c) Priority date (earlier filing date): 22 August 2025
The applicant relies on the Paris Convention twelve-month priority window measured from the priority date. The priority claim preserves the priority date for novelty and inventive-step assessment under sections 2 and 3 of the Patents Act 1977.
Priority is claimed under article 4 of the Paris Convention from the following earlier application:
(a) Country of first filing: United States of America
(b) Earlier application number: US 18/441,892
(c) Priority date (earlier filing date): 22 August 2025
The applicant relies on the Paris Convention twelve-month priority window measured from the priority date. The priority claim preserves the priority date for novelty and inventive-step assessment under sections 2 and 3 of the Patents Act 1977.
5. FILING STRATEGY.
(a) Filing route: UK national route plus European route via the European Patent Office under the European Patent Convention.
(b) Unified Patent Court (UPC) position: The applicant has opted out of the Unified Patent Court for any European bundle right. The UPC entered into force on 1 June 2023 with a seven-year transitional opt-out period; the United Kingdom is not a participating member of the UPC and the UK national patent jurisdiction remains the UK Patents Court and the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.
(c) Filing strategy notes:
The applicant filing strategy is (i) UK national filing today via Form 1 to anchor a UK national right; (ii) European patent application via the EPO claiming priority from the US provisional and (in part) from the UK national filing under the EPC article 87 framework; (iii) UPC opt-out election on the EP bundle for the transitional seven-year period to preserve national enforcement and avoid central-revocation exposure. The applicant has retained the right to revisit the UPC opt-out election where the technology proves to require centralised enforcement against a multi-territory infringer.
(a) Filing route: UK national route plus European route via the European Patent Office under the European Patent Convention.
(b) Unified Patent Court (UPC) position: The applicant has opted out of the Unified Patent Court for any European bundle right. The UPC entered into force on 1 June 2023 with a seven-year transitional opt-out period; the United Kingdom is not a participating member of the UPC and the UK national patent jurisdiction remains the UK Patents Court and the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.
(c) Filing strategy notes:
The applicant filing strategy is (i) UK national filing today via Form 1 to anchor a UK national right; (ii) European patent application via the EPO claiming priority from the US provisional and (in part) from the UK national filing under the EPC article 87 framework; (iii) UPC opt-out election on the EP bundle for the transitional seven-year period to preserve national enforcement and avoid central-revocation exposure. The applicant has retained the right to revisit the UPC opt-out election where the technology proves to require centralised enforcement against a multi-territory infringer.
6. PATENTABILITY FOUR-STAGE TEST — AEROTEL/MACROSSAN FRAMEWORK.
Section 1 of the Patents Act 1977 sets the patentability requirements. The four-stage test in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd and Macrossan [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 governs the section 1(2) exclusions. The four stages are: (a) properly construe the claim; (b) identify the actual contribution; (c) ask whether the contribution falls solely within an excluded category; (d) check whether the contribution is technical in nature. Symbian v Comptroller-General [2008] EWCA Civ 1066 confirmed that a technical effect outside the computer programme itself takes a software invention out of the exclusion.
(a) Properly construed claim:
The properly construed independent claim covers a photodetector array comprising a plurality of nano-tunable resonator-coupled diode cells each with a wavelength-selective input filter electrically tuned by a piezoelectric micro-actuator, the input filter centre wavelength being controlled by a closed-loop optical-feedback circuit that adjusts the actuator drive voltage in response to a measured spectral peak of the impinging optical signal. The skilled person — a CMOS photonics integration engineer — would interpret the claim as requiring the closed-loop optical-feedback circuit to be physically integrated on the same die as the diode cells, since the latency tolerance of the circuit is incompatible with off-die signal routing at the modulation rates claimed.
(b) Actual contribution of the invention:
The actual contribution beyond the state of the art is twofold: (i) the closed-loop optical-feedback tuning architecture that delivers a sub-0.4 nm adaptive bandpass across a 35 nm tuning range — an order of magnitude improvement over the next-best published silicon-photonic resonator-array prior art; (ii) the monolithic CMOS-compatible integration at a 12 micron cell pitch which permits ten thousand-element arrays on a single die. The contribution lies entirely in the configuration of physical hardware elements and the analogue control architecture that ties them together.
