EPO Flags ‘Abolition of PACE for Search’ in the 2026 Guidelines: European Patent Acceleration Is Shifting from Applicant Requests to Service Timeliness and Exception Handling

In its 2026 revision list to the Guidelines for Examination, the EPO expressly identifies the “Abolition of PACE for search” as one of the main amendments in Part E on procedural matters. This is more than editorial housekeeping. It reflects a reordering of how acceleration is meant to work in European patent practice: for newer European filings, the EPO has for years relied on a service objective to issue the extended or partial search report within six months rather than on routine applicant-triggered PACE requests for search; it then confirmed in a formal notice published at the end of 2025 that, from 1 February 2026, the PACE mechanism is in principle confined to the examination stage.

For firms, in-house IP teams and applicants who need patent timing to support fundraising, M&A, licensing or cross-border launch planning, the key question is no longer whether to file a search PACE request as a reflex. The more important task is to identify which files do not need old-style search acceleration thinking at all, and which files still require careful orchestration through Euro-PCT entry timing, compressed procedural steps, accelerated examination or coordination with other jurisdictions. In practice, acceleration is becoming less a single formality and more a docketing and sequencing discipline.

1. The revision list and the late-2025 notice point in the same direction: the search-side PACE entry point is being phased out institutionally

Read together, the signals are unusually clear. First, the EPO’s 2026 list of amended sections highlights the “Abolition of PACE for search” as a principal procedural change in Part E. Second, the EPO’s notice of December 2025 explains why the programme was revised: the Office considered its timeliness in issuing extended and partial European search reports to have improved on a sustained basis and therefore decided that, from 1 February 2026, PACE would be restricted to examination, with EPO Form 1005 covering examination acceleration only.

The practical meaning is not that the EPO has become less interested in speed. It is that the Office no longer treats faster search as a standalone entry point that applicants should ordinarily activate themselves. Many users were used to thinking in two steps: if timing matters, file PACE for search first and then think about examination. That logic now needs to be rewritten. For a large share of cases, search timeliness is being absorbed into the Office’s own service framework, while applicant-side intervention shifts toward stage recognition, procedural coordination and handling of exceptions.

2. For post-1 July 2014 cases, accelerated search increasingly resembles a default service objective rather than an optional applicant add-on

The EPO has long stated that for European patent applications filed on or after 1 July 2014, including Euro-PCT cases that require a supplementary European search, it aims to issue the extended or partial European search report within six months from the relevant trigger date. That is why older guidance already explained that no PACE request was generally needed for search in such cases. Once the dedicated search-side PACE route is then removed as a live institutional tool, the policy arc becomes easier to read: for newer cases, search speed is moving from an applicant-requested privilege toward an office-managed timeliness commitment.

That shift matters in two ways. First, case management needs to focus less on whether a request form was filed and more on whether the file is already within the EPO’s ordinary timeliness target. Second, client communications need updating. It is no longer as accurate to present search acceleration as a clean elective lever that can routinely be pulled on demand. A more careful explanation is that, for most newer files, search timing depends primarily on the EPO’s standard workflow and queue discipline rather than on a separate applicant-side trigger. Predictability may improve, but direct applicant control over search speed becomes narrower.

3. The real work now lies in combining Euro-PCT transition planning, early processing analysis and examination acceleration

The main practical risk is not simply losing an old filing habit. It is applying that old habit to the wrong procedural problem. In Euro-PCT practice, time pressure has not disappeared; it has changed shape. The EPO’s public guidance has consistently distinguished early processing from accelerated prosecution. A case that needs to move quickly in the European phase may therefore still require separate analysis of whether early processing should be requested, whether Rule 161-related waiting periods should effectively be compressed, when the file will enter examination and whether PACE should then be requested at the examination stage. In other words, speed management has not vanished. It has shifted from a unified search-side request into a combination of entry, timing and examination-stage decisions.

This is why transaction-driven files deserve closer triage. Some matters do not actually need a faster search report; they need an earlier substantive examination signal, quicker positioning for licensing or investment negotiations, or better timing alignment with positive results in other jurisdictions. Others may appear to require maximum speed, but if the claim set is still unstable or the commercial product definition is moving, pushing the file too fast can shrink amendment flexibility and reduce portfolio optionality later. The better approach is to separate four different questions that are often blurred together: whether the business needs search speed, examination speed, earlier European-phase uptake, or simply a faster commercial signalling effect.

4. What firms and in-house teams should do now: replace the old “accelerate or not” question with file segmentation and updated communication templates

The best response is not merely to delete old PACE wording from precedent forms. It is to redesign internal segmentation and advice logic. Four actions stand out:

• Add docketing fields that distinguish between files likely to fall within the ordinary six-month search target without any PACE mechanism, Euro-PCT files with timing-sensitive phase-entry issues, and files with business-driven need for faster examination.
• Update internal SOPs and client alerts so they no longer treat a search PACE request as a default recommendation. Instead, explain the current baseline search timing, the procedural stages that still matter and the tools that remain genuinely controllable.
• For files that truly require fast usable results, adopt a coordinated European and multi-jurisdiction timing strategy, taking into account examination-stage PACE, phase-entry timing, potential PPH availability and the sequence in which substantive outcomes are expected across offices.
• State clearly to clients that acceleration is not the same as lower risk. Faster search or examination outcomes may help transactions and planning, but they do not automatically improve claim robustness. In fast-moving technical areas, pushing too quickly toward grant may also narrow the room to react to new prior art or later strategic refinements.

Ultimately, the message of this change is not that the EPO has closed the door on speed. It is that acceleration is being redefined from an applicant-triggered search button into a model built around office timeliness commitments plus targeted procedural handling where genuine urgency remains. The teams that translate that shift into practical docketing rules, clearer client explanations and smarter cross-jurisdiction sequencing will be better placed to convert procedural speed into real business value.