Choosing an ISA After the Korean Fee Increase: A practical comparison for US PCT applicants

 

Executive Summary: Korea’s announced increase in its U.S.-dollar international search fee from $783 to $867, effective November 1, 2026, gives U.S. PCT applicants a reason to reassess ISA selection based on costs through the intended national-stage entry. Under the article’s standard-fee assumptions, the USPTO gains a $79 total-cost advantage over Korea for a small entity entering the U.S. national stage and offers the lowest illustrated total for a micro entity. IPOPHL merits consideration as a lower-cost foreign alternative at its $600 baseline, while its separate $200 rate requires confirmation of eligibility and applicable collection procedures. For applicants planning European protection, the EPO’s higher initial fee carries potential offsets against later European search and examination costs, together with the value of early European feedback. The choice also depends on subject-matter coverage, capacity, timing, and the commercially important claims. Favorable U.S. work products, Chapter II examination, and PPH can affect the analysis, but their conditions, procedural consequences, and additional costs require separate evaluation.

 Introduction

 

Korea’s international search fee is increasing in U.S. dollars, and the change is enough to alter a close comparison for some U.S. applicants. Effective November 1, 2026, the fee rises from $783 to $867, an increase of $84, or approximately 10.7%. The authority long known as the Korean Intellectual Property Office, or KIPO, is now the Ministry of Intellectual Property of the Republic of Korea, or MOIP. U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) News and Announcements, “November 1, 2026 Change to MOIP Search Fee” & “August 1, 2026 Change to MOIP Search Fee”, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/patent-cooperation-treaty/pct-news-announcements (last visited Oct. 28, 2026).

The announcement changes the dollar amount collected for the search. WIPO continues to list KRW 1,200,000 for an English-language search. World Intell. Prop. Org., PCT Applicant’s Guide, annex D (Republic of Korea), https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=KR&doc-lang=en&doc-type=annex (last visited Oct. 28, 2026).

For an ordinary RO/US filing, the receiving Office’s receipt date for the international application fixes the applicable search-fee amount. A later payment date does not change that amount; payment ordinarily is due within one month of receipt. Regulations Under the Patent Cooperation Treaty rr. 15.3, 16.1(f) (Jan. 1, 2026) [hereinafter PCT Regulations].

For a U.S. applicant, the practical consequence depends on entity status and the prosecution route. Under the ordinary small-entity U.S. national-stage assumptions used below, the increase changes Korea’s former $5 advantage into a $79 advantage for the USPTO. A large entity still pays substantially less with Korea. The Philippines offers a lower-priced foreign alternative, while an applicant committed to Europe may find value in paying for an EPO search at the outset.

Select an International Searching Authority based on the application’s likely destinations and the information the applicant needs before committing to them. The fee change provides a useful reason to revisit a standing instruction to select the same ISA for every PCT filing.

The ISA ordinarily produces an international search report identifying relevant prior art and a written opinion assessing whether the claimed invention appears to meet the PCT patentability criteria. Optional Chapter II preliminary examination provides a further assessment, potentially addressing amendments and argument. These work products can have different consequences for later fees and examination procedures. World Intell. Prop. Org., Protecting Your Inventions Abroad: Frequently Asked Questions About the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), questions 15, 18 & 23 (Aug. 2026), https://www.wipo.int/en/web/pct-system/faqs/faqs. The issuing authority, the report’s conclusions, and the claims it addresses therefore deserve separate attention.

The eight options available to US applicants

 

For an English-language PCT application filed with the USPTO as receiving Office, or RO/US, eight ISAs are available, subject to their applicable conditions. The table uses the foreign-ISA amounts in the USPTO’s RO/US schedule and assumes no separate reductions under a foreign authority’s rules. U.S. small- and micro-entity status reduces the USPTO search fee; eligibility under a foreign office’s rules is a separate question. World Intell. Prop. Org., PCT Applicant’s Guide, annex C (United States of America) (Aug. 20, 2026), https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=US&doc-lang=EN&doc-type=ANNEX; U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., PCT Fees in US Dollars (effective Aug. 1, 2026), https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/patent-cooperation-treaty/pct-fees-us-dollars.