(c) Excluded subject matter position:
The contribution does not fall within any section 1(2) exclusion. It is not a discovery — it is a configuration of physical hardware. It is not a scientific theory or mathematical method — the contribution is a tangible array with closed-loop feedback. It is not a scheme for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business — it is a hardware photodetector array. It is not a presentation of information — it generates an electrical signal. The contribution is not a computer programme as such — although the closed-loop circuit may have embedded firmware, the contribution is the hardware architecture not the firmware code.
(d) Technical character:
The contribution is unambiguously technical in character. The technical effect is an adaptive sub-0.4 nm bandpass across a 35 nm tuning range delivering an 18 dB signal-to-noise improvement at 25 GHz modulation rates. The technical effect is measurable, demonstrable in a working prototype and is the central commercial purpose of the invention. Symbian v Comptroller-General [2008] EWCA Civ 1066 confirms that a technical effect outside the computer programme itself takes the invention out of any apparent computer-programme exclusion; on these facts the technical effect is materially hardware-based and the Symbian point is not even reached.
Section 1 of the Patents Act 1977 sets the patentability requirements. The four-stage test in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd and Macrossan [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 governs the section 1(2) exclusions. The four stages are: (a) properly construe the claim; (b) identify the actual contribution; (c) ask whether the contribution falls solely within an excluded category; (d) check whether the contribution is technical in nature. Symbian v Comptroller-General [2008] EWCA Civ 1066 confirmed that a technical effect outside the computer programme itself takes a software invention out of the exclusion.
(a) Properly construed claim:
The properly construed independent claim covers a photodetector array comprising a plurality of nano-tunable resonator-coupled diode cells each with a wavelength-selective input filter electrically tuned by a piezoelectric micro-actuator, the input filter centre wavelength being controlled by a closed-loop optical-feedback circuit that adjusts the actuator drive voltage in response to a measured spectral peak of the impinging optical signal. The skilled person — a CMOS photonics integration engineer — would interpret the claim as requiring the closed-loop optical-feedback circuit to be physically integrated on the same die as the diode cells, since the latency tolerance of the circuit is incompatible with off-die signal routing at the modulation rates claimed.
(b) Actual contribution of the invention:
The actual contribution beyond the state of the art is twofold: (i) the closed-loop optical-feedback tuning architecture that delivers a sub-0.4 nm adaptive bandpass across a 35 nm tuning range — an order of magnitude improvement over the next-best published silicon-photonic resonator-array prior art; (ii) the monolithic CMOS-compatible integration at a 12 micron cell pitch which permits ten thousand-element arrays on a single die. The contribution lies entirely in the configuration of physical hardware elements and the analogue control architecture that ties them together.
(c) Excluded subject matter position:
The contribution does not fall within any section 1(2) exclusion. It is not a discovery — it is a configuration of physical hardware. It is not a scientific theory or mathematical method — the contribution is a tangible array with closed-loop feedback. It is not a scheme for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business — it is a hardware photodetector array. It is not a presentation of information — it generates an electrical signal. The contribution is not a computer programme as such — although the closed-loop circuit may have embedded firmware, the contribution is the hardware architecture not the firmware code.
(d) Technical character:
The contribution is unambiguously technical in character. The technical effect is an adaptive sub-0.4 nm bandpass across a 35 nm tuning range delivering an 18 dB signal-to-noise improvement at 25 GHz modulation rates. The technical effect is measurable, demonstrable in a working prototype and is the central commercial purpose of the invention. Symbian v Comptroller-General [2008] EWCA Civ 1066 confirms that a technical effect outside the computer programme itself takes the invention out of any apparent computer-programme exclusion; on these facts the technical effect is materially hardware-based and the Symbian point is not even reached.
7. NOVELTY AND INVENTIVE STEP — POZZOLI STRUCTURED APPROACH.
Section 2 of the Patents Act 1977 requires that the invention is new and section 3 requires an inventive step over the state of the art. Pozzoli SpA v BDMO SA [2007] EWCA Civ 588 sets the structured approach to inventive step. Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd [2013] UKSC 16 and Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly and Co [2017] UKSC 48 shape the protection scope through the doctrine of equivalents and the making-test for direct infringement.
