Small Entity Status Does Not Travel: Patent-Fee Relief at the EPO, JPO, Korean MOIP, and CNIPA

Executive Summary: “Small entity” and “micro entity” are not portable characteristics of a patent applicant. They are classifications created by U.S. law for particular applications and patents before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). A company that pays small-entity fees at the USPTO does not automatically receive a corresponding reduction before the European Patent Office (“EPO”), Japan Patent Office (“JPO”), Korea’s Ministry of Intellectual Property (“MOIP”), or China National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”). Conversely, an applicant that is too large, too experienced, or otherwise ineligible for a USPTO reduction may qualify under a foreign office’s distinct policy-based, applicant-category, or financial-need rules.

The systems nevertheless have functional analogues. The EPO now offers a 30% reduction in specified fees to qualifying microentities with a limited recent filing history. Japan provides targeted reductions or exemptions, commonly one-half or one-third of selected fees, to specified individuals, small businesses, startups, universities, and research organizations. Korea provides reductions tied to the applicant’s legal category, including substantial relief for individual inventor-applicants and qualifying small and medium enterprises. China uses income and taxable-income thresholds rather than a formal small- or micro-entity classification.

The practical lesson is that fee status must be analyzed office by office, application by application, and fee by fee. Counsel should verify the rights holders, affiliates, filing history, income or tax figures, documentary requirements, and timing rules before budgeting for or paying a reduced fee.

Office	Closest mechanism	Typical reduction	Central qualification model
USPTO	Small entity / micro entity	60% / 80%	Rights-holder type, affiliates, transfers, income, and filing history
EPO	Rule 7a microentity reduction	30%	Applicant category plus limited recent European filing activity
JPO	Statutory fee reductions and exemptions	Commonly 1/2 or 1/3	Specified individuals, SMEs, startups, universities, and research entities
Korean MOIP	Applicant-category reductions	Commonly 70%; up to 85% for specified inventor-applicants	Individual inventor-applicant, SME, and other statutory categories
CNIPA	Patent-fee reduction	85% for one qualifying applicant; 70% for qualifying joint applicants	Individual income, enterprise taxable income, or institutional category

I. Introduction

Cross-border patent budgeting often begins with a deceptively simple question: “Is the applicant a small entity?” That question is incomplete outside the United States. Each patent office defines the policy objective, eligible applicant, covered fee, supporting evidence, and relevant date for itself. A status asserted in a U.S. national application does not travel through the Paris Convention or the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and it does not bind a foreign or regional office.

The word “equivalent” therefore requires care. None of the EPO, JPO, Korean MOIP, or CNIPA systems is an exact equivalent of both U.S. classifications. The closest comparison is functional: each office offers some form of official-fee relief to selected applicants, but the legal tests differ materially. Those differences are especially consequential for multinational corporate groups, inventor-owned startups, university technology-transfer programs, and applicants whose ownership changes during prosecution.

Because the foreign systems are easier to understand when contrasted with the U.S. baseline, this article first explains U.S. small- and micro-entity status for attorneys practicing primarily in Europe, China, Korea, or Japan. It then addresses the closest forms of fee relief available in the other four systems.

II. United States: The Baseline Small- and Micro-Entity Regimes

The United States uses two application-specific fee classifications: small entity and micro entity. A qualifying small entity receives a 60% reduction on most USPTO patent fees, while a qualifying micro entity receives an 80% reduction. 35 U.S.C. § 41(h)(1); U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., Save on Fees with Small and Micro Entity Status (July 27, 2023). The reductions apply to many filing, search, examination, issue, appeal, and maintenance fees, but not necessarily every USPTO charge; the current fee schedule should therefore be consulted for the particular fee.

A. Small-Entity Status

Small-entity status is available to three classes of rights holders:

An inventor or other individual who has not transferred, licensed, or become obligated to transfer rights in the invention to a party that is not itself a small entity;

A small business concern that satisfies the Small Business Administration’s patent-fee size standard; or

A qualifying nonprofit organization.

37 C.F.R. § 1.27(a)(1)–(3) (2026).

For a business, the usual numerical test is no more than 500 employees, including employees of its affiliates. 13 C.F.R. § 121.802(a) (2026). “Affiliate” is broader than a formally named parent or subsidiary: affiliation may arise when one entity controls or has the power to control another, or when a third party controls or has the power to control both. Ownership, management, prior relationships, contractual relationships, and the totality of the circumstances may all be relevant. In calculating size, the Small Business Administration counts employees of both domestic and foreign affiliates. 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a) (2026).

