Senior Associate
European Patent Attorney
UK Patent Attorney
UK Design Attorney
Postgraduate Certificate in Intellectual Property, Bournemouth University
MSci Mathematics, University of Bristol
Thank you
Joseph’s core interests lie in the fields of materials, manufacturing, sustainability and digital technologies. These stem from a varied route to a patent career, via mathematics and nuclear engineering. Joseph enjoys the process of getting absorbed 'into a creation' and appreciating the detailed work and thought that goes into it. He also enjoys the diversity of working with clients of all sizes from large international companies, to UK-based SMEs and independent inventors.
Since joining Keltie in 2017, Joseph has worked on many aspects of the patents cycle including patent drafting, prosecution in the UK, Europe and worldwide, oppositions and freedom-to-operate assessments. He has also gained a great deal of experience working on designs, in relation to filing design applications as well as search and clearance projects.
Joseph qualified as a European Patent Attorney in 2021 and as a UK Patent and Design Attorney in 2024.
Before Keltie, Joseph worked as a nuclear safety case engineer on the Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C projects. Joseph’s principal focus was on the design of Hinkley Point C’s hazards protection systems.
Joseph graduated from the University of Bristol in 2013 with a Master’s degree in Mathematics. During his degree, Joseph’s studies included Newtonian mechanics, ordinary and partial differential equations, fluid dynamics, quantum physics, relativistic field theory, quantum computing, information theory and computational mathematics.
06.02.2024
Where fashion meets legality on social mediaUnlock the secrets of the fashion world's legal runway with our latest article, featuring Keltie's collaboration with CITMA and UKFT.
29.04.2025
Case Law Review: Board of Appeal Decision T 1741/22Patent applications related to data processing often fall foul of the EPO’s exclusions on “mathematical methods”. Applicants in the MedTech space in particular may find it far easier to protect the hardware in their wearable devices and tools than to protect the software that processes and analyses that data. A recent board of appeal decision T 1741/22 seems to contradict the Guidelines for Examination and previous Board of Appeal decisions. This decision may shed some light on how the EPO may approach these data processing applications in future.
13.01.2025
Protecting IP in agriculture06.08.2024
CRISPR patent battle updateOtherLess related knowledge
Thank you
