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
Is Your AI Conversation Privileged?
08 May 2026
Recent US court decisions have, for the first time, tested whether conversations with AI tools can be protected by legal privilege. In United States v. Heppner, a court held that documents generated by a defendant using a public AI platform were not protected by attorney‑client privilege, largely because the AI was not used within a lawyer‑directed relationship and the platform’s terms allowed data retention and disclosure. By contrast, in Warner v. Gilbarco, another court found that AI‑assisted materials created by a self‑represented litigant were protected under the work‑product doctrine, which has a more forgiving standard for waiver.
#
Consulting
​
The evolution of nucleic acid sequencing and what it means for Genomics and IP
27 April 2026
This article outlines the evolution of nucleic acid sequencing, from early Sanger methods to next‑generation and long‑read technologies. The journey from deciphering individual DNA strands to sequencing entire genomes in hours represents one of biotechnology's most impressive transformations. The first human genome, completed through the Human Genome Project, took around 13 years to sequence and cost billions of dollars, whereas modern sequencing methods can now deliver a genome in hours for a few hundred dollars. For those interested in patents and life sciences, understanding the technical evolution of sequencing methods offers insights into how fundamental scientific advances translate into valuable patent portfolios.
#
Consulting
​
World IP Day: The big ideas shaping IP's fastest-moving fields
24 April 2026
For World IP Day, we asked experts of EIP’s five growth areas: Uniphy, Ampliphy, Stratiphy, Codiphy and Quantiphy, to share a quick insight on innovation, IP trends, and what excites them about the future. Each responded to a single, focused question reflecting the role their team plays across EIP.
#
Consulting
​
Meet the EIP team heading to INTA 2026 in London
23 April 2026
INTA's Annual Meeting is coming to London. From 2–6 May 2026, the ExCeL will host more than 10,000 trade mark and IP professionals from over 100 jurisdictions — five days of sessions, side events, and the kind of corridor conversations that turn into lasting working relationships.
#
Litigation
​
Antibody Patent Protection in Europe and the US: Navigating EPO and USPTO Differences
16 April 2026
This article explores the complexities of patenting antibody therapies, focusing on the differing requirements and practices of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It highlights how the scope of claims, inventiveness standards, and supporting data requirements vary between jurisdictions, and explains why a tailored IP strategy is essential for innovators especially SMEs seeking protection in both Europe and the US. The article also outlines how EIP’s transatlantic teams collaborate to optimise patent applications for success in these key markets.
#
Patenting
​
Why competitor patent monitoring is critical to your drug development strategy
15 April 2026
This article explains why competitor IP monitoring is a critical part of an effective drug development strategy. By tracking competitor patent activity, companies can assess freedom to operate, identify risks and opportunities early, and make informed decisions on patent filings, licensing, and investment readiness. Ongoing monitoring also supports FTO analysis, third‑party observations, oppositions, and litigation strategy, helping life sciences businesses protect value and reduce risk throughout development.
#
Consulting
​
Biopharma Strategy in 2026: Lessons from 2025 on AI, M&A and the UPC
13 April 2026
This article looks back on a selection of key trends in the (bio)pharma industry in 2025 and looks ahead to how these may continue to develop into 2026.
#
Consulting
​
Thinking about IP from day one: strategic considerations for deep tech startups
08 April 2026
For deep tech startups, intellectual property decisions often come too late or cost too much too soon. This article explores why IP strategy should be considered from day one, even if formal protection comes later. It outlines how founders can decide what to patent, when trade secrets may be more appropriate, and how detectability, enforceability and cost should shape early choices. With a focus on practicality and commercial alignment, it also looks at how newer, AI‑assisted approaches can help startups take a more cost‑effective and flexible approach to building meaningful IP protection.
#
Consulting
​
National offices report increases in national patent applications throughout Europe: Is the EPO no longer “killing” the national offices?
27 March 2026
National patent offices across Europe have reported a marked increase in patent filings in 2025, breaking with a long‑standing downward trend. Data from Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Austria, Spain and Norway point to growing activity driven by digital technologies, electrification and increased university participation. At the same time, offices report a rise in self‑drafted and AI‑assisted applications, which may lower barriers to entry but also raise concerns about application quality and examination efficiency.
#
Patenting
​
Make your bio(pharma) IP investment ready
22 March 2026
This recap of our LinkedIn Live series focuses on helping (bio)pharma businesses make their IP investment‑ready. Across three sessions, experts will discuss building resilient IP portfolios, making strategic IP decisions ahead of funding rounds, and what the evolving 2026 (bio)pharma landscape means for long‑term IP strategy.
#
Patenting
​
Are professional guidelines making Patent Attorneys too cautious on AI?
19 February 2026
As AI use accelerates in patent practice, many European patent attorneys remain cautious due to professional AI guidelines from the epi. This article argues those guidelines are not a barrier, but a baseline for responsible use.
#
Patenting
​
Provisional Agreement Reached on the EU Pharma Package: Takeaways for Pharmaceutical Companies
17 February 2026
The EU’s new Pharma Package will overhaul regulatory exclusivity, orphan drug incentives, antimicrobial innovation, and generic entry pathways, reducing standard protection periods while introducing new rewards like transferable exclusivity vouchers.
#
Patenting
​
Beyond CRISPR: Precision to Platform
23 January 2026
Gene editing is entering a new phase, moving beyond CRISPR-Cas9’s breakthrough but costly, bespoke therapies toward more precise and scalable platforms. While CRISPR-based treatments like Casgevy have proven clinical success, they remain expensive and entangled in ongoing patent disputes over foundational IP. Next-generation tools such as base editing and prime editing avoid double-strand DNA breaks, enabling more accurate corrections and broader therapeutic potential. The field’s focus is now shifting to disease-agnostic platforms that can be adapted across many conditions, improving access and efficiency.
#
Patenting
​
Confidentiality at the UPC: What litigants need to know
21 January 2026
This article explains how the Unified Patent Court approaches confidentiality in litigation, outlining the procedures for restricting access to sensitive information, how confidentiality clubs are formed, and when hearings may be held in private. It highlights key case law shaping these rules, the balance between fair trial rights and protection of commercial data, and the penalties for breaches. Practical guidance is provided to help parties navigate applications, manage confidential documents, and understand what to expect throughout UPC proceedings.
#
Litigation
​
EPO fees are going up in April 2026: Plan ahead now
19 January 2026
The European Patent Office will introduce a fee increase of roughly 5% from 1 April 2026, affecting search, examination, designation and renewal fees. Filing, excess page, opposition and appeal fees remain unchanged. Some costs—such as renewal fees—can be paid up to three months early, allowing applicants to secure the current lower rates. EIP recommends reviewing your portfolio ahead of the deadline.
#
Patenting
​