This affiliate rule is particularly important for foreign applicants. A foreign subsidiary with only fifty employees does not necessarily qualify if it is controlled by a multinational group whose aggregated workforce exceeds 500. Conversely, there is no U.S.-residence or U.S.-nationality requirement: individuals, qualifying businesses, universities, and other qualifying nonprofits may claim small-entity status regardless of the country in which they are located. U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 509.02(IV) (9th ed. Rev. 01.2024).

Satisfying the employee test is not enough. No inventor, business, or nonprofit may have assigned, licensed, or become obligated to assign or license U.S. rights in the invention to a party that would not independently qualify as a small entity. 37 C.F.R. § 1.27(a)(1)–(3). Accordingly, foreign counsel should examine employment agreements, research agreements, joint-development arrangements, licenses, options, and obligations to assign—not merely the recorded assignee. An obligation to transfer rights to a large company can defeat small-entity status even before a formal assignment is executed.

Qualifying nonprofits include universities and other institutions of higher education located in any country, qualifying U.S. tax-exempt organizations, nonprofit scientific or educational organizations formed under U.S. state law, and certain foreign nonprofits that would satisfy the corresponding U.S. nonprofit criteria. 37 C.F.R. § 1.27(a)(3).

Small-entity status must be asserted in each application or patent in which reduced fees are sought. A new assertion is required in a continuation, divisional, continuation-in-part, or reissue application; status in a parent application does not automatically carry forward. Ordinarily, one proper assertion remains effective until withdrawn. Entitlement must be reconsidered when an issue fee or maintenance fee becomes due, and loss of entitlement must be affirmatively reported—simply paying an undiscounted fee is not itself sufficient notice. 37 C.F.R. § 1.27(c)–(g).

B. Micro-Entity Status

Micro-entity status is not an alternative to small-entity status. It is a narrower classification available only after the application or patent satisfies the small-entity requirements. The applicant must then qualify under either the gross-income basis or the institution-of-higher-education basis. 35 U.S.C. § 123; 37 C.F.R. § 1.29 (2026).

1. Gross-Income Basis

The gross-income basis has four cumulative requirements:

The application or patent must qualify for small-entity status, without relying on the special federal-government-use-license exception.

Neither an applicant nor any inventor or joint inventor may have been named on more than four counted, previously filed patent applications.

Each applicant and inventor must have had preceding-calendar-year gross income no greater than the USPTO’s current maximum qualifying gross income.

No applicant or inventor may have assigned, licensed, or become obligated to transfer an ownership interest to an entity whose preceding-calendar-year gross income exceeds that same limit.

35 U.S.C. § 123(a); 37 C.F.R. § 1.29(a).

As of July 16, 2026, the maximum qualifying gross income is $251,190. The USPTO generally revises this figure annually after the Census Bureau reports median household income. Each applicant, inventor, and party with an ownership interest must separately satisfy the limit; their incomes are not added together and compared against a single collective ceiling. U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., Micro Entity Status §§ 2.1, 2.3 (last updated Mar. 25, 2026).

For a person who is not a U.S. taxpayer, gross income is calculated under the U.S. federal tax definition as though the person were filing a U.S. return. Gross income—not adjusted gross income—is the relevant figure. Foreign-currency income must be converted into U.S. dollars using the Internal Revenue Service’s average exchange rate for the applicable calendar year. 35 U.S.C. § 123(c); 37 C.F.R. § 1.29(c).

2. The Fifth and Sixth Applications

The application-filing limit is frequently misunderstood. The statute disqualifies a person who had been named on “more than four previously filed” counted applications. The application currently being filed is not previous to itself. Consequently, the fifth counted application ordinarily may qualify because only four counted applications preceded it.

Assuming the same sole inventor, no applicable exclusions, and satisfaction of all other requirements:

Application being filed	Counted earlier applications	Filing-limit result
First	0	Passes
Second	1	Passes
Third	2	Passes
Fourth	3	Passes
Fifth	4	Passes
Sixth	5	Fails for the sixth application

The filing of the fifth application does not cause the first four applications to lose micro-entity eligibility. Likewise, filing the sixth application does not retroactively disqualify any of the first five. The sixth application ordinarily fails the gross-income filing-history test, but the filing-history prong remains satisfied in the earlier applications. The USPTO expressly states that “the filing of a future sixth application will not jeopardize entitlement to micro entity status in any of the five applications already filed.” MPEP § 509.04(a)(I)(B).

This conclusion concerns only the application-filing prong. The original applications may still lose entitlement for another reason—for example, an inventor’s income may rise above the applicable threshold, rights may be transferred or obligated to a nonqualifying entity, small-entity status may be lost, or a nonqualifying inventor may be added. Those other requirements must continue to be evaluated when fees are paid.