(a) Closest prior art:
The closest prior art is Tanaka et al, "A 64-channel resonator-coupled silicon photonic detector array with thermo-optic tuning" published in Optica volume 12 issue 4 (April 2025) describing a 64-channel array with thermo-optic tuning delivering a 3.2 nm bandpass across a 22 nm tuning range. Secondary prior art includes Chen et al EP 4 117 481 A1 published 18 January 2024 disclosing a piezo-actuated resonator without closed-loop optical feedback.
(b) Inventive concept:
The inventive concept is the combination of (i) piezoelectric tuning replacing the thermo-optic tuning of Tanaka with its slow response and high thermal dissipation; and (ii) closed-loop optical-feedback control measuring the spectral peak of the impinging signal and adjusting the actuator drive voltage to track it adaptively. The combination is what delivers the sub-0.4 nm bandpass and the 35 nm tuning range simultaneously.
(c) Differences between closest prior art and inventive concept:
The differences from Tanaka are: (a) piezoelectric not thermo-optic tuning; (b) closed-loop optical feedback control not open-loop temperature control; (c) 8x narrower bandpass; (d) 50% wider tuning range; (e) sub-microsecond response time vs Tanaka millisecond response. The differences from Chen are: (a) closed-loop optical feedback control vs no closed-loop control in Chen; (b) sub-0.4 nm bandpass vs no bandpass figure in Chen; (c) monolithic CMOS compatible integration at 12 micron pitch vs separate-die approach in Chen.
(d) Obviousness position:
A person skilled in the art with the common general knowledge of CMOS photonics integration as at 22 August 2025 (priority date) would not consider the inventive combination obvious. The two prior-art skilled-person paths — Tanaka thermo-optic and Chen open-loop piezo — both fail at the required bandpass and response time. Combining the two would require an inventive step in recognising that closed-loop optical feedback is the missing element and in designing the analogue feedback architecture compatible with the modulation rates targeted. Pozzoli structured approach analysis supports inventive step in the combination.
Section 2 of the Patents Act 1977 requires that the invention is new and section 3 requires an inventive step over the state of the art. Pozzoli SpA v BDMO SA [2007] EWCA Civ 588 sets the structured approach to inventive step. Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd [2013] UKSC 16 and Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly and Co [2017] UKSC 48 shape the protection scope through the doctrine of equivalents and the making-test for direct infringement.
(a) Closest prior art:
The closest prior art is Tanaka et al, "A 64-channel resonator-coupled silicon photonic detector array with thermo-optic tuning" published in Optica volume 12 issue 4 (April 2025) describing a 64-channel array with thermo-optic tuning delivering a 3.2 nm bandpass across a 22 nm tuning range. Secondary prior art includes Chen et al EP 4 117 481 A1 published 18 January 2024 disclosing a piezo-actuated resonator without closed-loop optical feedback.
(b) Inventive concept:
The inventive concept is the combination of (i) piezoelectric tuning replacing the thermo-optic tuning of Tanaka with its slow response and high thermal dissipation; and (ii) closed-loop optical-feedback control measuring the spectral peak of the impinging signal and adjusting the actuator drive voltage to track it adaptively. The combination is what delivers the sub-0.4 nm bandpass and the 35 nm tuning range simultaneously.
(c) Differences between closest prior art and inventive concept:
The differences from Tanaka are: (a) piezoelectric not thermo-optic tuning; (b) closed-loop optical feedback control not open-loop temperature control; (c) 8x narrower bandpass; (d) 50% wider tuning range; (e) sub-microsecond response time vs Tanaka millisecond response. The differences from Chen are: (a) closed-loop optical feedback control vs no closed-loop control in Chen; (b) sub-0.4 nm bandpass vs no bandpass figure in Chen; (c) monolithic CMOS compatible integration at 12 micron pitch vs separate-die approach in Chen.
(d) Obviousness position:
A person skilled in the art with the common general knowledge of CMOS photonics integration as at 22 August 2025 (priority date) would not consider the inventive combination obvious. The two prior-art skilled-person paths — Tanaka thermo-optic and Chen open-loop piezo — both fail at the required bandpass and response time. Combining the two would require an inventive step in recognising that closed-loop optical feedback is the missing element and in designing the analogue feedback architecture compatible with the modulation rates targeted. Pozzoli structured approach analysis supports inventive step in the combination.
8. INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION — ELI LILLY v HGS FRAMEWORK.
Section 4 of the Patents Act 1977 requires that the invention is capable of industrial application. Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences [2011] UKSC 51 confirmed that a concrete benefit must be plausibly disclosed at the filing date. A speculative or mere research-tool disclosure does not satisfy the requirement. The plausibility threshold is the principal contribution of the Supreme Court decision.
(a) Concrete benefit of the invention:
The concrete benefit of the invention is the production of a high-channel-count photodetector array for datacentre optical interconnects (400 Gbit/s and beyond), LiDAR sensing arrays for automotive applications, biomedical near-infrared imaging arrays and quantum-communications transceivers. The benefit is industrial — concrete, demonstrable, measurable on a working prototype and the central commercial proposition of the applicant business.
(b) Plausibility disclosure at the filing date:
The specification at paragraphs [0042] to [0078] discloses the closed-loop optical feedback circuit architecture, the piezoelectric actuator drive voltage range, the calibration sequence and the measured performance of the working prototype delivered on a 28 nm CMOS process at Catenary Optoelectronics Limited in May 2026. The plausibility threshold under Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences [2011] UKSC 51 is comfortably satisfied — the concrete benefit is not speculative but is supported by measured results in the specification itself.
(c) Research tool position:
The invention is not a research tool with mere theoretical utility. The applicant has supplied photodetector arrays under non-disclosure agreement to three customers in datacentre interconnect engineering and one customer in automotive LiDAR engineering, all of whom have validated the device performance in their own laboratory environments. The industrial-application threshold is far beyond the research-tool concern that animated Eli Lilly v HGS.
Section 4 of the Patents Act 1977 requires that the invention is capable of industrial application. Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences [2011] UKSC 51 confirmed that a concrete benefit must be plausibly disclosed at the filing date. A speculative or mere research-tool disclosure does not satisfy the requirement. The plausibility threshold is the principal contribution of the Supreme Court decision.
(a) Concrete benefit of the invention:
The concrete benefit of the invention is the production of a high-channel-count photodetector array for datacentre optical interconnects (400 Gbit/s and beyond), LiDAR sensing arrays for automotive applications, biomedical near-infrared imaging arrays and quantum-communications transceivers. The benefit is industrial — concrete, demonstrable, measurable on a working prototype and the central commercial proposition of the applicant business.
(b) Plausibility disclosure at the filing date:
The specification at paragraphs [0042] to [0078] discloses the closed-loop optical feedback circuit architecture, the piezoelectric actuator drive voltage range, the calibration sequence and the measured performance of the working prototype delivered on a 28 nm CMOS process at Catenary Optoelectronics Limited in May 2026. The plausibility threshold under Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences [2011] UKSC 51 is comfortably satisfied — the concrete benefit is not speculative but is supported by measured results in the specification itself.
(c) Research tool position:
The invention is not a research tool with mere theoretical utility. The applicant has supplied photodetector arrays under non-disclosure agreement to three customers in datacentre interconnect engineering and one customer in automotive LiDAR engineering, all of whom have validated the device performance in their own laboratory environments. The industrial-application threshold is far beyond the research-tool concern that animated Eli Lilly v HGS.
9. EPC AND UPC STRATEGIC ELECTION.
The applicant has considered the available filing routes — UK national, European patent via the EPO, and PCT international — and has elected the strategy set out below. The Unified Patent Court entered into force on 1 June 2023 with a seven-year transitional opt-out period; the United Kingdom is not a participating UPC member, but the applicant must elect for any European bundle right whether to opt out from the UPC jurisdiction.
(a) EP route rationale:
The applicant has elected EP filing alongside the UK national filing for three reasons: (i) the European Patent Office examination has historically been more searching on inventive step than UKIPO for photonics applications, and a granted EP patent therefore carries higher per-jurisdiction validity confidence; (ii) the EP application designates 38 contracting states with a single filing fee anchor, allowing the applicant to defer validation costs until commercial traction is clear; (iii) the targeted markets — Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy and Ireland for datacentre customers, and Germany and France additionally for automotive LiDAR — are all EPC states with mature patent litigation forums.
