直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

Which International Search Authority Is Right for Me?

September 14, 2020

World Intellectual Property Review

By Maeve O'Flynn; K. Victoria Barker, Ph.D.

When filing a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application, applicants must select an international search authority (ISA) to compile the international search report and written opinion. The search report highlights relevant prior art, while the written opinion provides a non-binding opinion on patentability.

This information will likely influence a prosecution strategy in the national and regional phases of the application process. Getting the “right” ISA can be important, but what does “right” mean in this context?

While most receiving offices allow applicants a choice of ISAs, applicants tend to default to their local ISA since that is usually their primary business region, so an early opinion on local patentability issues may be valuable. However, there may be advantages to using a different ISA, depending on the business needs for the application in question.

Read the full article here.

Tags

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)

Related Offices

London

Related Professionals

Maeve O'Flynn
Partner
London
+44 (0)20 7864 2856
Email
K. Victoria Barker, Ph.D.
Associate
London
+44 (0)20 7864 2822
Email

Originally printed in World Intellectual Property Review on September 14, 2020. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.

Related Insights

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Conference

13th Annual Summit for Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law

July 29-30, 2026

Boston

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP