Should I get my Patent Application to Grant as Fast as Possible?

​
July 28, 2021

Why do patents take so long to grant?

Progressing a patent family through to grant can take a notoriously long amount of time, particularly when an applicant is looking to protect their invention in a number of countries across the world. There are many steps and many people involved in granting a patent, which inevitably can cause delays.

Patent office's typically have relatively long processing times due to a backlog of applications caused by the rapid increase in the number of patent applications being filed over the last couple of decades. In recent years patent offices around the world have invested heavily in streamlining in-office procedures to reduce turn-around time. However, it can still typically take 3-5 years for a patent application to be allowed.

For many applicants this long patenting process is not particularly problematic. However, the patent-pending period can be challenging for others, particularly as there is no certainty that a patent right will ultimately be obtained.

Can I get my patent to grant quicker?

There are a number of simple ways that a patent applicant and their patent attorney can speed up prosecution of an application. The below actions are cost-effective ways to reduce the total time taken for an application to reach grant (or refusal):

  • Ensure that the application complies with all formal requirements at the time of filing.
  • Make a formal request for search (and examination, if funds allow) as early as possible.
  • Reply promptly to communications from the patent office.
  • Address significant problems in an application, for example that have been identified for a corresponding application filed elsewhere, before examination begins.

An applicant can also make use of programmes designed to fast-track patent applications. Options in the UK include:

  • Making use of one or more of the numerous Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) agreements between the UK IPO and selected patent offices. A PPH allows an applicant to accelerate their application in one country on the basis of a positive decision on a corresponding application in another country, thus avoiding duplication of search and examination work at the patent offices.
  • Requesting combined search and examination, which can be done by any applicant. The search and examination reports are usually issued within six months of making the request.
  • Requesting accelerated search and/or examination, which must be accompanied by a demonstration that it is important to do so. The UK IPO aims to issue a substantive response within two months in 90% of cases. Acceptable reasons for making the request include: the need to enforce the right against an infringer, to obtain investment, if the request is for an international application being pursued in the UK national phase that received a positive International Preliminary Report on Patentability (IPRP) for the claims on file in the UK national phase.
  • Requesting accelerated publication, which will usually result in publication around six weeks after making the request. This helps achieve a fast grant as a patent cannot be granted until three months after the application has been published.
  • Requesting accelerated search, examination or publication via the Green Channel if your invention relates to an environmentally beneficial technology. As long as an applicant can explain why the invention provides an environmental benefit, they application is likely to be accepted onto the Green Channel irrespective of technology area.

Why would I want to accelerate my patent application?

An applicant should consider which, if any, of the above options would best suit their needs.

The variable costs associated with drafting, filing and prosecuting a patent portfolio being difficult to manage, particularly for start-ups and SME's. Once a patent is granted, the renewal fees are set and therefore easier to manage. An applicant may therefore wish to get to grant as quick as possible.

It can be highly advantageous to obtain a search report within 12-months of filing an application. This is because further patent applications can be filed in other countries up to one year after the original, or ‘priority', application is filed. If a search report identifies highly relevant prior art an applicant may decide not to file any further applications because there is a low chance of reaching a grant decision. Alternatively, the results of the search report may prompt the applicant to add new information to the further applications to differentiate from the relevant prior art, the 12-month date being the last date by which new information can be added.

A positive search or examination report might be sufficient for an investor to part with their money, which could help an applicant commercialise their invention and/or pay for further patent applications.

Conversely, an early negative search or examination report may prompt an applicant to withdraw their application before it is published, thus allowing them to keep the invention to themselves and perhaps still commercialise it (subject to them not infringing the rights of others).

As mentioned above, accelerated patent prosecution can be helpful if an applicant intends to subsequently make use of the PPH at another office based on the GB patent. The GB granted patent can then be used to accelerate applications to grant in other countries.

In some technology areas the rapid nature of development can mean the technology disclosed in a patent application is defunct or out-dated by the time the patent is granted. Whilst the patent could cover underlying technology and can therefore generate revenue, there is also the risk that the rights conveyed by the patent have no commercial value.

A patent right cannot be enforced against an infringer until granted - although some rights are conferred upon publication of a patent application. If an applicant is aware that a competitor has launched an infringing product, they may wish to obtain a quick grant so that they can enforce their rights before the competitor obtains too much advantage.

In the UK, a business cannot benefit from the tax-relief afforded by the Patent Box scheme until they have a granted patent. Since the tax-relief could significantly outweigh the up-front costs for prosecuting the patent application, a quick grant can provide immediate financial benefits when a patented invention is providing revenue. For more information on Patent Box, which gives businesses a tax break on profits derived from a patent-protected invention, see the Patentise website.

The Green Channel is an attractive acceleration option for qualifying inventions since a written request can be filed at any time during prosecution of an application and no commercial reasons need be given. Further, the applicant can choose which actions to accelerate, which gives them control over the speed at which the application progresses. Since its launch in 2009 over 2,500 patent applications have made use of the Green Channel. The average time to grant for a Green Channel patent application is just 11 months, significantly shorter than the standard patenting timeline. In some instances, a request for examination under the Green Channel has been filed by an applicant with an examination report being issued just a week later.

Why wouldn't I accelerate my patent application?

Having a pending patent application can cause uncertainty for competitors, which may deter them from launching a product for fear of infringing your rights. It can therefore be beneficial to allow an application to proceed along the standard timeline if there are not other factors necessitating acceleration.

In some instances, particularly if a competitor has launched a competing product, an applicant can file a divisional application based on a pending application. The claims of the divisional application can be tailored to cover the competitor's product so that they may be forced to take a licence of the patent, pay damages, or alter their product so that it does not infringe the patent (once granted). Importantly, divisional applications cannot be filed after the ‘parent' application has been granted.

Accelerating a patent application can bring forward costs. This may be disadvantageous for individual applicants or smaller businesses with limited amounts of capital. Avoiding acceleration may therefore give more opportunity to generate income or obtain investment before needing to pay patent-related fees.

An applicant should also consider whether they are happy to bring forward publication of their patent application. A patent application is typically published 18-months after its filing date, giving the applicant time to work their invention before it comes to the attention of their competitors. Early publication can limit the time during which you have a competitive advantage, which you might use to develop, refine and commercialise the invention.

Another disadvantage of a quick patent grant is the uncertainty of whether the patent is actually valid, due to the afore-mentioned delay between filing and publication. If the patent grants within 18 months of filing there could be knock-out prior art documents of which you are not aware, meaning that the patent could be invalid and later revoked.

Conclusion

Patent offices across the world are working hard to help applicants prosecute their patents quicker when they need to. There are a number of different options for acceleration, with differing requirements and advantages they provide. Every applicant will have different needs and should assess their situation, including their finances, competitor patent filings and technology field, carefully when deciding whether to accelerate their application.

This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. We always recommend contacting a patent attorney for advice on patent matters. If you require advice on accelerating a patent application, or any other IP-related topic, please contact europe@eip.com or your usual EIP attorney.

The Latest Thought Leadership pieces in the Content Hub

No items found.
Stay in the Know

The Patent Strategist

Get expert insights and the top patent stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Heading
This is some text inside of a div block.
This is some text inside of a div block.

