Jonathan Jeck, Author at JFP

PCT National Phase: From Unified Filing to Jurisdiction-Specific Strategy

April 21, 2026April 16, 2026 by Jonathan Jeck

1. Introduction At first glance, the system established under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) may appear to offer a straightforward path towards global patent protection. A single application, covering multiple jurisdictions, suggests a unified and continuous process. This perception, however, does not fully reflect the practical realities. 2. The transition from international to national phase A common assumption is that, once a PCT application has been filed, entry into individual jurisdictions constitutes a largely procedural continuation of the same process. In practice, this is not the case. The transition into the national or regional phase marks a structural shift. It is at this stage that jurisdiction-specific requirements become decisive, and where strategic considerations begin to influence the outcome of the application. Each patent office applies its own legal standards, examination practices, and approaches to claim interpretation. As a result, subject matter that is acceptable in one jurisdiction may encounter objections in another. Even comparatively minor differences in wording, translation, or claim structure may affect how an application is examined, granted, and subsequently enforced. 3. Particular considerations in Europe These aspects are of particular relevance in the European context. While the European Patent Office (EPO) conducts a centralised examination procedure, the result is not a single, uniform right. Rather, a granted European patent gives rise to a bundle of national rights, each subject to the legal framework of the respective jurisdiction. This distinction becomes especially relevant in jurisdictions such as Germany, where patent enforcement plays a significant role in practice. Differences in claim interpretation, procedural requirements, and enforcement mechanisms may directly affect the scope and effectiveness of protection. 4. Typical sources of difficulty Difficulties arising at the national phase stage are often not attributable to the technical substance of the invention. Instead, they frequently result from insufficient adaptation of the application to the requirements of the respective jurisdiction. A reliance on the original PCT text, without further adjustment, may lead to avoidable objections, delays in prosecution, and increased overall costs. In addition, inconsistencies in claim scope across jurisdictions may reduce the effectiveness of protection in key markets. 5. Strategic approach to national phase entry Against this background, entry into the national phase should not be regarded as a formal step, but as an opportunity for strategic alignment. This includes, in particular: Such measures may influence not only the efficiency of the examination procedure, but also the scope and enforceability of the resulting rights. 6. Conclusion The PCT system provides a unified starting point for international patent protection. However, it does not eliminate the need for jurisdiction-specific consideration. The decisive phase begins upon entry into national or regional procedures, where the application is assessed under local legal and procedural frameworks. For applicants seeking protection in Europe or Germany, the relevant question is therefore not limited to where protection is sought. It is how the application is positioned within each jurisdiction at the point of entry. In practice, this is where the long-term effectiveness of patent protection is determined.

EU SME Fund 2026: A Strategic Guide to Reducing IP Costs for SMEs

May 7, 2026March 23, 2026 by Jonathan Jeck

EU SME Fund 2026: A Strategic Guide to Reducing IP Costs for SMEs 1. Introduction For many small and medium-sized enterprises, intellectual property protection is not neglected, but postponed. This is typically not due to a lack of awareness of its importance, but rather the result of competing commercial priorities and uncertainty as to the appropriate timing. Against this background, the EU SME Fund 2026 is frequently perceived as a mechanism to reduce the financial burden associated with intellectual property protection. While this assessment is not incorrect, it remains incomplete. 2. The SME Fund as a timing-dependent framework At first glance, the SME Fund appears to function primarily as a reimbursement scheme. It provides financial support for selected intellectual property activities, including trademarks, designs, and certain patent-related measures, thereby lowering initial cost exposure. In practice, however, the fund operates within a strictly defined procedural and temporal framework. Access is subject not only to eligibility criteria, but also to predefined reimbursement caps and a limited annual budget. The available resources are therefore finite and may be exhausted before the end of the funding period. As a result, timing becomes a determining factor. Availability is not guaranteed throughout the year, and delayed applications may no longer be considered, irrespective of substantive eligibility. In this sense, the practical effect of the fund is closely linked to when a company initiates the relevant steps. 3. Strategic relevance: preparation and implementation From a systematic perspective, the SME Fund addresses two stages of intellectual property protection. 3.1 Preparatory stage Before any filing activity is initiated, it is necessary to determine the subject matter to be protected, the relevant jurisdictions, and the alignment of these elements with the company’s commercial objectives. The fund supports this stage through IP Scan services. These are intended to facilitate the identification of protectable assets, the assessment of legal risks, and the preparation for potential enforcement scenarios. Although preparatory in nature, this stage is often decisive for the long-term effectiveness of protection. Deficiencies at this point may not be fully remedied at a later stage. 3.2 Implementation stage Following the establishment of a structured protection strategy, the fund supports selected filing activities, including trademark and design applications, as well as certain international procedures. In this context, the financial contribution of the fund may reduce immediate cost exposure and enable earlier execution of planned filings. However, access to reimbursement is contingent upon prior approval. Filings initiated before approval are not eligible, irrespective of their substantive merit. This reinforces the importance of sequencing and, in particular, of timely application. 4. Procedural sequence and its implications The procedural structure of the SME Fund is, in principle, straightforward. It consists of: Despite this apparent simplicity, the sequence is rigid. Deviations from the prescribed order may lead to a loss of eligibility. In particular, premature filings or delayed applications may result in exclusion, either procedurally or due to budget exhaustion. In this respect, the decisive factor is not complexity, but sequencing within a limited funding environment. 5. Assessment and practical implications The SME Fund does not operate as an independent solution for intellectual property protection. Rather, it presupposes the existence of a structured strategy. Where such a strategy is already in place, the fund can be integrated as a complementary instrument. In these cases, it may contribute to cost efficiency and facilitate earlier implementation of protection measures. Where no such structure exists, the fund’s practical benefit is limited. The risk of procedural errors, misaligned filings, or missed deadlines increases accordingly. More broadly, intellectual property protection is increasingly understood as a structural component of business development. It influences market positioning, supports valuation, and informs investment decisions. Within this context, the finite nature of the SME Fund introduces an additional strategic consideration: decisions that are delayed may not only postpone protection but also eliminate access to available funding. 6. Conclusion The EU SME Fund 2026 offers measurable financial support for selected intellectual property activities. However, its practical relevance extends beyond cost reduction. Its resources are limited, and participation depends not only on eligibility but also on timely action. The decisive factor therefore, lies in its integration into a broader strategic framework and, in particular, in the timing of its use. For enterprises considering trademarks, designs, or patents, the relevant question is not limited to whether funding is available in principle. It is whether the necessary steps are taken early enough for that funding to remain accessible. In practice, this is where its effect is determined.