Counted applications generally include earlier U.S. nonprovisional utility, design, and plant applications; continuations and divisionals; reissue applications; PCT applications entering the U.S. national stage; and Hague international design applications designating the United States. Applications count whether pending, patented, or abandoned and whether or not a discount was claimed in them. Foreign applications, U.S. provisional applications, and PCT applications for which the U.S. national-stage fee was not paid are generally excluded. 37 C.F.R. § 1.29(a)(2), (b); MPEP § 509.04(a)(I)(B).

There is also a limited exclusion for a prior application in which the individual assigned, or was obligated to assign, all ownership rights as a result of employment with a previous employer. 35 U.S.C. § 123(b). The exception requires previous employment; it does not ordinarily cover applications arising from the inventor’s own enterprise.

Once an inventor has reached the limit through five counted applications, a future-filed application normally cannot qualify under the gross-income basis—even if that future application is itself an excluded type, such as a provisional application. Exclusion means the provisional does not increase the count; it does not undo a limit already reached. Micro Entity Status, supra, § 2.2.

3. Institution-of-Higher-Education Basis

The second route does not impose the gross-income or application-count limits. The applicant must qualify as a small entity and must either receive a majority of the applicant’s income from an institution of higher education as defined by § 101(a) of the Higher Education Act, or have assigned, licensed, or become obligated to assign or license an ownership interest in the particular application to such an institution. 35 U.S.C. § 123(d); 37 C.F.R. § 1.29(d).

For this route, “institution of higher education” is limited to a qualifying U.S. institution. This differs from the small-entity nonprofit definition, under which a foreign university may qualify as a small entity. A foreign university therefore may support small-entity status but cannot, merely because it is a university, support micro-entity status under the higher-education route. U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., Micro Entity Status §§ 3.2–3.4.2. The route is applicant-based: the qualifying applicant certifies the required employment or ownership relationship; the university does not become a micro entity simply by owning the application.

Because the higher-education route does not use the four-previous-application limitation, a sixth or later application that fails the gross-income route may nevertheless qualify under the higher-education route if all of that route’s requirements are met.

C. Certification and Continuing Eligibility

Micro-entity status must be established by a written certification in each application or patent before or at the time the first micro-entity fee is paid. The USPTO provides Form PTO/SB/15A for the gross-income basis and Form PTO/SB/15B for the higher-education basis. A separate certification is required for a continuation, divisional, continuation-in-part, or reissue application. 37 C.F.R. § 1.29(e)–(f); MPEP § 509.04.

Once filed, the certification need not be resubmitted with every fee. Nevertheless, entitlement must be reevaluated on the date of every micro-entity fee payment. If any requirement is no longer satisfied, the applicant or patent owner must file a notification of loss of entitlement before or with the next fee payment and pay the applicable small-entity or undiscounted amount. Merely paying the higher amount does not constitute the required notification. 37 C.F.R. § 1.29(g)–(i).

Accordingly, filing a fifth—or even a sixth—application creates no automatic loss of micro-entity status in the earlier cases. The earlier applications remain eligible under the filing-history requirement, but income, ownership, small-entity status, and the identity of the applicants and inventors must still be checked at every subsequent micro-fee payment.

III. European Patent Office: A Genuine Micro-Entity Scheme, but Not the U.S. Model

Since April 1, 2024, the EPO has offered a true “micro-entity” fee-reduction program. The terminology resembles U.S. practice, but the eligibility rules do not. EPO micro-entity treatment is based on the identity and recent EPO filing activity of the applicant, not the inventor’s income, prior U.S. filing history, or obligations to assign the invention.

An applicant may qualify if it is a natural person, microenterprise, nonprofit organization, university, or public research organization. A microenterprise must employ fewer than ten persons and have annual turnover or an annual balance-sheet total not exceeding €2 million. Affiliate relationships matter: staff and financial data from partner or linked enterprises may have to be included under the applicable European Commission methodology. Larger SMEs that do not meet the microenterprise limits are not eligible for the principal micro-entity reduction. Implementing Regulations to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents r. 7a(3) (2026); European Patent Office, Guidelines for Examination pt. A-X, §§ 9.3.1, 9.4.1 (2026).

Unlike the language-based EPO reduction discussed below, micro-entity treatment is available regardless of the applicant’s nationality, residence, or principal place of business. A natural person or qualifying microenterprise in China, Japan, Korea, or the United States may therefore qualify. European Patent Office, Guidelines for Examination pt. A-X, § 9.4.1 (2026). The program is applicant-based, however. If there are multiple applicants, every applicant must fall within an eligible category and satisfy the filing-volume limitation. EPC r. 7a(5). A qualifying individual cannot preserve the reduction by remaining a nominal co-applicant with an ineligible corporate applicant.