Latest Insights

Showing 0 of 100
Quantum IP Strategy: Own control Points, Not Patent Counts
14 October 2026
In quantum, the strongest portfolios will not be the biggest. Stuart Malcolm sets out six moves for owning the control points the market cannot route around, and the questions investors will ask.
#
Consulting
​
Targeted, Not Transformative: The UKIPO’s Considered Course on SEPs
13 October 2026
Andrew Sharples analyses the UKIPO's response to its SEP consultation, exploring proposed changes to FRAND dispute resolution, SEP transparency and licensing guidance, and what they mean for SEP holders and implementers.
#
Consulting
​
Chinese Companies in European Patent Litigation
30 September 2026
Chinese companies are becoming increasingly active in European patent litigation, both as defendants and as patent owners enforcing their own rights. This article examines the growing role of Europe and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in global patent disputes, highlighting key cases involving Chinese businesses and the strategic opportunities and risks that come with operating in European markets. It is the first in a series exploring the practical implications of European patent enforcement for Chinese companies.
#
Patenting
​
How to mitigate prior art traps for follow-on pharma patents
27 August 2026
Follow-on patents are increasingly important for pharmaceutical innovators. Learn how new EMA clinical trial disclosure rules create prior art risks and discover practical strategies to protect pharmaceutical IP and maximise patent value.
#
Consulting
​
Chinese companies and the UPC: from enforcement targets to strategic users
13 August 2026
Chinese companies are playing an increasingly significant role in UPC litigation, accounting for around 38% of infringement actions in 2025. While many remain defendants, a growing number are actively using the Unified Patent Court to enforce their own patent rights across Europe. The trend highlights the UPC's rising importance for Chinese businesses operating in sectors such as telecommunications, semiconductors, medical devices and renewable energy, and signals a shift in global patent enforcement strategy.
#
Patenting
​
Evaluating the environmental impact of patent AI.
31 July 2026
AI's environmental impact is rarely out of the headlines, but how does it compare to the benefits it delivers in practice? In this article, Laurence Brown examines the energy use of AI-assisted patent drafting, comparing it with traditional drafting workflows. While measuring AI's true environmental footprint is far from straightforward, the analysis suggests that AI-assisted patent drafting may already be more energy efficient, while delivering significant productivity gains for patent professionals.
#
Patenting
​
UPC appeals after three years: Early indications on appeal success rates
15 July 2026
Three years into the UPC, appeal overturn rates sit at 56% for both substantive and preliminary injunction cases, with Kodak v Fujifilm among the rulings reshaping outcomes on appeal.
#
Litigation
​
The UPC After Three Years: From Experiment to Enforcement Forum
15 July 2026
1,282 cases filed at the UPC in three years: infringement actions have surged while revocation filings stayed flat, easing fears the Court would become a European patent graveyard.
#
Litigation
​
Podcast: Building an AI-Native Law Firm
26 June 2026
On the Technically Legal podcast, EIP partner Laurence Brown discusses how Visser AI is redesigning patent workflows, letting the firm offer fixed fees without trading away speed or quality.
#
Patenting
​
Choosing your SEP battleground: UPC, Germany or UK?
07 June 2026
Choosing the right venue for SEP litigation can significantly influence the outcome of FRAND disputes. This article compares the UPC, German and UK courts, examining their approaches to injunctions, FRAND defences, rate-setting and enforcement. It highlights the strategic advantages of each jurisdiction and explains why many SEP owners are increasingly turning to the UK and UPC as part of their European enforcement strategy.
#
Litigation
​
Synthetic Lethality & AI: IP Strategy in Oncology
26 May 2026
This article explores the resurgence of synthetic lethality in precision oncology, highlighting how AI and machine learning are accelerating the discovery of new therapeutic targets. It also examines growing clinical activity, investment, and the evolving intellectual property challenges shaping this emerging field.
#
Consulting
​
Inside the Visser AI Launch Party
20 May 2026
EIP has officially launched Visser AI®, our hybrid intelligence service for patent drafting and prosecution. Watch the launch film from our event at The Boundary in Shoreditch, and discover how our team of European and US patent attorneys — working with the Patently AI platform , delivers faster, lower-cost work at the EPO, USPTO and beyond.
#
Consulting
​
Protecting Your Startup: Five Intellectual Property Mistakes to Avoid
20 May 2026
Early‑stage startups often focus on product development and fundraising, but overlooking intellectual property (IP) can seriously damage long‑term value. This article explores five common IP mistakes startups make, with a particular focus on patents. It covers the risks of filing patents without professional advice, making public disclosures too early, failing to put enforceable contracts in place with third parties, misunderstanding what patent rights actually provide, and neglecting to develop a clear IP strategy. By highlighting these pitfalls and offering practical guidance, the article helps startups protect their innovations, strengthen their commercial position, and improve their prospects with investors.
#
Consulting
​
Technology, Patents, and Sport
13 May 2026
VAR, goal-line tech, AI 3D player avatars, wearable trackers, the technology reshaping the 2026 World Cup and elite sport rests on a patent system that makes the R&D investment behind it worth taking.
#
Patenting
​
Patents or Trade Secrets? When to Patent in Deep Tech Innovation
11 May 2026
Deep tech companies face unique IP challenges due to long development cycles, high upfront investment, and complex technologies that combine products and processes. This article explores when patents, trade secrets, or a combination of both offer the strongest protection. It explains how factors such as detectability, reverse engineering risk, disclosure to third parties, and employee mobility should shape IP strategy decisions. While patents are often best suited to externally visible or licensable technologies, trade secrets can be highly effective for internal processes and know‑how that deliver performance or cost advantages.
#
Patenting
​