European Patent Office: EPO reviews accelerated prosecution

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

European Patent Office: EPO reviews accelerated prosecution

In 2010, the EPO introduced the PACE programme, which allowed applicants to accelerate prosecution of patent applications pending before the EPO. Under the PACE programme, the EPO would make every effort to issue a first examination communication within three months of the PACE request.

It appears that the EPO is still struggling with the backlog of patent applications, and has therefore introduced a number of restrictions into the PACE system.

The most significant changes are:

Only one PACE request per application: Once PACE is requested, a patent application may fall out of the PACE system for a number of reasons (for example, if the applicant requests an extension of a deadline). A further PACE request will not be possible.

Mandatory use of the official form (Form 1005): Previously, PACE could be requested in a letter to the EPO, and was often carried out together with for example a response to an examination report. However, under the new practice, PACE requests which do not use the official online form will not be allowable.

Accelerated prosecution is not universally applicable: The EPO has introduced a proviso to the PACE programme, and will allow PACE "only where practically feasible and subject to the workload of search and examining divisions". Effectively, if a certain technical field has a particularly high backlog of applications, PACE will not always be guaranteed.

Blanket PACE requests will not be acceptable: If an applicant requests accelerated prosecution for all or most of their applications, they will be requested by the EPO to select those applications which are of most relevance.

Separate PACE request for examination: A PACE request filed during the search stage of an application will not automatically accelerate examination proceedings. An applicant wishing to accelerate examination proceedings must wait to file a PACE request until the examining division has assumed responsibility for the application.

The updated PACE programme applies from January 1 2016.

Farrington-Edward

Edward Farrington


Inspicos P/SKogle Allé 2DK-2970 HoersholmCopenhagen, DenmarkTel: +45 7070 2422Fax: +45 7070 2423info@inspicos.comwww.inspicos.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A decision on a licensing rate payable by Warner Bros and Paramount, and a survey outlining UK businesses’ lack of IP preparation ahead of launching abroad, were among other major talking points
A fresh wave of deals highlights why investors favour IP firms and why independent outfits may soon have to rethink their strategy
King & Spalding has now hired 15 partners from Winston Taylor and legacy firm Winston & Strawn in offices spanning Texas, San Francisco, and Chicago
Firm says its work with a biotech client could signal a sea change in how - and when - law firms enter the drug development process
Evan Lazerowitz, attorney in Robinson + Cole’s bankruptcy and reorganisation group, offers key takeaways for IP interested parties in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings
While the UK sees heavy IP rankings movement, Germany’s new tiered UPC table signals a shift from early adoption to market maturity
In an exclusive interview, Bernard Ledeboer reveals how a Consolid-backed group of firms wants to expand across Europe, invest in AI and centralise operations to compete at the top tier
Not all private equity firms are the same, so leaders at four externally backed IP firms came together to discuss the frameworks they followed and how they ensured a cultural fit
Top-tier German and Spanish firms are among the advisers on a Europe-wide copyright and licensing tussle concerning the design of the track circuit in Madrid
Partners Alex Wilson and Andreas Kramer say bigger law firm rivals don’t necessarily gain by having a wider jurisdictional reach
Gift this article