(b) UPC strategy rationale:
The applicant has elected to opt out of the UPC for the EP bundle right during the seven-year transitional period. The rationale is (i) central-revocation exposure under UPC would put the entire bundle at risk in a single forum which is unacceptable while the technology is in early commercial deployment; (ii) the applicant prefers the established national enforcement forums in Germany (Dusseldorf, Mannheim, Munich) which the applicant European counsel knows well; (iii) the UPC litigation cost structure is still maturing and is not yet predictable. The applicant retains the right to revisit the opt-out election within the transitional period if commercial circumstances change.
(c) National validation plan:
On EP grant the applicant will validate in Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, Ireland, Switzerland and Spain in the first phase. Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Austria and Poland will be added in the second phase on confirmation of commercial traction in those markets. Validation costs are budgeted at GBP 65,000 for the first-phase eight jurisdictions and GBP 45,000 for the second-phase seven jurisdictions. The annual renewal cost projection across all validated states stabilises at approximately GBP 35,000 by year five and rises to approximately GBP 85,000 by year ten.
The applicant has considered the available filing routes — UK national, European patent via the EPO, and PCT international — and has elected the strategy set out below. The Unified Patent Court entered into force on 1 June 2023 with a seven-year transitional opt-out period; the United Kingdom is not a participating UPC member, but the applicant must elect for any European bundle right whether to opt out from the UPC jurisdiction.
(a) EP route rationale:
The applicant has elected EP filing alongside the UK national filing for three reasons: (i) the European Patent Office examination has historically been more searching on inventive step than UKIPO for photonics applications, and a granted EP patent therefore carries higher per-jurisdiction validity confidence; (ii) the EP application designates 38 contracting states with a single filing fee anchor, allowing the applicant to defer validation costs until commercial traction is clear; (iii) the targeted markets — Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy and Ireland for datacentre customers, and Germany and France additionally for automotive LiDAR — are all EPC states with mature patent litigation forums.
(b) UPC strategy rationale:
The applicant has elected to opt out of the UPC for the EP bundle right during the seven-year transitional period. The rationale is (i) central-revocation exposure under UPC would put the entire bundle at risk in a single forum which is unacceptable while the technology is in early commercial deployment; (ii) the applicant prefers the established national enforcement forums in Germany (Dusseldorf, Mannheim, Munich) which the applicant European counsel knows well; (iii) the UPC litigation cost structure is still maturing and is not yet predictable. The applicant retains the right to revisit the opt-out election within the transitional period if commercial circumstances change.
(c) National validation plan:
On EP grant the applicant will validate in Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, Ireland, Switzerland and Spain in the first phase. Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Austria and Poland will be added in the second phase on confirmation of commercial traction in those markets. Validation costs are budgeted at GBP 65,000 for the first-phase eight jurisdictions and GBP 45,000 for the second-phase seven jurisdictions. The annual renewal cost projection across all validated states stabilises at approximately GBP 35,000 by year five and rises to approximately GBP 85,000 by year ten.
10. STATEMENT OF TRUTH AND DECLARATION. The applicant declares that the particulars set out in this Patents Form 1 are true. Where priority is claimed, the applicant declares that it is or its predecessor in title was entitled to claim priority from the earlier application identified. The applicant understands that the application will be subject to preliminary examination under section 17 of the Patents Act 1977 and substantive examination under section 18 once the search request on Form 9A and the request for substantive examination on Form 10 have been filed within the prescribed periods.
APPLICANT
Westmorland Hayes Patent Attorneys LLP
Authorised representative
Catenary Optoelectronics Limited
Date: ____________________
Available as a print-ready PDF or an editable Microsoft Word (.docx) file.
What Is Patents Form 1?
