Home » Patents » How to Cut the Cost of Filing PCT applications in the UK (and Europe)

How to Cut the Cost of Filing PCT applications in the UK (and Europe)

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Privacy Policy

IPcopy’s Privacy Policy can be viewed here.

GB+EU flag
In a world where it is rare to get something for nothing, most would view the headline for this story with a hint of cynicism and an expectation that somewhere there is a hidden catch. However, this IPCopy correspondent wishes to assure you that there is a way for the UKIPO and other national receiving offices in Europe to cut the costs of filing PCT applications without losing a single penny/cent/krona of national revenue. The answer is to follow the market-led approach of our enlightened American counterparts.

At present, when filing a Request for an International Patent Application for a UK applicant with the UKIPO as receiving office there is only one option of search authority: the EPO. In contrast in America a PCT applicant is provided with a choice of International Search Authorities (ISAs). The current search fees vary from the ‘Platinum’ service provided by the EPO at a cost of $2419 down to the ‘Economy’ service of the Russian Patent Office at a mere $217. In between, the shrewd US applicant can also pick from the varying prices (and qualities?) of the USPTO, Korean IPO and IP Australia. All searches must meet minimum PCT standards and are conducted in English. So an applicant based in the home of the free (market economy) benefits from a sliding scale of search costs that vary in size by a factor of more than ten.

It should not be overlooked that the quality of a prior art search is an important factor in determining which ISA to choose. However, it is often the case that applicants can have their own searches carried out by third party organisations as well as by national offices such as the UKIPO (during the priority year for instance) for substantially lower cost than the current EPO ISA search fee. IPCopy has calculated that it is possible to obtain an outsourced private-sector search (from an Indian based company), a UKIPO search and the Russian ISA search for a combined cost that is still significantly less than that of a single current EPO search. It is also important to note that on eventual entry into the European Regional phase (about 18 months later) there will be a need to pay for a supplementary search when the ISA was not the EPO. But for many applicants, such as academic institutions, the actual deferment of large costs early in the life of a patent application is also a major consideration.

To put it in terms of hard numbers, a UK applicant filing a PCT application today of less than 30 pages electronically at the UKIPO would expect to pay official fees of at least £2421. If IPCopy’s suggestion of offering a choice of ISA was adopted the cost of filing could drop to just over £1000. That represents a staggering reduction in official fees of around 60% but with not one penny/cent/Krone lost in the revenue component destined for the national receiving office. In this way applicants could tailor their budget accordingly and choose to allocate spend on the search depending on whether they wanted the Platinum EPO approach or the more utilitarian Russian offering.

From a policy perspective it is hard to see how any pro-innovation government could fail to benefit from implementing such a small change in procedure. It would represent a huge financial boost to many patent applicants currently labouring under cost constrained conditions but still keen to protect their investment in R&D.

15 August 2013

1 Comment

  1. Malicious boy says:

    Post without signature? Fear of receiving “platinum” Art. 84 and 123(2) objections? 😛

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: