Belgium: Supplementary international search system reviewed

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Belgium: Supplementary international search system reviewed

During the 47th session of its assembly, held from October 5 to 14 2015, the PCT Union reviewed the supplementary international search system.

The supplementary international search system entered into force on January 1 2009 and was devised to allow PCT applicants to request one or more additional searches by searching authorities different from the International Searching Authority performing the main international search, allowing to focus on different language documents or searching subject matter which had not been searched by the International Searching Authority. The first year the system was in force, 25 requests were filed for a supplementary international search, a number which in 2014 had grown to a total of 102 requests. This however pales in comparison to the approximately 200,000 PCT patent applications or the approximately 15,000 requests for international preliminary examination which are filed annually. Hence, one could conclude that the supplementary international search is not very popular. Therefore, in advance of the PCT Union Assembly, the PCT Working Group decided to review the system and identified several shortcomings.

One of the main shortcomings the PCT Working Group identified is the fact that the supplementary international search is only offered by seven international authorities, being Russia, Sweden, the Nordic Patent Institute, Austria, Finland, the European Patent Office and only very recently, as of September 1 2015, Singapore. These Supplementary International Searching Authorities only offer searches in a limited set of languages, being West and North European languages, Russian, and only very recently Chinese as offered by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore. As such, the possibilities of complementing the international search with different language documents by means of the supplementary international search are limited, since other important languages, such as Japanese, Korean, Arabic and Spanish are lacking.

At present, no other international authorities have shown any interest in providing the supplementary international search, citing among other things the low level of interest from applicants. In attempts to increase its popularity the supplementary international search system is confronted with the classic chicken-or-egg conundrum. Other international authorities have objected to the supplementary international search, as they put more belief in improving the results of the main international search, for example by providing a collaborative search by different international authorities for which a pilot project was proposed in February 2015.

One of the other main hurdles for the more widespread adoption of the supplementary international search, as indicated by the applicants, is the relatively high fees which are charged for the search, considering it can be partially based on the previous international search and does not need to be accompanied by a written opinion.

For this reason, the PCT Union Assembly decided to keep promoting the supplementary international search with both the applicants and the International Searching Authorities, which are not yet offering the service and to invite the International Authorities which already offer supplementary international searches to consider reviewing the scope of their services provided and consequently the levels of fees charged. In 2020, the PCT Union Assembly plans to again review the system taking into account the results of pilot projects on collaborative search.

Aerts-Johan

Johan Aerts


GEVERS Holidaystraat, 5B-1831 Diegem - BrusselsBelgiumTel: +32 2 715 37 11Fax: +32 2 715 37 00www.gevers.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
The chief technology officer remit, which has been created as the firm is building its litigation team, will include expanding the use of AI in patent and legal work and automating manual processes
Former Hoyng Rokh Moneiger partner Laura Alonso, who brought her team to ECIJA in March, discusses plans to expand further and why ECIJA’s ‘IP DNA’ is helping broaden her work
Amita Haylock discusses building an integrated Asia practice as clients increasingly demand that firms combine IP, technology and data expertise
Gift this article