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

The firm has added two leading damages specialists as it expands beyond technical analysis and deepens its role in the economics of IP litigation
Josh Seidenfeld, partner at DLA Piper, outlines the emerging legal trends that drive the future of life sciences innovation and how stakeholders can prepare for the future
South Korea's One Law Partners is combining with boutique firm Minwho Law Group to leverage global expansion of K-content and build a broader offering spanning IP, tech and regulatory advisory work
Russell Kennedy's Gina Tresidder on juggling matters, delivering hard truths, and why IP ownership is rarely as simple as people think
Attorney Oran Friar and trainee attorney Harry Cunliffe at Reddie & Grose, share that patent filings for clinical LLMs are surging, but success in the UK and Europe hinges on demonstrating technical innovation
Implementers can use the UK courts to seek FRAND terms for patent pool licences
The first credible UPC spinouts are growing, and they are coming from elite patent litigation teams, suggesting specialist litigators may no longer need large platforms to compete
Voyage IP has hired a veteran IP leader from Spruson & Ferguson as its head of trademarks, as well as another consultant who will boost the firm’s commercial offering
Lawyers say unwritten appearance expectations can disproportionately affect women and junior talent, making proactive guidance a growing responsibility for law firm leaders
Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI, which features Tier 1-ranked disputes firms on both sides, reflects how trade secrets litigation is becoming a prominent competition feature
Gift this article