International Searching Authority	Search fee in USD	Published RO/US allocation
USPTO	$2,400 large$960 small$480 micro	No numerical limit listed
Korea MOIP	$867	No numerical limit listed
European Patent Office	$2,237	No numerical limit listed
Japan Patent Office	$1,059	500 per quarter; 10,000 total from July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2028
IP Australia	$1,555	250 per quarter
Israel Patent Office	$1,446	100 per applicable fiscal quarter
IP Office of Singapore	$1,816	No numerical limit listed
IP Office of the Philippines	$600	75 per fiscal quarter

Korea’s fee remains $783 through October 31, 2026. “No numerical limit listed” refers to WIPO’s current U.S. Annex. Published allocations do not establish remaining capacity on a particular filing date.

English is usually straightforward for this filing route. RO/US accepts English, and each listed authority can search an English-language application received through it. Selecting Japan or Korea does not itself require translating the application into Japanese or Korean. Capacity deserves a separate check, particularly when relying on an authority with a quarterly allocation. World Intell. Prop. Org., PCT Applicant’s Guide, annex C (United States of America) (Aug. 20, 2026).

Filing through the International Bureau as receiving Office does not automatically expand the choice to every ISA worldwide. Under PCT Rule 35.3, competence generally follows the receiving Offices that could have received the application. Applicant nationality and residence can affect that analysis. PCT Regulations r. 35.3.

Confirm that the important claims will be searched

 

An authority’s availability does not answer every subject-matter question. PCT Rule 39.1 allows an ISA to decline searches in specified categories, including certain business methods, medical methods, and computer programs to the extent the authority is not equipped to search the relevant prior art. The computer-program provision requires a more specific inquiry than a blanket assumption that software cannot be searched. PCT Regulations r. 39.1(iii), (iv), (vi).

The USPTO has declared that it will search subject matter searched in U.S. national applications. The EPO identifies business methods lacking apparent technical character as subject matter it will not search. For claims combining technical features and commercial steps, consider which features the selected authority is likely to evaluate and whether that evaluation will address the invention’s commercial value. U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1843.02 (9th ed., rev. 01.2024) [hereinafter MPEP]; Eur. Pat. Off., Guidelines for Search and Examination at the EPO as PCT Authority, pt. B, ch. VIII, § 2.2 (2026), https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-pct/2026/b_viii_2_2.html.

Older selection charts can also mislead. Japan’s former green-technology restriction for RO/US applications was removed effective July 1, 2018. Israel’s former business-method classification condition was removed effective April 10, 2016. Those changes removed particular bilateral restrictions; the ordinary PCT search rules still apply. U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., Notice Concerning the Japan Patent Office’s Action as an International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority for International Applications Received by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 1454 O.G. 51 (Sept. 4, 2018), https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2018/week36/TOC.htm; U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., Notice Concerning the Israel Patent Office’s Action as an International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority for International Applications Received by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 1, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/mod-ilpo-isa-ipea.pdf (last visited Oct. 28, 2026).

For software, diagnostics, treatment methods, and other claims near an authority’s search limitations, review the current authority-specific guidance before filing. A favorable opinion on a peripheral claim may provide little help with the claim scope the applicant ultimately wants.

The Philippines as a foreign ISA alternative

 

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines, or IPOPHL, became available to RO/US applicants on March 6, 2024 under an eight-year arrangement. The arrangement covers English-language applications selected by the applicant and limits acceptance to 75 applications per fiscal quarter. IPOPHL can also act as International Preliminary Examining Authority when the applicable conditions are met, including that it performed the international search. U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., Philippines IP Office Now an International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority Available to U.S. Applicants Under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (Mar. 6, 2024), https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2024/philippines-ip-office-now-international-searching-authority-and.

At $600, IPOPHL is the least expensive foreign ISA in the comparison. It is $267 below Korea’s announced fee, approximately 31% less. For 20 otherwise comparable applications, the difference would be $5,340 in initial search fees, subject to availability. At the standard foreign-ISA fees used in this comparison, a U.S. micro entity pays less for the USPTO search, at $480.

Before relying on this comparison, check whether IPOPHL’s separate fee reduction applies. WIPO’s Philippines Annex D lists a $200 search fee for applicants meeting its small-entity definition, which includes a PHP100 million asset ceiling for natural or juridical persons and specified Philippine government bodies. That definition differs from U.S. small- and micro-entity status. World Intell. Prop. Org., PCT Applicant’s Guide, annex D (Philippines) (effective Jan. 1, 2026), https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=PH&doc-lang=en&doc-type=annex. The $600 RO/US baseline remains appropriate for this illustration because the applicable eligibility documentation and collection procedure for a particular RO/US applicant require confirmation with the relevant offices. If the $200 rate properly applies, the same ordinary U.S.-entry assumptions below yield $924 for a U.S. small entity or $562 for a U.S. micro entity. Those are conditional calculations, not a determination of eligibility.

