USPTO Announces New Fee Schedule for 2025
The USPTO has announced a significant update to its fee schedule for the 2025 fiscal year, set to take effect January 19, 2025. Across the board, fees will rise by at least 10%, with some increasing as much as 100%. The last major update to the fee schedule occurred in December 2022.[1] According to the USPTO, these increases are “needed to provide the agency with sufficient aggregate revenue to recover the aggregate costs of patent operations in future years.”[2] In addition to the increases to existing fees, the new fee schedule also includes entirely new fees for continuations and IDS filings that may impact applicant filing strategies. The most significant fee changes are detailed below.
Application Filing Fees
For utility applications, the basic filing, search, and examination fees are each increasing approximately 10%, bringing the baseline undiscounted filing fees to a total of $2,000. The fees for design applications are increasing even more, with the basic filing, search, and examination fees increasing approximately 27% overall, to a total of $1,300. The USPTO justified the design fee increases by stating design fees are set “below the agency’s costs for preexamination, search, and examination,” which is done to encourage “innovation by maintaining low barriers to entry into the patent system.”[3] Unfortunately, the increase in fees does not correlate to any additional services; however, the USPTO claims these fees are still below the agency’s costs.[4] Below is a table showing the 2024 fees, 2025 fees, and percent increase in cost for the most common filings.
|
Filing in 2024 |
Filing in 2025 |
Percent Increase |
|
|
Basic Utility Filing Fee |
$320 |
$350 |
9.4% |
|
Utility Search Fee |
$700 |
$770 |
10% |
|
Utility Examination Fee |
$800 |
$880 |
10% |
|
Basic Design Filing Fee |
$220 |
$300 |
36.4% |
|
Design Search Fee |
$160 |
$300 |
87.5% |
|
Design Examination Fee |
$640 |
$700 |
9.4% |
|
Cont. fee after 6 yrs of benefit |
$0 |
$2,700 |
N/A |
|
Cont. fee after 9 yrs of benefit |
$0 |
$4,000 |
N/A |
Due to the substantial new surcharge for continuations, applicants should consider the timing of their filings, and preferably file continuations before the 6-year and 9-year dates to avoid these surcharges. In particular, applicants should consider whether filing an application with a continuation-in-part (CIP) priority claim is worthwhile in view of these additional costs, especially when the claims in the application rely on new material that limits the benefit of the CIP claim. Finally, applicants with recently allowed applications would be wise to immediately conduct a review of high-priority families with older priority claims and consider whether to file new continuation applications before the surcharges become effective on January 19, 2025.
Extra Claim Fees
In addition to raising filing fees, the USPTO is substantially increasing fees for extra claims. The USPTO states that the higher fees are designed to promote “compact prosecution” and disincentivize applicants from filing excess claims.[7]
|
Filing in 2024 |
Filing in 2025 |
Percent Increase |
|
|
Fee per claim in excess of 20 |
$100 |
$200 |
100% |
|
Fee for independent claim in excess of 3 |
$480 |
$600 |
25% |
While it may already be standard practice to limit claim sets to three independent claims and twenty claims total, the sharp increase in extra claim fees may prompt applicants to more carefully scrutinize any claim strategy that exceeds the “3-and-20” limit. Notably, filing just 10 extra claims would incur an additional $2,000 in fees, which is equal to the cost of filing a separate application. Therefore, when a large number of claims are required to cover the subject matter of a disclosure, rather than filing a single large claim set and paying substantial extra claim fees, applicants might consider splitting the claim set into multiple smaller sets, filed simultaneously in separate applications. Applicants should carefully weigh the costs and benefits of filing additional claims versus filing separate applications.
It is worth noting that filing larger claim sets and paying for extra claims may be a more cost-effective strategy when filing continuations with older priority claims. In light of the new continuation surcharge for priority claims older than 6 and 9 years, applicants may prefer to file a single application with a large claim set rather than file multiple continuations and incur multiple priority claim surcharges.