A. The Five-Application, Five-Year Cap

The EPO reduction is intended for applicants with relatively little experience before the EPO. It is unavailable if the same applicant filed five or more European applications or Euro-PCT applications during the five years preceding the relevant date of the application for which the reduction is sought. EPC r. 7a(4).

For a direct European application, the relevant date is its filing date. For a Euro-PCT application, it is the date of entry into the European phase. For a divisional application, it is the date on which the divisional is received. Earlier applications count whether pending, withdrawn, deemed withdrawn, refused, or granted and whether or not they themselves received a reduction. European Patent Office, Notice Concerning Fee-Related Support Measures for Small Entities ¶¶ 21–26, 2024 O.J. EPO A8.

As with the U.S. micro-entity filing limit, the EPO’s fifth application may qualify: if only four applications fall within the preceding five-year period, the applicant has filed “fewer than five” earlier applications. The sixth application ordinarily will not qualify if all five earlier applications remain within the rolling window. Unlike the U.S. filing-history test, however, the EPO window can reopen as earlier applications age beyond five years.

The cap is ordinarily fixed by the relevant date of each application, so a later filing does not retroactively become an earlier filing for an application already on file. Transfers present a special complication. For future payments, a transferred application is attributed to the new applicant, and that attribution can alter the cap calculation for the transferred application and for the new owner’s other pending applications. The new applicant must also file a new eligibility declaration. Id. ¶¶ 16, 24.

B. Amount and Scope of the Reduction

The reduction is 30% of the applicable fee—that is, the applicant pays 70%, not 30%. Rules Relating to Fees art. 14(1) (2026). It applies to:

The filing fee, including additional page fees forming part of the filing fee;

The European search fee or applicable supplementary European search fee;

The examination fee;

The designation fee;

The fee for grant; and

Renewal fees payable on the pending European application.

EPC r. 7a(3); European Patent Office, Guidelines for Examination pt. A-X, § 9.4.2 (2026).

The program applies to qualifying payments made on or after April 1, 2024, even for applications filed earlier. It does not generally reduce fees incurred during the PCT international phase before European entry. Where the EPO acted as the International Searching Authority, however, the examination-fee calculation in the European phase includes an additional reduction based on the effective international-search fee previously paid. Id.

The Rule 7a(3) list is exhaustive. The principal micro-entity reduction does not cover claims fees, opposition fees, fees for further processing or restoration, or national validation and post-grant renewal fees. Pending-application renewal fees are covered only through grant. After grant, renewal fees for a conventional European patent are governed by the national law of each validation state; Unitary Patent renewal fees are governed by the separate Unitary Patent fee regime.

C. Declaration, Evidence, and Consequences of Error

The applicant must expressly declare eligibility no later than the first reduced payment. The declaration may be made on EPO Form 1001, EPO Form 1200 for European-phase entry, or separately on Form 1011. Filing a declaration later is possible, but the reduction applies only to fees paid after the declaration; there is no retroactive reduction of fees already paid at the full amount. Implementing Regulations to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents r. 7b(1) (2026); Notice Concerning Fee-Related Support Measures, supra, ¶¶ 13–18.

Eligibility must exist when each affected fee is paid. A change in status must be reported no later than the next affected payment. The EPO may conduct checks and request supporting evidence. An incorrect declaration, or an unreported status change followed by payment of a reduced amount, generally means that the fee is deemed unpaid and the application deemed withdrawn. EPC r. 7b(2)–(4). Legal remedies may be available, but they require curing the underpayment and satisfying the requirements for the particular remedy. An error involving only the five-application cap is treated somewhat more leniently: the EPO ordinarily invites payment of the shortfall within two months. Notice Concerning Fee-Related Support Measures, supra, ¶¶ 19–20, 25–26.

D. Related EPO Relief for “Small Entities”

The EPO also maintains programs that use a broader “small entity” population. These should be analyzed separately from Rule 7a(3) micro-entity treatment.

First, a 30% language-related reduction applies to filing and examination fees for microenterprises, SMEs, natural persons, nonprofits, universities, and public research organizations that satisfy both geographic and language conditions. The applicant must have its residence or principal place of business in an EPC contracting state having an official language other than English, French, or German—or be a national of such a state residing abroad—and must file the relevant application documents or request for examination in that admissible non-EPO language. EPC r. 7a(1)–(2); European Patent Office, Guidelines for Examination pt. A-X, § 9.3.1 (2026). A Chinese, Japanese, or Korean company does not qualify merely by filing in Chinese, Japanese, or Korean because those are not official languages of EPC contracting states.

