---

Understanding Your Options: PCT vs. Direct Foreign Filing

The two primary pathways for filing internationally are:

1. Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Application

The PCT is a procedural tool—not a patent itself. It allows you to file a single international application within 12 months of your U.S. filing (under the Paris Convention), and gives you up to 30–31 months from the original priority date to enter individual countries (called “national phase” entry).

The PCT provides:

• Extra time to evaluate where protection is truly needed
• A preliminary patentability opinion from an international search authority
• A centralized starting point for entering many major jurisdictions (EU, China, Japan, Canada, Australia, etc.)

This option is ideal if your commercialization or international expansion plans are still developing. It preserves flexibility while deferring major country-specific costs.

2. Direct Paris Convention Filing

Instead of using the PCT, you may file directly in foreign countries within 12 months of your original U.S. application (provisional or non-provisional). This approach avoids the PCT stage entirely.

Direct filing is useful when:

• You already know which markets matter
• You want to proceed faster with prosecution in key countries
• You are managing toward a more limited geographic scope

Critical takeaway: There is no such thing as a worldwide patent. All international patent rights must be pursued country by country, either through PCT national stage entry or direct filing.

---

Choosing the Right Countries to File In

The cost of pursuing patents internationally adds up quickly. Between translation, government fees, foreign counsel, and ongoing prosecution, a single country filing can range from $10,000 to $25,000+ USD over the life of the patent.

Founders must be selective. The most common jurisdictions for startups include:

• Europe (EPO) – Covers up to 39 member states through a single application
• China – High-volume market with active enforcement and manufacturing relevance
• Japan – Technologically advanced and IP-respecting jurisdiction
• Canada – U.S.-adjacent market, cost-effective to maintain
• South Korea – Important for electronics, AI, and software
• Australia – English-language, lower cost, often used for supplementary filings
• India – Considered for price-sensitive products or offshore operations

Filing in each of these countries is a major financial and strategic commitment. Many early-stage companies choose just 2–4 core markets to pursue initially and expand only if needed. The decision should reflect not just your current business plan, but where competitors operate, manufacture, or sell.

Critical takeaway: Filing in every jurisdiction is rarely wise. A focused, jurisdiction-specific strategy saves capital and enhances enforceability.

---

Working With Foreign Counsel—Without Reinventing the Wheel

Each jurisdiction has its own procedural rules, filing formats, examination standards, and local legal nuances. That’s why our firm maintains strong relationships with experienced foreign patent attorneys in every major market. We act as a single point of contact—coordinating filings, managing communications, and ensuring global alignment.

This centralized approach helps:

• Maintain consistency across national claims and specifications
• Avoid redundant or conflicting instructions
• Ensure client-facing communication remains streamlined and accessible

While we do not prosecute patents ourselves in foreign offices, we work directly with trusted counsel abroad to manage filings, handle office actions, monitor deadlines, and advise on enforcement options where applicable.

---

Managing Cost and Timing

Costs vary significantly by country and by filing method. As a rough estimate, startups should budget:

Jurisdiction	Estimated Total Cost (Lifetime, Per Patent)
Europe (EPO)	$20,000–$30,000+
China	$10,000–$20,000
Japan	$12,000–$25,000
Canada	$8,000–$15,000
South Korea	$10,000–$18,000
Australia	$7,000–$12,000
India	$8,000–$15,000

These costs include government fees, translations, foreign counsel, and prosecution—but not litigation or maintenance beyond 10 years. U.S. costs are not included here.

Startups should factor these numbers into fundraising discussions and consider staging filings based on product milestones, funding availability, or partner requirements.

---

Final Thought

International patent protection can be a powerful asset—but only if pursued strategically. Overextending into too many jurisdictions too early can burn capital and create paperwork without delivering business value. A focused approach—grounded in your actual markets, competitors, and growth plans—is almost always more effective.

At Schmeiser Olsen, we help startups build lean, defensible international filing strategies. Whether you’re preparing to file a PCT, selecting priority countries, or reviewing foreign counsel estimates, we’ll guide you through the process with a clear eye toward budget and business objectives.

To schedule a consultation on your international patent strategy, contact our team here.