Request for Continuing Examination (RCE) Fees
The 2025 fee structure increases the cost for all RCEs, with an outsized increase for the 2nd and subsequent RCEs. Again, the USPTO states “[t]he agency’s goal is not to dissuade RCE filings but to more closely align the fee rates with the cost of processing RCEs.”[8] However, given that these fees are larger than the basic fees for filing a new application, it appears that they are designed to discourage extended prosecution.
|
Filing in 2024 |
Filing in 2025 |
Percent Increase |
|
|
1st RCE |
$1,360 |
$1,500 |
10% |
|
2nd and subsequent RCE |
$2,000 |
$2,860 |
43% |
Obviously, applicants should pursue strategies to avoid facing a final office action where they need to pay an RCE fee. However, assuming such scenarios are inevitable, applicants should consider all available options. As noted above, the fee for the 2nd or subsequent RCE, at $2,860, is much higher than the filing fees for a new application, which will only total $2,000 under this new fee schedule. An applicant facing a final office action and the option of paying a $2,860 fee to continue examination may instead be incentivized to file a continuation application, thereby restarting prosecution while saving $860. Applicants should carefully weigh the costs and benefits of filing claim amendments with an RCE compared to filing the same claims in a continuing application.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Fees
Finally, the new fee schedule increases fees on IDS filings with more than 50 references. The surcharge is for the cumulative number of items cited.[9] The USPTO explains these surcharges as necessary to cover the substantial number of additional hours needed by examiners to review large IDS submissions, which are not currently covered by any fees.[10]
|
Filing in 2024 |
Filing in 2025 |
Percent Increase |
|
|
Submission of an IDS |
$260 |
$260 |
0% |
|
Surcharge for 51-100 items |
$0 |
$200 |
N/A |
|
101-200 items |
$0 |
$500, less any amount previously paid |
N/A |
|
201+ items |
$0 |
$800, less any amount previously paid |
N/A |
Applicants should tailor their IDS filings by omitting irrelevant and duplicative references.[11] Fortunately, the USPTO has stated that IDS item totals do not roll over from parent to child unless the items are resubmitted, and examiners are still required to consider IDS filings from parents in the prosecution of new applications.[12] Thus, more than 50 submissions may be considered in continuations without incurring additional fees, so long as the surplus IDS filings were submitted in previous applications.[13] Applicants should strategize their patent prosecution so that cumulative IDS filings will be considered in future continuations. However, the USPTO reminds applicants that RCEs do not reset the IDS filing total, meaning any additional IDS filings on applications that are under continued examination will still count toward the total number of IDS submissions.[14]
Furthermore, applicants will be responsible for filing a “clear written assertion” accompanying each IDS filing that states the appropriate IDS fee or that none is required (though the USPTO stated that there is no specific format required for the assertion).[15] Failure to submit a clear written assertion could result in the USPTO finding the IDS noncompliant, such that the IDS “will be placed in the file and will remain of record, but the IDS will not be considered.”[16]
The USPTO's fee increases for the 2025 fiscal year are substantial, affecting various aspects of the patent application and prosecution process. Applicants will now need to reassess their strategies to optimize costs, especially when dealing with continuations, extra claim filings, and RCEs. As the fee surcharges for continuation applications with older priority claims become effective, patent applicants may be incentivized to file large claim sets in a single application rather than multiple continuations. Similarly, the significant rise in RCE fees encourages applicants to explore continuation options or amend claims strategically to avoid unnecessary costs. The new fees for IDS filings with more than 50 references further underscores the importance of efficient disclosure management. Ultimately, these changes to the fee schedule require patent applicants to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of different filing strategies to maintain an efficient and cost-effective prosecution process.
*Billy Ellis, a law clerk at Baker Botts, assisted in the preparation of this article.
[1] 37 Fed. Reg. 80073 (Dec. 29. 2022).
[2] 89 Fed. Reg. 91898 (Nov. 20, 2024).
[3] Id. at 91915.
[4] See id. at 91917.
[5] Id. at 91910.
[6] Id. at 91909.
[7] Id. at 91949.
[8] Id. at 91953.
[9] Id. at 92006.
[10] See id. at 91924.
[11] See id. at 91925 (“Neither the §§ 1.56(b) and 1.555(b) standards nor the Federal Circuit’s “but-for” standard require the submission of clearly irrelevant or marginally relevant information.”)
[12] See id. at 91924.
[13] See id.
[14] See id.
[15] See id. at 91924-25 (stating that “[s]ingle IDS submission with cumulative count less than fee threshold” is an example of an acceptable assertion).
[16] See id. at 91925. See also id. discussing the duty of disclosure (“Applicants are reminded that the duty of disclosure under §§ 1.56 and 1.555 only requires the submission of information material to patentability. Material information is described in §§ 1.56(b) and 1.555(b) as information that is not cumulative to information already of record and (1) establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) refutes or is inconsistent with a position the applicant takes in opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the USPTO or asserting an argument of patentability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit uses an even higher standard for materiality than the §§ 1.56(b) and 1.555(b) standards by requiring ‘‘but-for’’ materiality, such that the USPTO would not have allowed a claim had it been aware of the undisclosed information.”).