Patents Form 1 is the prescribed United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office form for filing a UK patent application. Section 14 of the Patents Act 1977 sets out the requirements — a request for the grant of a patent on Form 1, a specification containing a description of the invention, claims defining the matter for which protection is sought, an abstract and any drawings referred to in the description or claims. The form is filed via the One IPO digital service from April 2026 or by submission to the Intellectual Property Office at Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport NP10 8QQ. The application fee is £120 if paid on filing or £150 if paid late under the Patents Rules 2007 (SI 2007/3291).
The patentability requirements under section 1 of the Patents Act 1977 are that the invention must be new (section 2), involve an inventive step (section 3), be capable of industrial application (section 4) and not be excluded from patentability (section 1(2)). The four-stage test in Aerotel v Telco / Macrossan [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 governs the section 1(2) exclusions: (a) properly construe the claim; (b) identify the actual contribution; (c) ask whether the contribution falls solely within an excluded category (discovery, scientific theory, mathematical method, computer programme as such, etc.); (d) check whether the contribution is technical in nature. Symbian v Comptroller-General [2008] EWCA Civ 1066 confirmed that a technical effect outside the computer programme itself takes a software invention out of the exclusion across the United Kingdom patent system.
The filing strategy decision is significant. The UK national route via Form 1 produces a national UK patent enforceable in the UK Patents Court and the IPEC. The European Patent Convention (EPC) route via the European Patent Office produces a granted EP patent enforced as a bundle of national patents in each EPC state. The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) international route designates Paris Convention states for later national-phase entry. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) entered into force on 1 June 2023 with a seven-year transitional opt-out period; the United Kingdom is not a participating UPC member but applicants holding EP bundle rights covering UPC member states must elect whether to opt out from UPC jurisdiction during the transitional period. The choice between centralised UPC enforcement and traditional national enforcement is one of the major strategic decisions for European patent holders across the United Kingdom and European patent systems.
What's Covered in This Template
Our United Kingdom Patents Form 1 template builds a structured request for grant the UKIPO can validate quickly — applicant, inventor designation, invention title and technical field, priority claim, filing strategy and four Expert clauses on patentability, novelty + inventive step, industrial application and EPC / UPC election.
Patents Act 1977 Section 14 Application Requirements
Engages the United Kingdom statutory framework setting the patent application requirements — request for grant, description, claims, abstract and any drawings under section 14 of the Patents Act 1977.
Section 13 Inventor Designation
Records the section 13 statement of inventorship and derivation of right — inventor as applicant, employment under section 39, written assignment under section 90 or written agreement to assign.
Aerotel / Macrossan Four-Stage Test (Expert)
Expert clause applies Aerotel v Telco / Macrossan [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 to the section 1(2) exclusions — properly construed claim, actual contribution, excluded subject matter and technical character.
Pozzoli Structured Approach (Expert)
Expert clause applies Pozzoli SpA v BDMO SA [2007] EWCA Civ 588 to the inventive-step test — skilled person and common general knowledge, inventive concept, differences from closest prior art and obviousness position.
Eli Lilly v HGS Plausibility (Expert)
Expert clause applies Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences [2011] UKSC 51 to the industrial-application requirement — concrete benefit, plausibility disclosure at filing date and research-tool position rebuttal.
EPC + UPC Strategic Election (Expert)
Expert clause sets the EPC route rationale, the UPC opt-out election for the seven-year transitional period and the national validation plan across the European Patent Convention contracting states.
Paris Convention 12-Month Priority
Records the Paris Convention article 4 twelve-month priority window from the first filing of an application for the same invention in any Paris Convention state — priority preserves the priority date for novelty and inventive-step assessment.
Four Filing Routes
Supports four filing routes — UK national only, UK national plus EP via EPO, UK national plus PCT international or PCT international designating UK. The election shapes the territorial reach and the costs profile.
UPC Opt-Out Election
Engages the Unified Patent Court opt-out election for European bundle rights — opt out for transitional period to preserve national enforcement and avoid centralised revocation exposure, or opt in for centralised UPC enforcement.
Five Applicant Types
Supports five applicant categories — individual inventor, registered company, university or research institute, partnership / LLP or other. The type shapes the section 13 inventor-derivation analysis.
Concept House Newport + One IPO Digital Service
Filed at the UKIPO Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport NP10 8QQ or via the One IPO digital service (from April 2026) which replaces the legacy paper filing channels across the United Kingdom patent system.
