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
The contentious role of intellectual property in cryptographic standardisation
12 January 2026
This article explores how intellectual property rights affect the development and adoption of post-quantum cryptography standards. It highlights NIST’s proactive approach to patent licensing for new algorithms, reviews historical cases like RSA and ECC, and discusses the importance of clear IP terms for widespread cryptographic adoption.
#
Patenting
​
System architecture in quantum computing – history repeating itself?
24 December 2025
This article explores the evolution of system architecture in quantum computing, drawing parallels with the early days of classical computing. It discusses the current challenges in quantum hardware, the emergence of quantum instruction set architectures (ISAs), and the potential for a RISC vs. CISC debate similar to that in classical computing. The piece highlights opportunities for innovation and intellectual property, suggesting that the choices made now could shape the future landscape of quantum technologies and licensing.
#
Patenting
​
Strategic licensing: Turning IP into commercial value
09 December 2025
In today’s competitive landscape, effective commercial licensing strategies are essential for unlocking the full value of intellectual property. This article explores four critical pillars: understanding intellectual property as a property right, the fundamentals of licensing intellectual property rights, structuring successful joint ventures and best practices for intellectual property rights management. Whether you’re navigating new markets or scaling established innovations, these tips provide a roadmap for protecting, leveraging and maximizing your IP assets.
#
Consulting
​
The people, physics and patents of the 2025 Nobel prize
09 December 2025
The 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics recognised John Clarke, Michel H. Devoret, and John M. Martinis for proving macroscopic quantum tunnelling in electric circuits, a breakthrough that enabled quantum computing. Their pioneering research led to hundreds of patents, including innovations in MRI and quantum technology, highlighting the real-world impact of their discoveries.
#
Patenting
​
Vision 2035: The need for Innovation to meet ambitious targets set by the UK’s new critical minerals strategy
03 December 2025
The UK’s Critical Minerals Strategy 2025 sets ambitious targets to secure essential minerals for key industries by boosting domestic production, recycling, and innovation. The article highlights the vital role of intellectual property (IP) in supporting technological advances, encouraging collaboration, and strengthening the UK’s supply chains for a sustainable future.
#
Consulting
​
Research underlying Nobel prize in chemistry has sparked innovation and patent filings
02 December 2025
The 2025 Nobel Prize in Chemistry recognised the creators of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), innovative materials with huge potential for water harvesting, clean energy, and environmental solutions. Their work has sparked a surge in global patent activity and new industrial application.
#
Patenting
​
UKIPO fee increases from April 2026: What it means for your IP strategy
25 November 2025
Provisional and interim injunctions both refer to temporary court orders granted before a full trial, aimed at preserving the status quo or preventing harm. In UK law, “interim injunction” is the standard term, while “provisional injunction” is less common and typically used in international contexts. Both serve the same purpose: urgent relief until the case is fully heard.
#
Patenting
​
Sustainable models: content licensing for generative AI training
21 November 2025
It is fair to say that no technology in recent times has created so much excitement and controversy as generative AI, and in particular Large Language Models (LLMs). Generative AI companies and their backers have their sights on generating billions, if not trillions of dollars, directly or indirectly from their models. Models which, in the vast majority of cases, are trained on original works without permission from, or payment to, their authors. The works used for training are primarily obtained by scraping the open web, a uniquely vast repository of publicly accessible knowledge and information, constantly updated to reflect the latest developments in human knowledge and culture.
#
Consulting
​
What should you look to protect in a (bio)pharma IP strategy?
18 November 2025
#
Patenting
​
Trade Secrets: Navigating geopolitical risks and IP theft in the semiconductor industry
04 November 2025
Semiconductors have always been a critical technology but have grown significantly in strategic importance in recent years. They have become the key building block in developing and existing markets, including quantum computing, edge computing, AI, IoT, automotive, cellular data technology, smartphones, robotics, and many more. The complex designs and innovations that power semiconductor manufacturing are invaluable both to the world’s economy and technological advancement. Consequently, the semiconductor industry has found itself at the centre of geopolitical tensions, especially between the United States and China. It has become a prime target for cyberattacks and intellectual-property (IP) theft. As such, companies operating in this area must be more vigilant in protecting their intellectual assets.
#
Consulting
​
UPC takes strict approach on costs reimbursement
30 October 2025
Insulet v. EOFlow UPC_CFI_773/2025 and UPC_CFI 774/2025 (Milan CD), decision of 15 October 2025[1] The dispute began when Insulet sought a provisional injunction against EOFlow to prevent...
#
Litigation
​
UPC Considers but does not decide exhaustion of rights in relation to consumables
30 October 2025
Brita v. Aquashield UPC CFI 248/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 22 August 2025[1] UPC CFI 564/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 16 October 2025[2] Brita sued Aquashield and others for infringement of...
#
Litigation
​
Beyond Borders: A Backpacker’s Take on Why Your Patent Strategy Needs a Global Mindset
29 September 2025
In today’s interconnected world, innovation rarely stops at borders. Whether you’re a multinational corporation or a UK-based business with global ambitions, your patent strategy should reflect the reality that your products, services, and competitors operate internationally. Much like a well-travelled backpacker planning a round-the-world adventure, businesses must prepare carefully—mapping out routes, anticipating local rules, and packing what’s essential—to ensure a smooth journey.
#
Patenting
​
UPC Infringement Actions: Is Speed Meeting Expectations?
23 September 2025
The Unified Patent Court promised simplified and faster patent litigation across Europe. Two years in, we look at whether it’s delivering on that promise. For patent holders and defendants alike, the duration of infringement actions can significantly impact market strategies, investment decisions, and competitive positioning. In this article, we set out an in-depth analysis of how the court’s procedural rules are shaping the pace of litigation. By examining key milestones—from the filing of an infringement action to the issuance of a final judgment—we assess whether the UPC is delivering on its promise of efficiency.
#
Litigation
​
Emerging Practice Points from the UPC
02 September 2025
We have been keeping a close eye on the decisions coming out of the UPC and as the court starts to establish itself a number of practice points are starting to emerge.
#
Litigation
​