That price difference warrants evaluation alongside Korea. Assess experience with the technology, whether the resulting reports explain the relevant prior art clearly, and whether the timing serves the applicant’s next decision. Confirm any expected PPH or Chapter II benefit for the specific route. Price alone establishes neither superior nor inferior search quality.

For a repeat filer, the quarterly allocation also matters operationally. Confirm availability and agree on an alternative ISA before the filing deadline. A portfolio policy can identify IPOPHL as a candidate without requiring its use where capacity or the particular application points elsewhere.

Compare the fees through the planned US entry

 

The international search fee is only the first charge affected by ISA selection. For an applicant expecting U.S. national-stage entry under 35 U.S.C. § 371, the later search fee also depends on the international search. The following ordinary fees apply before the special treatment for qualifying U.S. work products discussed below. The foreign-ISA rate assumes an international search report has been prepared and supplied to the USPTO or communicated by the International Bureau. 37 C.F.R. § 1.492(a), (b)(2)–(3), (c)(2) (2026).

US national-stage component	Large	Small	Micro
Basic national fee	$350	$140	$70
Search after USPTO search	$150	$60	$30
Search after qualifying foreign ISR	$580	$232	$116
Ordinary examination	$880	$352	$176

Adding the initial ISA fee to the applicable basic, search, and examination fees produces the following comparison. It holds entity status and fee rates constant through entry and uses Korea’s announced $867 amount. These totals are selected government fees, rather than a complete filing budget.

ISA fee plus ordinary US entry fees	Large	Small	Micro
USPTO	$3,780	$1,512	$756
Korea MOIP	$2,677	$1,591	$1,229
European Patent Office	$4,047	$2,961	$2,599
Japan Patent Office	$2,869	$1,783	$1,421
IP Australia	$3,365	$2,279	$1,917
Israel Patent Office	$3,256	$2,170	$1,808
IP Office of Singapore	$3,626	$2,540	$2,178
IP Office of the Philippines	$2,410	$1,324	$962

Calculated from the published ISA fees and ordinary U.S. national-stage fees. 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.445(a)(2), 1.492(a), (b)(2)–(3), (c)(2) (2026); U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., PCT Fees in US Dollars (effective Aug. 1, 2026). Korea’s announced November 1 amount is used. Assumes one searched invention, unchanged entity status, and no special reduction, waiver, or refund. Excludes common PCT transmittal and international filing fees, additional searches, excess-claim and size fees, translations, Chapter II, professional fees, and later prosecution. Actual entry-date fees and status may differ.

The small-entity comparison illustrates the effect of Korea’s increase. The USPTO initially costs $93 more: $960 versus $867. Its ordinary national-stage search fee is $172 lower: $60 versus $232. The combined result favors the USPTO by $79. At Korea’s prior $783 rate, Korea instead held a $5 advantage under the same assumptions.

IPOPHL remains less expensive than either in this ordinary small-entity example, at $1,324. For a large entity, Korea saves $1,103 compared with the USPTO, and IPOPHL saves another $267. For a micro entity, the USPTO produces the lowest illustrated total, at $756. These calculations identify fee differences; they do not measure the usefulness of the search.

The comparison also assumes that U.S. entry occurs. An applicant maintaining an existing U.S. application while using the PCT primarily to preserve foreign options may never pay these § 371 fees. Credit a projected national-stage saving only when it belongs to the intended route.

Account for favorable US opinions and bypass continuations

 

The national-stage search and examination fees can both be zero when a qualifying ISA/US written opinion or IPEA/US international preliminary examination report indicates that all claims presented in the application entering the U.S. national stage satisfy novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability under PCT Article 33(1)–(4). The relevant claim set is the one presented at U.S. entry. A favorable determination on a different claim set does not by itself establish entitlement, and a favorable foreign-ISA opinion alone does not trigger these particular provisions. 37 C.F.R. § 1.492(b)(1), (c)(1) (2026); MPEP § 1893.03.

For a small entity with a qualifying ISA/US opinion, the combined fee total would be $960 for the international search plus the $140 basic national fee, or $1,100. That is $412 below the ordinary USPTO example. The benefit is conditional: selecting ISA/US does not assure a favorable opinion.

