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

Cookies Settings

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

Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
Gift this article