<!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>That's a good strategy (I'm copying that into my notes for
explanation if it's OK with you), and summarizes a path I
recommend to some small clients depending on timing (I actually
just recommended to a client almost this exact strategy a couple
weeks ago and talked them out of filing Chapter II Demand). I
think there are probably 3 things that tend to veer me away from
the strategy you articulated so well and so succinctly:</p>
<p>1) If the client knows they will be filing in EP anyway, I find
it more cost effective to get the claims they want 'pre-allowed'
during Chapter II proceedings - except in very rare cases, I
personally find that I have better success when interacting
personally with the EP examiner, which is only available during
Chapter II proceedings. I understand opinions vary, but having
tried both ways, my experience is that I can push for broader
claims and be more laser focused on the core inventive subject
matter at a much lower cost than a game of telephone trying to
articulate that to EP counsel. What I <i>do</i> is have good
relationships with several EP counsel who I can rely on in a
consulting role.<br>
2) This brings back the question of limited claims: I prefer
Chapter II EP proceedings vs US-first proceedings <i>precisely
because I get to present more claims at limited / no extra cost</i>.
I use multiple dependent and I use > 3 independent and > 20
total claims routinely to a) experiment with more different
inventive step provisions, and b) maintain explicit support
internationally for any type of cross-linking (via multiple
dependent claims). Further, I can often 'pre-load' examination on
multiple different sets that a US examiner may well restrict
apart. Yes, I get an "Observation" that EP application will have
to be limited / rearranged / 2-part / etc., but this doesn't
concern any countries I'm aware of as far as PPH. The only problem
I've had is if the EP examiner notes it as a <i>defect</i> -- in
that case, I will explain the difference to the EP examiner during
oral consult (i.e., this is not a defect under PCT rules, but I
welcome you noting it as an observation <i>specific to EP
regional phase entry</i>). Now, I have a PPH availability for
sometimes 60+ claims that I can use <i>for multiple applications
(including in the US, where I can use PPH on continuations)</i>.
From a timing perspective, I typically find PPH gets examined at
least as quickly as Track One, and I've got the added benefit of
having hashed out the prior art in the ISR. Now I usually only
have to deal with <i>new </i>art the US examiner may find. The
flexibility with number of claims <i>without paying extra fees</i>
is actually one of the number one reasons I prefer prosecution as
much as possible internationally before I jump into US. There have
been several cases recently that I've been able to get PPH on 2-3+
US patent applications from a single EP IPRP (at least one without
having to pay additional exam or search fees because of the
differences in how EP views the 'unitary concept' vs US
restriction practice).<br>
3) Timing: In cases where we are going all out for acceleration to
patent as fast as possible, getting an EP positive IPRP is very
predictable time-wise, and I find with investors can sometimes
carry the added plus of being an 'international' opinion (as
opposed to US only), without having to explain the international
impact of a US patent.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I appreciate the note-sharing here. Again, your explanation of
the US-first strategy is so concise and well said that I'm copying
it into my notes.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/9/2025 9:29 AM, Scott Nielson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:IA3PR11MB9087B12D9A340FC9055DBD9FB06BA@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">
What you wrote broadly matches my experience. I think the
difference is that I find a granted US patent is more helpful in
most of those countries than a positive IPRP/EP or even a
granted EP patent, with the exception of China, which seems more
aligned with EP law that therefore more impressed by what
happens there.</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">
What this means is that if the client has enough resources to
get something that will help them around the world, then instead
of going the IPEA/EP route, it's better to just file a US
application with a Track One request and leverage the resulting
US patent. This is especially true if the client is a small
entity so the Track One fee is not that much more than IPEA/EP.</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 advantage is that CA, MX, AU, and the like seem to be just
as impressed by a US patent. And a US patent comes with the nice
advantage of having more independent claims than an EP patent so
a PPH request filed in the other countries can include all those
claims (in fact one problem with IPRP/EP -> PPH in US is that
you are limited to just one type of independent claim). As a
recent example, I was able to get two US patents and then file
PPH requests in CA, MX, and AU with eight independent claims
(those countries don't charge extra for independent vs dependent
claims) and have it sail through.</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 mental model you use to categorize things is interesting.
Mine is more along the lines of IPEA/EP is really only something
to do if the applicant wants to expedite examination in EP or
CN. Otherwise, push a US patent, which most clients want anyway.