Applicants receiving that fee treatment must also account for its procedural consequences. Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.496, those applications advance out of turn for examination, but amendments after national-stage processing begins are limited to addressing objections concerning form or canceling rejected claims. The restriction attaches to the specified fee treatment; selecting ISA/US alone does not impose it. Evaluate the $412 small-entity saving together with the applicant’s intended claim amendments. 37 C.F.R. § 1.496 (2026); MPEP § 1893.03.

A qualifying IPEA/US report may also matter after a foreign ISA search, but that route adds examination, handling, and professional costs. Those costs must be included before treating Chapter II as a way to reduce national-stage fees. Its greater value may be the opportunity to obtain an examination record addressing amendments before committing to national prosecution.

The U.S. filing vehicle is equally important. A bypass continuation under § 111(a) uses the § 1.16 fee structure, while § 371 national-stage entry uses § 1.492. Evaluate the procedural reasons for the chosen route and calculate its actual fees. The § 371 search-fee offset cannot simply be carried into a bypass-continuation comparison. 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.16, 1.492 (2026); MPEP § 1896.

Evaluate the EPO when Europe is a likely destination

 

For an applicant expecting European regional-phase entry, the EPO’s higher initial search fee has a different cost context. When the EPO performs the international search, no supplementary European search is ordinarily required. The applicant therefore avoids the associated fee, currently €1,595. Eur. Pat. Off., Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, pt. A, ch. XIV, § 5 (2026), https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2026/a_xiv_5.html.

The examination fee must also be included. It is €2,240 when no supplementary European search report is drawn up, compared with €2,010 when one is drawn up. In the ordinary EPO-versus-Korea comparison, the relevant later charges are therefore as follows. Eur. Pat. Off., Fees for International Applications (applicable Apr. 1, 2026), https://www.epo.org/en/applying/fees/international-fees/important-fees.

European search and examination	EPO was ISA	Korea was ISA
Supplementary European search	€0	€1,595
Examination	€2,240	€2,010
Combined	€2,240	€3,605

The ordinary net advantage at this stage is €1,365. Comparing only the €1,595 search fee would overstate the saving because the examination fee is €230 higher on the EPO-search route. The initial EPO fee is $1,370 above Korea’s announced fee: $2,237 minus $867.

Keep those currencies separate until an explicit budgeting exchange rate is selected. The calculation also assumes standard fees, European entry, and no additional searches or special reductions. Korea’s participation as ISA does not itself qualify the application for the EPO’s fixed supplementary-search fee reduction for specified authorities. Eur. Pat. Off., Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, pt. A, ch. X, § 9.5.1 (2026), https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2026/a_x_9_5_1.html.

The timing of expenditure matters. Choosing the EPO pays more at the international stage in anticipation of a later European saving. An applicant that abandons the application before European entry never realizes that saving. For an applicant entering both the United States and Europe, include the consequences in both jurisdictions, without counting the initial ISA fee twice.

Early EPO feedback can also inform whether to pursue Europe and how to frame the claims there. That information may justify an upfront premium even where the fee arithmetic is close. Its value depends on the applicant’s commercial commitment to Europe and the decisions the report will inform.

Evaluate search coverage and timing alongside price

 

Search quality is difficult to reduce to a country ranking. A more useful review asks whether the authority identifies relevant prior art, explains the objections clearly, and addresses the commercially important claims. Experience with comparable applications and current performance data are more informative than a general assumption that one office is always stricter, faster, or better.

Unity of invention can change the budget substantially. A base search fee does not necessarily cover every invention presented in an application. Before filing, consider additional searches and the consequences of leaving claims unsearched. Korea, for example, lists KRW 1,200,000 for each additional invention searched in an English-language application. World Intell. Prop. Org., PCT Applicant’s Guide, annex D (Republic of Korea).

For an application directed to several related products or technical implementations, review the claim organization alongside the ISA choice. An inexpensive first search can become more costly if additional inventions must be searched, while declining additional searches may leave the applicant with less information about valuable subject matter.

Tie timing to an actual decision. A report needed for licensing discussions, financing, claim amendments, or national-phase budgeting has greater practical value if it arrives before that decision. Review current data and relevant experience rather than assuming every authority will deliver useful results at the same point in the international phase.