The language and micro-entity reductions may be combined sequentially. On a €1,000 fee, the first 30% reduction produces €700 and the second produces €490—a combined saving of 51%, not 60%. Notice Concerning Fee-Related Support Measures, supra, ¶¶ 27–28.

Second, SMEs and the other Rule 7a(2) entities may qualify for the reduced appeal fee even if they are too large for the microenterprise program and regardless of the five-application cap. For appeals filed on or after April 1, 2026, the reduced appeal fee is €2,015 rather than €2,925. Decision of the Administrative Council of 11 December 2025, art. 2(1), item 11, 2026 O.J. EPO A2. A principal place of business outside Europe does not itself prevent an otherwise qualifying SME from using this reduced appeal fee. J 0008/18, ECLI:EP:BA:2019:J000818.20190327 (EPO Legal Bd. App. Mar. 27, 2019).

Finally, an EU-based SME, natural person, nonprofit, university, or public research organization may request €500 in Unitary Patent translation-cost compensation if the underlying application was filed in an official EU language other than English, French, or German. The request must accompany the request for unitary effect. European Patent Office, Unitary Patent Guide ¶¶ 94–98 (2024). That compensation has EU residence or principal-place-of-business restrictions and therefore is materially narrower geographically than the Rule 7a(3) micro-entity program.

IV. Japan Patent Office: Category-Specific Reductions Rather Than a Portable Status

Japan does not have one universal “small entity” or “micro entity” status that automatically follows an applicant throughout prosecution. Instead, the JPO administers a menu of statutory reductions and exemptions tied to particular applicant categories and particular fee events. The legal authority appears principally in Articles 109, 109-2, 195-2, and 195-2-2 of the Patent Act. Patent Act, Act No. 121 of 1959, arts. 109, 109-2, 195-2, 195-2-2 (Japan).

For Japanese national applications subject to the post-April 1, 2019 system, the principal reductions are:

Applicant category	Examination-request fee	Patent fees
Ordinary SMEs, R&D-oriented SMEs, and qualifying tax-exempt SMEs	Reduced to 1/2	Years 1–10 reduced to 1/2
Small-scale enterprises and qualifying startups	Reduced to 1/3	Years 1–10 reduced to 1/3
University researchers, universities, qualifying TLOs, and specified public R&D entities	Reduced to 1/2	Years 1–10 reduced to 1/2
Public-assistance recipients and qualifying municipal-tax-exempt individuals	Exempt	Years 1–3 exempt; years 4–10 reduced to 1/2
Qualifying income-tax-exempt individuals and enterprise-tax-exempt sole proprietors	Reduced to 1/2	Years 1–10 reduced to 1/2
Certain Fukushima-reconstruction-qualified SMEs	Reduced to 1/4	Years 1–10 reduced to 1/4

Japan Patent Office, Patent Fee Reduction/Exemption Program 1–8 (updated May 9, 2025).

“Reduced to one-half” means a 50% reduction, while “reduced to one-third” means an approximately 66.7% reduction. This linguistic distinction is important when comparing the JPO program with the EPO’s “30% reduction.”

The relief does not ordinarily reduce the initial Japanese patent-application filing fee. It applies principally to the examination-request fee and patent fees for years one through ten. Patent fees after the tenth year remain payable at the ordinary rate. It likewise does not establish a reduced rate for every appeal, trial, extension, or miscellaneous procedural fee.

A. Business-Size and Ownership Requirements

The ordinary SME definition varies by industry and may be satisfied through either employee count or stated capital. For example, a manufacturing, construction, or transportation company generally qualifies with no more than 300 employees or no more than ¥300 million in capital. The thresholds are lower for wholesale, retail, and most service businesses, while special thresholds apply to software, information-processing, hotel, and certain rubber-products businesses. An eligible SME also generally must not be controlled by large enterprises. Japan Patent Office, Patent Fee Reduction/Exemption Program 2–4.

A “small-scale” enterprise—the closest JPO analogue to a microenterprise—generally has no more than twenty employees, or no more than five employees if engaged in commerce or services, and must satisfy the applicable independence requirements. A qualifying startup corporation generally must have been established no more than ten years earlier, have stated capital or total contributions not exceeding ¥300 million, and not be controlled by a large enterprise. A startup sole proprietorship generally must have been established no more than ten years earlier. Id. at 3–5.

These ownership rules are practically important. A business may satisfy the employee and capital limits but lose eligibility because one large enterprise owns at least one-half of its equity or multiple large enterprises collectively own at least two-thirds. Counsel should therefore review the capitalization table and affiliate relationships, not merely the applicant’s headcount.