How to File Patents Form 1
Follow these steps to produce a structured Patents Form 1 the UKIPO can validate within the section 14 framework across the United Kingdom patent system.
- 1
Confirm the Invention Is Patentable
Confirm the invention is new (section 2), involves an inventive step (section 3), is capable of industrial application (section 4) and does not fall within any section 1(2) exclusion (discovery, scientific theory, mathematical method, scheme for performing a mental act, computer programme as such, presentation of information). The Aerotel / Macrossan four-stage test governs the exclusions analysis.
- 2
Identify the Applicant and the Inventor
Identify the applicant (individual, company, university, partnership or other) with full name, address, nationality and contact details. Identify the inventor (if different from the applicant) with full name and address. Record the derivation of right — employment under section 39, written assignment under section 90, written agreement to assign or inventor-as-applicant under section 7.
- 3
Draft the Invention Title and Technical Field
Draft a concise invention title that describes the invention in plain language. Describe the technical field — what part of which engineering discipline the invention sits in and what industrial applications it addresses. Draft the abstract summary as a single paragraph covering the technical problem, the solution, the principal performance numbers and the main industrial application.
- 4
Decide Whether to Claim Priority
Where the same invention has been filed in another Paris Convention state within the previous twelve months, the applicant may claim priority under article 4 of the Paris Convention. Priority preserves the priority date for novelty and inventive-step assessment under sections 2 and 3 of the Patents Act 1977. Record the country of first filing, the earlier application number and the priority date.
- 5
Decide the Filing Strategy
Choose the filing route — UK national only, UK national plus EP via the European Patent Office, UK national plus PCT international or PCT international designating UK. Where any European bundle right will be in scope, decide the UPC opt-out election for the seven-year transitional period. The choice between centralised UPC enforcement and traditional national enforcement shapes the entire territorial enforcement strategy.
- 6
Build the Expert Clauses (Aerotel / Pozzoli / Eli Lilly / EPC-UPC)
The four Expert clauses build the substantive patentability case: (i) Aerotel / Macrossan four-stage patentability test addressing any section 1(2) exclusion concern; (ii) Pozzoli structured approach to inventive step with closest prior art and obviousness position; (iii) Eli Lilly v HGS industrial-application plausibility threshold; (iv) EPC / UPC strategic election with national validation plan.
- 7
Prepare the Specification
The Form 1 request is filed alongside a specification containing the description, claims, abstract and any drawings under rule 14 of the Patents Rules 2007. The specification is the substantive patent application — the Form 1 is the request and metadata layer. Claim drafting is highly technical and is typically handled by a Chartered Patent Attorney regulated by IPReg.
- 8
File with the UKIPO
File the Form 1 via the One IPO digital service or by submission to the UKIPO at Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport NP10 8QQ. The application fee is £120 if paid on filing, £150 if paid late. The search request on Form 9A and the request for substantive examination on Form 10 are filed within the prescribed periods under section 17 and section 18.
Why Doxuno documents are different
Four things that make our templates more thorough than AI-generated drafts and more current than static template libraries.
Always current
Always current with the law
Templates carrying statute references are continuously updated as the law changes. Your document always reflects the current legal framework.
Free PDF
Print-ready PDF
Free to download. Vector text, embedded fonts, statute citations baked in. Print, sign, file. Ready for any signing flow including electronic signature.
Word · .docx
Editable Word (.docx)
Continue editing in Word after download. Add custom clauses, reuse the template for similar agreements, or share with a colleague for collaborative review.
Requires Expert one-time unlock or any paid Doxuno subscription.
Legal Considerations — Patents Form 1
Patent applications in the United Kingdom are governed by the Patents Act 1977 and the Patents Rules 2007 (SI 2007/3291). The framework operates the same across all UK patent applications regardless of the applicant location.
This template is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Patent applications are technical proceedings and claim drafting is highly specialised. Specialist Chartered Patent Attorneys regulated by IPReg and patent solicitors regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority advise on patent preparation, prosecution and contested patent matters. The UKIPO patent examination process and the EPC / UPC strategic election are matters on which independent professional advice is strongly recommended across the United Kingdom and European patent systems.
