The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) is an important work-sharing mechanism that can help patent applicants to reduce prosecution timelines and, in some cases, prosecution costs across multiple jurisdictions. The PPH network is expanding rapidly, including into African countries, making it increasingly relevant to applicants seeking patent protection across Africa.
How the PPH works
The PPH is a framework of initiatives that allows applicants to fast-track examination at one patent office by relying on positive examination results obtained from another. It takes several forms.
The Global PPH programme allows applicants to request accelerated examination at any participating office based on favourable examination outcomes from another participating office. The IP5 PPH is a collaboration among the five largest patent offices – the USPTO, JPO, KIPO, CNIPA, and EPO – aimed at facilitating work-sharing among these major offices.
PPH work products are not binding on the receiving office. If an applicant receives a favourable finding on at least one claim from the Office of Earlier Examination (OEE), they may request accelerated examination of corresponding claims by the Office of Later Examination (OLE). The OEE’s findings may be persuasive, but the OLE retains full authority to conduct its own examination and reach independent conclusions on patentability.
Recent developments in Africa
The PPH network has grown significantly in recent years, with new agreements and pilot programmes extending its reach across Africa.
In April 2023, the USPTO and the Moroccan Office of Industrial and Commercial Property launched a bilateral PPH pilot programme. Under this arrangement, applicants who receive a positive decision on patent claims from either office may request accelerated prosecution of corresponding claims in the other office.
Egypt has also participated in the PPH landscape for some time. The JPO and the Egyptian Patent Office have implemented a PPH pilot programme since June 1 2015, with PPH MOTTAINAI and Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)-PPH arrangements added from June 1 2020. This allows applicants to leverage positive examination results obtained in one office to accelerate prosecution in the other.
The African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) launched a bilateral PPH pilot programme with the CNIPA on June 8 2024. Under this programme, applicants may request accelerated examination at ARIPO or the CNIPA based on favourable examination results from the other office. This is particularly significant for applicants filing ARIPO-designated applications, as it provides a direct route to expedited examination based on Chinese examination results, and vice versa.
More recently, ARIPO joined the Global PPH pilot programme with effect from January 6 2026. ARIPO now forms part of a broader global work-sharing framework alongside numerous leading patent offices. This further enhances the options available to applicants seeking accelerated examination before ARIPO.
South Africa’s position
Unlike many jurisdictions participating in the PPH, South Africa currently operates a deposit or registration system for patents. Patent applications are examined only for formal compliance; there is no substantive examination of novelty, inventive step, or industrial applicability before grant.
Accordingly, South Africa is not a party to any PPH agreement. The PPH is fundamentally built around substantive examination and the sharing of search and examination work products between examining offices. In the absence of substantive patent examination, there is no examination queue for a PPH arrangement to accelerate.
This position is likely to remain unchanged until South Africa introduces substantive search and examination.
Expedited acceptance of South African applications
Section 15(1)(a) of the South African Patents Act empowers the registrar to require evidence in support of a request for expedited acceptance. The South African patent office (CIPC) issued Practice Notice No. 21 of 2023, effective from April 11 2023, setting out the requirements.
Under the practice notice, the registrar requires supporting evidence for any request for expedited acceptance made within the first 12 months of the national phase entry date for a PCT national phase application, or within the first 18 months from the filing date of any other patent application. The evidence must be annexed to the request and must consist of one of the following:
For a PCT national phase application, a copy of a corresponding Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (WO-ISA) or International Preliminary Report on Patentability (IPRP), where the WO-ISA or IPRP has considered the subject matter of at least one claim of the PCT application to be both novel and inventive;
A copy of a search and/or examination report for an equivalent foreign patent application, where an examining patent office has considered the subject matter of at least one claim of the equivalent foreign application to be both novel and inventive; or
An affidavit from at least one applicant explaining why expedited acceptance is required for the specific patent application, the affidavit having been properly authenticated in accordance with Rule 63 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
The first two options are of particular practical relevance. If a positive PCT international phase opinion or a favourable examination report from an examining office such as the USPTO, EPO, JPO, UKIPO, or IP Australia has been obtained, that work product may support a request for expedited acceptance in South Africa.
Applicants should, however, exercise caution before requesting expedited acceptance based solely on favourable foreign examination results. Claims allowed in another jurisdiction may not necessarily conform to South African law and practice and may require amendment before grant. This is particularly important because an invalid claim may render a patent unenforceable until the defect is cured by amendment, even where other claims are valid and infringed. As a matter of public policy, the courts have emphasised that patentees should seek protection only for inventions they believe are valid. Accordingly, applicants should ensure that the claims are in a form suitable for grant in South Africa before requesting expedited acceptance.
Although this is not technically a PPH mechanism, it is conceptually similar in that the applicant relies on favourable examination findings obtained elsewhere to accelerate the path to grant. The important distinction is that, in South Africa, the acceleration relates to acceptance and grant of the patent, rather than acceleration of substantive examination.
As South Africa prepares for substantive search and examination, an interesting question arises: could South Africa eventually join the PPH network?
If South Africa ultimately introduces substantive examination, participation in PPH arrangements may become a realistic policy option. PPH would allow the CIPC to draw on examination work already performed by established examining offices, while still retaining the final decision on patentability. Such participation has the potential to improve efficiency, reduce duplication of effort, and assist in managing examination workloads.