B. Foreign Applicants May Qualify

The core JPO reductions are not categorically limited to Japanese applicants. Foreign companies and sole proprietorships may qualify as SMEs, startups, small-scale enterprises, or R&D-oriented SMEs under substantially the same criteria applied to Japanese applicants. Foreign universities and university researchers also may qualify if they are equivalent to the Japanese institutions or positions described in the rules. Japan Patent Office, Patent Fee Reduction/Exemption Program 8.

Foreign equivalents of cooperatives and nonprofit organizations must satisfy additional organizational requirements, including legal-personality and governing-document requirements. Foreign individuals seeking tax-based relief are tested using specified income equivalents. The JPO currently identifies thresholds of less than ¥1.5 million for the foreign equivalent of municipal-tax-exempt status, less than ¥2.5 million for income-tax-exempt status, and less than ¥2.9 million of qualifying real-estate and business income for the enterprise-tax-exempt sole-proprietor category. Japan Patent Office, Fee-Reduction System for Cases in Which Examination Was Requested on or After April 1, 2019 Q.1 (updated May 9, 2025) (Japanese).

Some categories are inherently domestic and are unavailable to foreign applicants, including the Japanese public-assistance category, specified Japanese independent administrative institutions, approved Japanese TLOs, and the Fukushima-reconstruction category. Id. Thus, a foreign applicant should not assume either that all JPO reductions are domestic-only or that every Japanese category has a foreign equivalent.

C. The 180-Application Annual Cap

Since April 1, 2024, certain examination-fee reductions have been subject to a limit of 180 applications per applicant during each Japanese fiscal year, running from April 1 through March 31. The cap applies to ordinary SMEs, R&D-oriented SMEs, corporation-tax-exempt SMEs, income-tax-exempt individuals, and enterprise-tax-exempt sole proprietors. Japan Patent Office, Notice Concerning Revision of the Examination-Request-Fee Reduction System §§ 2–3 (Jan. 31, 2024) (Japanese).

Small-scale enterprises, qualifying startups, public-assistance and municipal-tax-exempt individuals, academic and specified research entities, and Fukushima-qualified SMEs are excluded from the cap. The limitation applies only to examination-request-fee relief; it does not cap reductions in patent fees. Id. §§ 2–4.

The count is maintained per applicant. A jointly owned application is counted once for each co-applicant that claims a reduction subject to the cap. An application that later is abandoned, withdrawn, or made the subject of an examination-fee refund generally remains in the count. If the same application receives a reduction when examination is requested and later receives relief on additional examination fees caused by an increase in claims, it is not counted a second time for the same applicant. The 181st approved request generally triggers an instruction to pay the full amount. Id.

D. Joint Ownership Produces a Proportional Reduction

Japan differs materially from the EPO when an application has mixed qualifying and nonqualifying owners. At the EPO, every applicant must qualify for the Rule 7a reduction. At the JPO, the reduced amount is generally calculated according to each qualifying applicant’s ownership share.

For example, if two applicants each own one-half of the right, one pays the ordinary rate, and the other qualifies for a one-half reduction, the aggregate amount payable is three-quarters of the ordinary fee: one-half at the ordinary rate plus one-half of the remaining one-half share. The examination-request or patent-fee filing must identify the qualifying party, its share, and the resulting payment ratio. Japan Patent Office, Fee-Reduction System for Cases in Which Examination Was Requested on or After April 1, 2019 § 3(2), (5) (updated May 9, 2025) (Japanese).

E. Timing and Documentation

Eligibility is determined separately at the relevant transaction: when examination is requested, when an amendment increasing the number of claims creates an additional examination fee, or when a covered patent fee is paid. A reduction request must be made at the same time as that filing or payment. It cannot ordinarily be added retroactively. Id. Qs.4–5.

For the current system, a separate reduction application and supporting certificates generally are not filed. Instead, the examination-request form or patent-fee payment form must contain the prescribed statement identifying the applicable reduction category and stating that submission of a separate reduction application is omitted. Joint applications also must identify the qualifying applicant and ownership share. Japan Patent Office, Patent Fee Reduction/Exemption Program 7. The procedural waiver of certificates does not eliminate the substantive requirements; applicants should retain records supporting employee count, capital, ownership, age, tax, and institutional status.

F. Japanese-Language PCT Applications

Separate relief is available for certain PCT international applications filed in Japanese. Depending on the applicant category, JPO transmittal, international-search, and preliminary-examination fees may be reduced to one-half, one-third, or one-quarter, and corresponding portions of the international filing and handling fees may be supported by the JPO. Id. at 1–6.

That program should not be confused with entry into the Japanese national phase. It applies to qualifying Japanese-language international filings and is subject to receiving-office and applicant-eligibility requirements. It does not create a general reduced Japanese national-phase filing fee for every foreign SME.