The written opinion also has limits. The PCT process does not itself grant a worldwide patent, and national or regional offices decide whether to grant protection. A patentability search addresses whether claims may qualify for patent protection; freedom to operate asks whether commercial activity would infringe enforceable rights. A favorable search result does not answer that separate question. World Intell. Prop. Org., Protecting Your Inventions Abroad: Frequently Asked Questions About the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), questions 1, 18 & 24 (Aug. 2026).

Plan Chapter II and PPH before selecting the ISA

 

ISA selection can affect later examination choices. An optional Chapter II demand allows the applicant to seek international preliminary examination. Check the available IPEAs and their conditions independently. Include handling and examination fees, possible additional-invention fees, and the cost of preparing amendments and argument in the budget. World Intell. Prop. Org., PCT Applicant’s Guide, annex C (United States of America) (Aug. 20, 2026); U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., PCT Fees in US Dollars (effective Aug. 1, 2026).

The EPO generally acts as IPEA only where the international search was performed by the EPO or another European ISA. Among the eight RO/US options discussed here, that makes selecting the EPO at filing consequential for an applicant intending to use EPO Chapter II examination. Eur. Pat. Off., Guidelines for Search and Examination at the EPO as PCT Authority, pt. B, ch. II, § 1.1 (2026), https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-pct/2026/b_ii_1_1.html.

EPO Chapter II examination also affects the later European examination fee. When the EPO prepares a qualifying international preliminary examination report, that fee is reduced by 75%. The reduction does not depend on a favorable patentability conclusion. If the report was restricted under PCT Article 34(3)(c), however, the reduction does not apply where subject matter outside the report is to be examined. Eur. Pat. Off., Rules Relating to Fees, art. 14(2), https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/f14.html (last visited Oct. 28, 2026). For an EPO-ISA application using standard fees and no other reductions, the selected charges are:

Selected fee component	Without EPO Chapter II	With qualifying EPO Chapter II
International preliminary examination	€0	€2,010
Handling fee	€0	€215
European examination	€2,240	€560
Selected total	€2,240	€2,785

The reduced European examination fee is 25% of €2,240, or €560. Adding €2,010 for preliminary examination and the €215 handling fee yields €2,785, a €545 increase over the €2,240 examination fee without Chapter II. Professional costs and possible additional-invention fees increase the difference; other reductions may change it. Assess Chapter II for the value of the additional examination rather than as an automatic fee-saving measure. Eur. Pat. Off., Fees for International Applications (applicable Apr. 1, 2026).

A favorable PCT work product may also support a request under an applicable Patent Prosecution Highway program. For the USPTO’s Global/IP5 framework, at least one claim in the relevant corresponding application or work product must have been found allowable or patentable, all claims in the U.S. application must sufficiently correspond to the favorable claims, and substantive examination of the U.S. application must not have begun. The applicant must also satisfy the other program requirements, including the required supporting documents. U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., Implementation of the Global and IP5 Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Programs with Participating Offices, 2–3, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/global-ip5.pdf (last visited Oct. 28, 2026).

PPH advances the application under the applicable program; it does not provide a route for accelerating selected favorable claims while unrelated broader claims proceed alongside them without satisfying the correspondence requirement. The examining office retains its own patentability judgment. Before pursuing PPH, consider whether the U.S. claim set that meets the program’s requirements also serves the commercial objective. World Intell. Prop. Org., PCT-Patent Prosecution Highway Program (PCT-PPH and Global PPH) (Feb. 12, 2026), https://www.wipo.int/en/web/pct-system/filing/pct_pph.

Make the choice application by application

 

Under the standard foreign-ISA fee baseline used here, a micro entity expecting U.S. § 371 entry has a strong fee reason to evaluate the USPTO first. For a small entity planning the same route, compare the USPTO, Korea, and IPOPHL using the combined costs, then consider whether report usefulness or timing outweighs the difference. For a large entity conserving international-phase cash, Korea and IPOPHL remain credible candidates on price.

For an applicant committed to European prosecution, evaluate the EPO’s later fee offsets and the value of early European examination feedback. Japan, Australia, Israel, or Singapore may fit a particular application based on relevant experience, search expectations, or the intended examination route. Tie the choice to the application and the applicant’s plans.

A short selection note can make the decision repeatable: confirm competence and capacity, record entity status and likely national phases, compare the fees that will actually be incurred, and identify any important search, timing, Chapter II, or PPH considerations. Record the reason for the selected ISA with the filing instructions. The resulting choice may still be Korea, but it will reflect the present application and current fees.