Reviewed for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)
Patents Act 1977 — Section 14 + Section 1-4
Section 14 of the Patents Act 1977 sets the requirements for a UK patent application — a request for the grant of a patent on Form 1, a specification containing a description of the invention, claims defining the matter for which protection is sought, an abstract and any drawings. Section 1 sets the patentability requirements; section 2 is novelty; section 3 is inventive step; section 4 is industrial application. The Patents Rules 2007 (SI 2007/3291) set the procedural framework across the United Kingdom patent system administered by the UK Intellectual Property Office.
Aerotel / Macrossan — Section 1(2) Exclusions
Aerotel v Telco / Macrossan [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 is the leading Court of Appeal authority on the section 1(2) exclusions. The four-stage test is: (a) properly construe the claim; (b) identify the actual contribution; (c) ask whether the contribution falls solely within an excluded category; (d) check whether the contribution is technical in nature. Symbian v Comptroller-General [2008] EWCA Civ 1066 confirmed that a technical effect outside the computer programme itself takes a software invention out of the exclusion. The Aerotel framework remains the binding UK authority for software, business-method and other potentially-excluded subject matter across the United Kingdom patent system.
Pozzoli + Eli Lilly + Schutz + Actavis
Pozzoli SpA v BDMO SA [2007] EWCA Civ 588 sets the structured approach to inventive step. Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences [2011] UKSC 51 confirmed the plausibility threshold for industrial application. Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd [2013] UKSC 16 confirmed the makes-test for direct infringement. Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly & Co [2017] UKSC 48 introduced the doctrine of equivalents into UK patent law. The four Supreme Court / Court of Appeal authorities form the post-2007 binding framework for UK patent prosecution, infringement and protection-scope across the United Kingdom patent system.
Paris Convention + EPC + PCT Filing Routes
The Paris Convention provides a twelve-month priority window from the first filing of an application for the same invention. The European Patent Convention (EPC) provides the EP application route administered by the European Patent Office; a granted EP patent is enforced as a bundle of national patents in each EPC state. The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) provides the international application route designating Paris Convention states for later national-phase entry. The applicant may elect UK national filing via Form 1, EP filing via the EPO with UK validation, PCT international designating UK and/or EP, or a combination of these routes.
Unified Patent Court — UK Position + Opt-Out
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) entered into force on 1 June 2023 with a seven-year transitional opt-out period (extendable by a further seven years). The United Kingdom is not a participating UPC member following the post-Brexit decision; the UK patent jurisdiction remains the UK Patents Court and the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. Applicants holding EP bundle rights covering UPC member states must elect whether to opt out from UPC jurisdiction during the transitional period. Opt-out preserves national enforcement; opt-in enables centralised UPC enforcement but accepts centralised revocation exposure. As of late 2024 more than 600,000 opt-outs have been registered across Europe including a significant share by UK-based holders.
One IPO Digital Service — April 2026 Cutover
From April 2026 the One IPO digital service replaces the legacy patent filing channels for UK patent applications. Patents Form 1 is filed via the digital service and the search request on Form 9A is incorporated into the same workflow. The application fee structure is £120 on filing, £150 if paid late, and the search fee is paid separately under rule 17 of the Patents Rules 2007. The digital service consolidates the trade mark, design and patent filing channels into a single platform across the UK Intellectual Property Office estate.
Frequently Asked Questions
Build Your Patents Form 1
Produce a structured request for grant of a UK patent the UKIPO can validate quickly — applicant identity, type and nationality with any patent attorney details, the section 13 inventor designation with derivation of right, the invention title, technical field and abstract summary, the Paris Convention twelve-month priority claim (if any), the filing strategy (UK national, UK plus EP, UK plus PCT or PCT designating UK) with the Unified Patent Court opt-out election, and four Expert clauses on the Aerotel / Macrossan four-stage patentability test, the Pozzoli structured approach to inventive step, the Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences plausibility threshold for industrial application and the EPC / UPC strategic election. Drafted under the Patents Act 1977 and the Patents Rules 2007 across the United Kingdom and European patent systems.
Free PDF · Editable Word with Expert · No account required