Other than CN, most countries clients care about (CA, MX, AU,
KR, and JP to the extent JP is influenced at all) are just as
influenced by a US patent as they are by a positive IPRP/EP or
EP patent. And, a US patent has the benefit of including more
independent claims, which serves to increase coverage in those
countries compared to a single apparatus claim.</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 class="elementToProof" id="Signature">
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;" class="elementToProof">
<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;" class="elementToProof">
<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> Timothy Snowden <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tdsnowden@outlook.com"><tdsnowden@outlook.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 09, 2025 7:56 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Scott Nielson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:scnielson@outlook.com"><scnielson@outlook.com></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com">pct@oppedahl-lists.com</a> <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>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">CN, CA, & MX
especially. CN gives a lot of weight but doesn't implicitly
follow. CA almost implicitly follows and just requires some
Canada-specific formality adjustments. MX (especially with their
new APG program) pretty much says they implicitly follow it. KR
& AU tend to be very impressed by it.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">JP I have mixed
results with. I often find they 'rehash' the prosecution history
and try to one-up the EP but don't seem to set in as much as if
I don't have a positive IPRP. Usually if I can delay JP
examination until I get allowable claims in US, then their
rejection will look very much like the US initial OA, and I can
make the same amendments as in US and point to the issued US
patent. I know that JP's obviousness analysis was originally
based off of US obviousness law, and so I feel like JP tends to
put more weight in a US obviousness analysis.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">US it depends -- I
actually get <i>
more</i> first-action allowances when I enter PPH from EP than
anything else, so my feel is that they respect it, but don't
follow it implicitly. My gut feel is that this is due to a) our
different obviousness analysis (less technical / more 'gut feel'
and arguably a higher hurdle than EP), and b) the pressure on US
examiners - different in different art units - to not issue
first-action allowances. The cases I get first-action allowance
tends to be cases where it's easy to point to the contours of
the prior art and the distinctions. The cases I have to go
another round in the US is usually where the line is very fine
and I feel the examiner is covering their 'quality review' bases
(I had one examiner raise a 101 rejection and tell me they
agreed with me that it should be withdrawn but just wanted to
make sure it had been addressed in the file history). However, I
can
<i>usually </i>get to allowance in US with one OA when using
PPH from positive EP opinion. I find in software cases
especially that it tends to shorten the curve significantly
because the examiners seem to feel
<i>less </i>required to make multiple rejections.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">The US IPRP seems
to be good quality lately (with my very limited experience with
it), and now that actual examiners are doing it seems to be
respected by the US, but I shy away from it in most cases just
because of the timing -- the one time I've done it in the past
few years (because clients were US first and not even sure they
were going to file outside of US but just wanted to preserve
options), USPTO didn't get it there in time for national stage.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">FWIW, I tend to
mentally divide the patent world into EP-influenced examination
countries and US-influenced examination countries. EP countries
includes most of Europe (obviously), Asia, and South America. US
countries are US and JP, with CA and MX being more US analysis
aligned but very accepting of EP.<br>
If you're going to file in EP, I find it's almost always more
cost-effective to do IPEA/EP because you essentially split US
(and JP if needed) off and handle them by getting PPH in US,
getting to allowance in US, and then leveraging in JP, and the
rest you pretty much ride through on the EP IPRP.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">This sort of
rambled but I hope it helps. Just my experience.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<div>On 6/9/2025 8:35 AM, Scott Nielson wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Thanks for this. What countries, other than China, seem to be
particularly impressed with a positive report from the EP? JP
and US don't seem to be impressed by a positive report from
any other country (curious if your experience is different).</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="x_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> Pct <a class="x_moz-txt-link-rfc2396E OWAAutoLink" id="OWA996b5193-5242-db6d-ea10-ac57eabaaff3" href="mailto:pct-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com" moz-do-not-send="true">
<pct-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com></a> on behalf of
Timothy Snowden via Pct <a class="x_moz-txt-link-rfc2396E OWAAutoLink" id="OWA25582d0f-5ac3-544e-5912-41fbfc0b614c" href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com" moz-do-not-send="true">
<pct@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 09, 2025 6:45 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="x_moz-txt-link-abbreviated OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext" id="OWA1b26b1f5-fe15-002d-4a5a-0ab329618649" href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com" moz-do-not-send="true">pct@oppedahl-lists.com</a>
<a class="x_moz-txt-link-rfc2396E OWAAutoLink" id="OWAa95ed994-1544-f423-7978-d740a7f6e508" href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com" moz-do-not-send="true">
<pct@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Timothy Snowden <a class="x_moz-txt-link-rfc2396E OWAAutoLink" id="OWA77a2812d-95b9-9389-223c-e423b47ab76c" href="mailto:tdsnowden@outlook.com" moz-do-not-send="true">
<tdsnowden@outlook.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>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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).</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<div>On 6/8/2025 8:30 PM, Scott Nielson via Pct wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
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);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
I noticed something else that gives me pause. <a data-auth="NotApplicable" originalsrc="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=US&doc-lang=en#RO" title="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=US&doc-lang=en#RO" class="x_OWAAutoLink" id="OWAa4320ebd-9676-8bff-49a5-67e79243d904" 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);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
However, <a data-auth="NotApplicable" originalsrc="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=IB&doc-lang=en#RO" title="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=IB&doc-lang=en#RO" class="x_OWAAutoLink" id="OWAf5adbc6a-995a-b807-f153-40139d2b6181" 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);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
The <a data-auth="NotApplicable" originalsrc="https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/docs/official-notices/officialnotices08.pdf" title="https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/docs/official-notices/officialnotices08.pdf" class="x_OWAAutoLink" id="OWA894a04a3-e033-b575-21d4-db7eb719bfdf" 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);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
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);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
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);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
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);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="x_x_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="x_x_moz-txt-link-rfc2396E x_OWAAutoLink" id="OWAe1081ae9-9ba3-a70e-ba9c-60f18cc06ca8" href="mailto:carl@oppedahl.com" moz-do-not-send="true">
<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="x_x_moz-txt-link-rfc2396E x_OWAAutoLink" id="OWAd2158b9b-b6ec-3b52-213a-0a5e0da9f826" href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com" moz-do-not-send="true">
<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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">See for
example <a style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;" data-auth="NotApplicable" originalsrc="https://www.oppedahl.com/cle/2022PCTTrainingSession8.pdf" class="x_x_OWAAutoLink" id="OWA829bb06d-2085-02ca-42ba-61c5a4a175b8" 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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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="x_x_OWAAutoLink" id="OWA29235a4e-8f91-8814-56e8-17ee50745f0b" 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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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="x_x_OWAAutoLink" id="OWA8724a3e2-82e5-cdc6-18d3-5087fded87ac" 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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> 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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<div><br>
</div>
<fieldset class="x_x_moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<ul class="dropdown-menu textcomplete-dropdown" style="display: none; position: absolute; z-index: 1000;" contenteditable="false" popover="auto">
</ul>
</body>
</html>