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

Sheppard has added quantum and robotics expertise to its AI industry team to help clients navigate questions around inventorship and IP infringement
The 2026 Americas ceremony recognised outstanding firms and practitioners, along with highlighting impact cases of the year
A development concerning Stephen Thaler’s AI copyright application in India and an integration between IPH group firms were also among the top talking points
As concerns around the little-known litigation tool increase, practitioners say they are educating their clients on how it can be most effective
Kilburn & Strode and Mewburn Ellis are just two firms that have invested heavily in office space – a sign that the legal industry is serious about in-person working
In major recent developments, Dyson snagged another win against Hong Kong-based competitor Dreame and a new AI-powered UPC platform was launched
Mohit and Sidhant Goel decided not to pursue an interim injunction application so that their client, Communications Components Antenna, could benefit from a fast-track trial
Anita Cade, head of Ashurst’s IP and media team in Australia, discusses why law firms that can pull together capability across different practice areas and jurisdictions stand to gain
INTA’s CEO says London-based firms have registered fewer delegates compared to past meetings in San Diego and Atlanta, and questions the 'ethics' of trying to participate without registering
Lobbies and interest groups are among the interveners in a major dispute over whether courts can set patent pool rates
Gift this article