V. Korea: Applicant-Based Reductions with Special Treatment for Inventor-Applicants

Korea does not use the labels “small entity” or “micro entity.” Its system instead grants fee reductions to specified classes of applicants and patentees. The administering office is now the Ministry of Intellectual Property (“MOIP”), which replaced the Korean Intellectual Property Office upon the ministry’s inauguration on October 1, 2025. Ministry of Intellectual Property, On the Day of Inauguration, MOIP Embarks on Global Cooperation with WIPO (Oct. 15, 2025).

The most important category for foreign applicants is the natural-person inventor-applicant. The individual must be both the inventor and the applicant or patentee. An inventor-applicant between nineteen and twenty-nine years old, or at least sixty-five years old, receives an 85% reduction in the application fee, examination-request fee, and patent fees for the first three years. Other individual inventor-applicants receive a 70% reduction in those fees. For individuals, the enhanced application-fee reduction generally applies to the first twenty applications of each right type per year; applications beyond that limit receive a 30% application-fee reduction. Beginning with the fourth year, an individual patentee generally receives a 50% reduction in annual patent fees. Rules on Collection of Patent Fees, Etc., Prime Ministerial Ordinance No. 2098, art. 7 & tbl. 5 (S. Kor. effective Feb. 27, 2026); Table 5, notes 2–3.

A business qualifying as an SME under Article 2(1) of Korea’s Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises receives a 70% reduction in the application fee, examination-request fee, and first-three-year patent fees, followed by a 50% reduction in annual patent fees beginning with year four. Individuals and statutory SMEs also receive a 70% reduction in certain proceedings seeking confirmation of the scope of their own rights. Rules on Collection of Patent Fees, Etc., art. 7(1) & tbl. 5.

Joint applicants ordinarily receive the usual reductions only if every applicant qualifies. When the applicants qualify at different rates, MOIP averages their rates and rounds any fractional result upward. Korea also recognizes a narrower 50% early-fee reduction for an application covering the results of contracted joint research between a qualifying SME and a non-SME. That exception should not be confused with a general proportional reduction for mixed joint applicants. Id. art. 7(5) & tbl. 5, note 5.

The individual category contains no express nationality limitation. A U.S. inventor who remains the Korean applicant should therefore generally be able to claim it, subject to providing acceptable identity, age, and inventorship evidence. A U.S. corporation, however, cannot establish Korean SME eligibility merely by asserting USPTO small-entity status. It must demonstrate that it falls within the Korean statutory category and provide the evidence MOIP requires. A Korean subsidiary may qualify based on its own size, ownership, and affiliate relationships even when its foreign parent does not.

The reduction must be identified, and supporting evidence supplied, with the relevant filing, examination request, registration payment, or later annuity payment. Documents already on file may sometimes be omitted, although MOIP may demand renewed proof. If an otherwise eligible applicant failed to request a reduction, the rules permit a post-payment refund request within five years, provided the applicant proves that it qualified when the fee was paid. Id. art. 7(6)–(8). An assignment can therefore have a direct fee consequence: transferring an application from the inventor to a company ordinarily ends individual-inventor treatment for later fees unless the company independently qualifies. Ownership should not, however, be structured around official-fee savings without considering employment obligations, chain of title, financing, enforcement, and tax consequences.

VI. China: Means-Tested Fee Relief Rather Than Entity Status

China’s National Intellectual Property Administration uses a financial-need test rather than a formal small- or micro-entity classification. An individual qualifies when the person’s average monthly income during the preceding year was below RMB 5,000, equivalent to RMB 60,000 annually. An enterprise qualifies when its taxable income for the preceding year was below RMB 1 million. Public institutions, social organizations, and nonprofit research institutions constitute additional eligible categories. Ministry of Finance & National Development and Reform Commission, Measures for Reduction of Patent Fees, Cai Shui No. 78 of 2016, art. 3 (China July 27, 2016), as modified by CNIPA, Announcement No. 316 on Adjusting the Conditions for Reduction of Patent Fees and Trademark Registration Fees, para. 1 (June 28, 2019).

A sole qualifying applicant or patentee receives an 85% reduction and thus pays 15% of the covered fee. When two or more persons or entities are joint applicants or co-owners, every participant must independently qualify, and the reduction falls to 70%, leaving 30% payable. Measures for Reduction of Patent Fees arts. 3–4. Adding a commercially stronger co-applicant can therefore eliminate the reduction altogether rather than merely reducing it in proportion to ownership.

