<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<link id="MDHR_textcomplete" rel="stylesheet" href="moz-extension://b6d67f9b-745b-4d88-8e40-655fad8b67e0/vendor/textcomplete.css">
</head>
<body>
<p>As a side note, I note that I frequently recommend clients to use
IPEA/EP even when we are planning to have more than 15 claims. If
they raise unity of invention, just pay the additional examination
fees (yes, you might have to pay additional search fees and
additional examination fees, although it's relatively rare).</p>
<p>The amendment requirements are strict, but once you know how to
work with them (or are using high quality EP counsel), then
they're not actually that bad -- many other countries also are
very strict on their amendments, so I tend to view it as a
positive: if I can make an amendment under EP, then it's <i>almost</i>
certain that anywhere else is going to accept it too.<br>
Regarding the more than 1 type of claims, I almost always demand
an oral consult if we enter Chapter II proceedings, and I explain
to the EP examiner that I understand that they have to make an <i>observation</i>
that certain claim practices (multiple independent claims of same
type, etc.) will have to be amended in EP national stage, but I
politely point out that these are not <i>international <u>defects</u></i>
-- almost all EP examiners are very understanding of this, and
sympathize with the goal of determining <i>inventive step</i>,
and leveraging the high quality EP work product without
necessarily conforming to EP-specific rules until EP national
stage is entered.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I enjoy working with KR -- they are very helpful, especially the
US help center. However, I rarely get the opportunity to use them
because most of the countries my clients are focused on a positive
report from EP makes a much bigger impact.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>To sum it up in EP -- the amendments I understand, but I think
that is actually a feature. The numbers / types of claims can 99+%
of the time be cabined into a simple observation informing the
applicant of changes required in regional/national stage because
they are EP rules, not PCT rules. (So are the amendments, but that
is a matter of interpreting what is permissible as an amendment so
has a direct impact on a finding of inventive step).<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/8/2025 8:30 PM, Scott Nielson via
Pct wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:IA3PR11MB9087E4C6448B8A4DD6ABD427B06BA@IA3PR11MB9087.namprd11.prod.outlook.com">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
Thanks for the detailed explanation Carl. I reported the bug in
ePCT about the Philippines being an option as the IPEA. Also, I
had forgotten that the IPEA/US uses examiners to perform the
examination. The risk that they won't do anything before the 30
month deadline is high enough that I cannot imagine ever
choosing IPEA/US. </div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
I noticed something else that gives me pause. <a title="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=US&doc-lang=en#RO" href="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=US&doc-lang=en#RO" moz-do-not-send="true">
Annex C for RO/US</a> says Australia is a competent search
authority for only 250 PCT applications per quarter. There are
no subject matter limitations.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
However, <a title="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=IB&doc-lang=en#RO" href="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=IB&doc-lang=en#RO" moz-do-not-send="true">
Annex C for RO/IB</a> says "Where the applicant is a national
or a resident of the United States of America, the Australian
Patent Office may be chosen as the competent International
Searching Authority and/or International Preliminary Examining
Authority for certain international applications only. For
further details concerning which international applications this
is restricted to, refer to Official Notices (PCT Gazette) dated
23 October 2008, pages 131 et seq."</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
The <a title="https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/docs/official-notices/officialnotices08.pdf" href="https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/docs/official-notices/officialnotices08.pdf" moz-do-not-send="true">
PCT Gazette dated 23 Oct 2008</a> at p. 131 says IP Australia
will not be a competent ISA or IPEA for PCT apps filed by US
applicants "where such applications contain one or more claims
related to mechanical engineering or analogous fields of
technology." It then goes on to list a LOT of technology IP
Australia will not handle.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
Do you know why Annex C for RO/US does not list any subject
matter restrictions for ISA/AU or IPEA/AU but Annex C for RO/IB
does? I wonder if the subject matter restrictions were removed
at some point and Annex C for RO/US was updated but not for
RO/IB.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
Even though Annex C for RO/US lists a number of competent ISAs,
it seems like there are issues with many of them, particularly
AU, IL, JP, and PH (either limited numbers of searches or
limited subject matter). That said, I have used JP and PH
without problems so maybe I got lucky. The safe choices appear
to be EP, KR, SG, and US. SG is almost as expensive as EP so
it's hard to see why anyone would choose it.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
The bottom line is that the choice of ISA for a large entity is
EP for a high quality, expensive search or KR for a cheap
search. For a small entity, the choice is the same except now
the US is also an option for the cheap search because it is
close in price to KR. In rare cases where circumstances warrant,
it might be worth choosing SG or rolling the dice with AU, IL,
JP, or PH.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; color: rgb(31, 56, 100);"><b>Scott
Nielson</b></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; color: black;">801-660-4400</span></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<hr style="display: inline-block; width: 98%;">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<b>From:</b> Carl Oppedahl <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:carl@oppedahl.com"><carl@oppedahl.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 08, 2025 4:05 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> For users of the PCT and ePCT. This is not for
