Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 JUNE 2021

EPO Accelerated Prosecution Procedure (PACE)

J A Kemp
J A Kemp
Contributor
J A Kemp

J A Kemp

J A Kemp is one of the largest European patent and trade mark attorney firms, with offices in...

View firm profile
Explore more from J A Kemp

It is possible at the EPO to accelerate the search and/or examination of any application using the accelerated prosecution procedure (PACE).

United KingdomIntellectual Property
Chris Milton
Chris Milton
Mark Roberts
Mark Roberts
Author LinkedIn connections

It is possible at the EPO to accelerate the search and/or examination of any application using the accelerated prosecution procedure (PACE)1. To use the procedure, it is necessary to file a PACE request online using the appropriate form. Other than this, there are no special requirements to qualify for PACE: the request can be filed at any time, no official fee is payable and no special reasons need be given.

The EPO will accept the request for accelerated prosecution where "practically feasible and subject to the workload of search and examining divisions". In practice, PACE requests are usually accepted. In certain technical fields, current backlogs may mean that PACE requests are in practice ineffective. In addition, applicants who routinely request PACE for all or most of their applications will be required by the EPO to select a subset of applications for acceleration.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Samsung Ordered To Pay The Swatch Group US$11.6 Million In Damages For Trade Mark Infringement

The High Court has awarded the Swatch Group US$11.6 million in negotiation damages against Samsung for trade mark infringements involving watch face apps on the Galaxy App store. Rejecting both parties' extreme valuations of US$170 million and US$301, the court established important principles for assessing damages when brand owners don't license their marks and no comparable market royalties exist.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Article

High Court Clarifies The Limits Of Copyright Claims Against Online Marketplaces

The UK High Court has delivered a landmark ruling on online marketplace liability, dismissing Shein's copyright infringement claims against Temu and clarifying when platforms can be held responsible for third-party content. The judgment examines the boundaries of copyright ownership in complex supply chains and establishes important precedents for how marketplace operators should respond to infringement allegations.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

The Sound Of Ownership: Why AI Voice Cloning Is Raising New IP Questions

As AI voice cloning technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible, the Save Our Voices Now campaign calls for statutory rights allowing individuals to own and control their voice as intellectual property. This article examines whether existing UK law sufficiently protects one of our most personal and recognisable attributes, exploring copyright, trade marks, passing off, and the practical steps individuals and businesses can take.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Ashfords LLP
Ashfords LLP
Article

AI, Deepfakes And Image Rights: Does English Law Protect Your Face, Voice And Likeness?

Generative AI has created a legal vacuum where synthetic images and deepfakes can be created and shared without consent, yet English law offers no standalone "image right" to protect individuals. With celebrities like Lisa Riley and over 80 performers demanding reform, the question is whether the UK's patchwork of intellectual property, data protection, and common law protections can adequately address this rapidly evolving threat to personal autonomy and reputation.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mills & Reeve LLP
Mills & Reeve LLP
Article

Patents And University Spin-outs: Protecting Academic Innovation

Universities drive innovation across medicine, AI, materials, and clean tech, but academic researchers face a critical challenge: the need to publish conflicts with patent protection requirements for confidentiality. Understanding how to navigate publication deadlines, filing strategies, and IP development can determine whether groundbreaking research becomes a valuable commercial asset or loses protection entirely.
United StatesIntellectual Property
J A Kemp
J A Kemp
Video

Navigating Freedom To Operate (FTO): Strategy, Searches And Risk Mitigation (Video)

This webinar explores the critical Freedom to Operate (FTO) process for life sciences companies, examining when FTO assessments are necessary and how to navigate the complex landscape of patent risks. From initial search strategies and cost considerations to evaluating potential infringement risks and implementing ongoing monitoring systems, the session provides practical guidance for managing intellectual property challenges in product development and commercialization.
United StatesIntellectual Property
J A Kemp
J A Kemp
Article

UK High Court Upholds Novartis’s Sacubitril Valsartan SPC: What Is The Relevant “product”?

The UK High Court has rejected a challenge to Novartis's supplementary protection certificate for sacubitril and valsartan, addressing a fundamental question about how the "product" protected by an SPC should be defined. The decision clarifies whether a specific co-crystal formulation or the broader combination of active ingredients constitutes the relevant product under the SPC Regulation.
United StatesIntellectual Property
J A Kemp
J A Kemp
Video

Emotional Perception, G1/19 And Software Inventions In The UK And EPO (Video)

This webinar examines how the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G1/19 and the UK Supreme Court's Emotional Perception judgment have reshaped patent examination practices at the EPO and UK IPO, with particular focus on recent appeal decisions and their implications for computer-implemented inventions. The session explores how these landmark rulings have intensified scrutiny of technical character requirements across claim scope and aligned UK practice more closely with EPO standards.
United StatesIntellectual Property
J A Kemp
J A Kemp