Covered charges include the application fee, excluding publication-printing charges and application surcharges; the substantive-examination fee for an invention application; the reexamination fee; and annual fees for the first ten years beginning with the grant year. Id. art. 2; CNIPA, Announcement No. 272 on Suspending and Adjusting Certain Patent Fees, para. 2 (Nov. 30, 2018). The percentage reduction is therefore substantial, but it does not extend to every CNIPA charge or to annuities after year ten.

CNIPA requires advance qualification and supporting documentation. An employed individual submits prior-year income evidence from the employer; a person without fixed employment submits an economic-hardship certificate from the designated local civil-affairs or governmental authority. An enterprise submits its prior-year enterprise-income-tax return, or the return from two years earlier while the current annual tax settlement remains pending. Covered institutions provide legal-person documentation. Once CNIPA approves an applicant’s electronic qualification record, additional requests during the same calendar year generally do not require resubmission of the underlying evidence. Measures for Reduction of Patent Fees arts. 6–7.

Timing is unforgiving. A request to reduce the application fee must accompany the patent application. Requests concerning other fees may be filed with the application or later, but must be submitted at least two and one-half months before the relevant payment deadline. Relief is available only for fees that have not yet become due. Id. art. 5. If the applicant or patentee changes after approval—for example, through an assignment—Article 10 requires the successor to file a new reduction request for unpaid future fees. False financial information or fabricated evidence can produce revocation, recovery of previously reduced fees, and loss of eligibility for five years. Id. arts. 10–11.

The measures contain no express nationality exclusion, but the evidentiary regime is structured around Chinese income certificates, governmental hardship certifications, enterprise-income-tax returns, and electronic identity records. CNIPA’s published primary guidance does not clearly state when foreign tax returns or substitute foreign documents will be accepted. A foreign applicant therefore should not budget on the assumption that the reduction will be available merely because it satisfies the numerical thresholds. Chinese counsel should confirm both documentary acceptability and electronic-filing feasibility before the reduction is claimed.

VII. A Practical Cross-Border Review

The comparison reveals why a single global “small entity” field in a docketing system is insufficient. A reliable review should be conducted separately for each office and should address at least the following questions:

Who is legally relevant? Identify the applicants, inventors, patentees, assignees, licensees, obligated transferees, affiliates, and controlling owners that the particular system requires counsel to test.

Which eligibility category applies? Determine whether relief depends on an individual inventor, a business-size test, a microenterprise definition, startup age, university or research status, income, taxable income, prior filing activity, or another statutory category.

What is the relevant date? Some tests apply at filing, some when examination is requested, some whenever a fee is paid, and some during a specified prior calendar or fiscal year.

Which fee is actually reduced? Do not assume that an eligible applicant receives a reduction on every charge. Claims fees, appeal fees, extension fees, post-grant renewal fees, and PCT fees often follow separate rules.

What declaration or evidence is required? A self-certification, prescribed form statement, tax return, income certificate, employee count, ownership chart, or governmental certificate may be required. The absence of a routine evidence filing does not eliminate the duty to possess a reasonable factual basis.

Can the request be made later? The USPTO, EPO, JPO, Korean MOIP, and CNIPA differ significantly on retroactive requests, refunds, shortfall notices, and consequences of underpayment.

Has ownership or status changed? Assignments, licenses, financings, corporate reorganizations, new co-applicants, inventor corrections, income changes, and additional filings can affect future payments even when earlier payments were proper.

For multinational applicants, the safest budgeting practice is to assume full official fees until local counsel confirms both substantive eligibility and procedural readiness. Any anticipated reduction should be identified as jurisdiction-specific and conditional rather than carried forward automatically from another office.

VIII. Conclusion

The EPO, JPO, Korean MOIP, and CNIPA each provide meaningful patent-fee relief, but none simply adopts the USPTO’s small- and micro-entity framework. The EPO uses the closest terminology yet combines applicant category with a rolling European filing-volume test. Japan uses a detailed menu of category-specific reductions and, in mixed ownership, may calculate relief proportionally. Korea gives particularly strong relief to qualifying individual inventor-applicants and statutory SMEs. China uses income and taxable-income thresholds supported by a document-intensive qualification process.

The U.S. system is itself more nuanced than its labels suggest. Small-entity status depends on the full rights-and-affiliation picture, while micro-entity status adds income, ownership, and—under the gross-income route—filing-history requirements. That filing-history rule ordinarily permits the fifth counted application, not merely the first four, and filing a fifth or sixth application does not retroactively disqualify the earlier applications. Those earlier files nevertheless must continue to satisfy the other requirements whenever a micro-entity fee is paid.

The sound cross-border approach is therefore not to ask whether an applicant “is” a small or micro entity in the abstract. Counsel should ask whether the particular application, applicant group, rights structure, fee, and payment date satisfy the particular office’s current rules.