laypersons to seek legal advice. <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com"><pct@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Pct] Different ISA and IPEA? </div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div>On 6/7/2025 9:36 AM, Scott Nielson via Pct wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>When does it make sense to select a patent office as the
ISA and a different patent office as the international
preliminary examination authority (IPEA)? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have a client that likes EP as the ISA but not as the
IPEA due to the EP's strict amendment requirements (primarily
basis and intermediate generalization issues). According to
ePCT, it is possible to choose KR, US, or PH (Philippines) as
a competent IPEA instead of EP (there is some uncertainty
about whether PH is competent; ePCT shows it as an option but
the US - Annex C of the PCT Applicant's Guide lists PH as only
competent if it was the ISA).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The only reason I can think of for doing this is as a
potentially cheap way to get a favorable IPRP and qualify for
the patent prosecution highway (PPH). The cost for each IPEA
is EP=1915EUR, US=880USD (can be reduced with small/micro
entity discount), KR=330USD, and PH=300USD.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The general idea would be to file the PCT application with
claims that are more like US claims (3 independent, 20 total)
and select EP as the ISA. Once the International Search Report
is issued, request preliminary examination with KR or US as
the IPEA with the goal of getting a favorable IPRP so national
phase applications: (i) can be expedited pursuant to the PPH
and (ii) not be limited by EP claim requirements (e.g., single
apparatus/method claim; total of 15 claims, etc.).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Any thoughts on any of this?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>When I teach a 2½-day PCT seminar (I have taught two within the
past year and another one is coming up) I spend time on this.</p>
<p>See for example <a style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;" data-auth="NotApplicable" originalsrc="https://www.oppedahl.com/cle/2022PCTTrainingSession8.pdf" class="OWAAutoLink" id="OWA77103fb8-5c10-29c3-5335-17cc99e26039" href="https://www.oppedahl.com/cle/2022PCTTrainingSession8.pdf" moz-do-not-send="true">
these slides</a> at page 15, slide 29. That slide reminds us
that there are lots of "universal acceptors" -- IPEAs that are
happy to take your client's money for an international
preliminary examination regardless of whom your client selected
earlier as an ISA. </p>
<p>Yes you are correct that <a style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;" data-auth="NotApplicable" originalsrc="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=PH&doc-lang=en#IPEA" class="OWAAutoLink" id="OWA1e7f42ef-b847-84dc-48fb-b7bfdcac3a02" href="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=PH&doc-lang=en#IPEA" moz-do-not-send="true">
Annex E for IPEA/PH</a> says that "[t]he Intellectual Property
Office of the Philippines may act as International Preliminary
Examining Authority only if the international search is or has
been carried out by it." And you are correct that ePCT says the
opposite.</p>
<p>We learn from <a style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;" data-auth="NotApplicable" originalsrc="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=US&doc-lang=en#IPEA" class="OWAAutoLink" id="OWAc9d6d822-1d79-84a2-42ec-391fdc862abb" href="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=US&doc-lang=en#IPEA" moz-do-not-send="true">
Annex E for IPEA/US</a> that IPEA/US is not quite a universal
acceptor. It is a universal acceptor in the special case where
... well here is what it says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The USPTO may act as International Preliminary Examining
Authority only if the international search is or has been
performed by that Office, except that the USPTO may act as
International Preliminary Examining Authority for
international applications filed by at least one resident or
national of the United States of America with the USPTO or the
International Bureau of WIPO as receiving Office where the
selected ISA is competent for residents or nationals of the
United States of America.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> Keep in mind that this condition is evaluated at the time of
entry into Chapter II of the Treaty -- namely at the time of the
filing of the Demand. So for example an applicant that changed
domicile or citizenship between the international filing date
and the demand date might find that it is unable to use IPEA/US
as an IPEA under this complicated provision.</p>
<p>But I digress. So the bundle of questions, as presented,
includes the notion of actively choosing to purchase the
services of an IPEA that is not the same Office as the ISA that
had been previously hired.</p>
<p>It is recalled that the ISA work for ISA/US is not carried out
by members of USPTO's Examining Corps. It is carried out by one
of several private contractors who pitched cheap enough prices
to the USPTO to be awarded contracts for this work. So if you
pick ISA/US you don't get a member of the USPTO Examining Corps.</p>
<p>it is also recalled that against all odds, the IPEA work for
IPEA/US <b><i>is carried out by members of the USPTO's
Examining Corps.</i></b> But it is also recalled that
sometimes when you pick IPEA/US, the IPRP shows up way too late,
well past 30 months, so that the client is forced to make the
difficult and expensive decisions about national-phase entry
without having yes received the results from IPEA/US.</p>
<p>No matter how many reasons you consider for picking an IPEA
other than IPEA/EP, the plain fact that is worth more than money
is that if you pick IPEA/EP, and if IPEA/EP happens to agree
that some claims are patentable, then the EPO (at the time of
national/regional-phase entry) will almost surely "drink its own
champagne". Personally I rank this fact as a fact that wins
out over nearly all other facts.</p>
<p>I would hire experienced and trusted EP counsel at this stage
to handle a Demand directed to EPO, who would know how to handle
what you describe as "EP's strict amendment requirements". </p>
<p>I encourage any reader who has not fallen asleep after this
long posting to consider signing up for my next 2½-day PCT
seminar. If you don't want to miss it, be sure that (a) you are
a member of the PCT listserv, and (b) you are subscribed to my
blog.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<ul class="dropdown-menu textcomplete-dropdown" style="display: none; position: absolute; z-index: 1000;" contenteditable="false" popover="auto">
</ul>
</body>
</html>