2025 Patent Filing Costs Rise: USPTO Fee Update and Response Strategies

I. Introduction

In January 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented a broad set of fee increases and structural adjustments intended to address rising operational costs and encourage more efficient patent prosecution. These changes affect nearly every stage of the patent lifecycle, from initial patent application filings to subsequent patent application filings and post-grant practice. Understanding the revised cost landscape is critical to making informed decisions about filing strategies and long-term portfolio management.

This article summarizes the most significant changes, including increased fees for information disclosure statements (IDS) filings, Requests for Continued Examination (RCE), continuation applications, maintenance, and post-grant proceedings. It also provides practical recommendations for managing cost exposure while preserving the strength and value of patent portfolios.

II. Overview of USPTO Fee Increases

Since January 19, 2025, USPTO fees have increased across the board, with utility patent filing fees rising by approximately 10% and design patent filing and issue fees increasing by 27% and 76% respectively. These increases reflect an effort to align fees more closely with actual examination costs, particularly for design patents. Maintenance fees have also increased by about 7.5% at each of the 3.5-, 7.5-, and 11.5-year intervals. For example, the 11.5-year maintenance fee for a large entity is now $8,280.

The USPTO has also implemented new fees that directly affect claim drafting and IDS practice. The fee for each claim over 20 has doubled from $100 to $200 for large entities, while the fee for each independent claim over three has increased from $480 to $600. These adjustments signal a clear policy intent to encourage narrower, more efficient claim sets and reduce examination burden.

The newly-introduced IDS fee structure imposes escalating costs based on the number of references cited throughout the life of the patent application. Applicants now face a $200 fee once their IDS submissions exceed 50 references, $500 for more than 100, and $800 for more than 200 references. These fees apply cumulatively and are not discounted for small or micro entities, which substantially affect the practice of citing prior art broadly across related applications. While the USPTO justifies this change as a means of reducing examiner burden and discouraging bulk citation, many practitioners have expressed concern that it may deter full disclosure or encourage unnecessary strategic filtering, especially in complex cases where voluminous prior art is unavoidable.

RCE fees have also risen significantly. The cost of a first RCE has increased from $1,360 to $1,500, while second and subsequent RCEs now cost $2,860, a 43% increase from the prior $2,000 fee. This change incentivizes applicants to resolve issues earlier in prosecution and avoid repetitive RCE cycles.

The USPTO has also imposed substantial new surcharges for continuing applications based on timing. A surcharge of $2,700 now applies to any continuation, continuation-in-part (CIP), divisional, or PCT bypass application filed six or more years after the earliest claimed benefit date. For applications filed nine or more years after that date, the surcharge increases to $4,000. These fees reflect the USPTO’s intent to recapture lost maintenance revenue and discourage applicants from maintaining long chains of related U.S. patent applications.

Beyond prosecution, post-grant and appeal fees have also increased. PTAB petition fees for Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR) have risen by approximately 25%, while appeal fees and miscellaneous petition fees increased by roughly 7 to 8 %. A new $3,000 surcharge applies to petitions for unintentional delay filed more than two years after the due date.

In a significant policy shift, the USPTO has suspended the expedited examination procedure for design patent applications, commonly known as the “Rocket Docket.” Effective April 17, 2025, this change eliminates a long-standing option for applicants seeking rapid design patent protection. Applicants previously used the Rocket Docket to quickly obtain a patent and use that patent to combat counterfeit goods. Nevertheless, the agency’s decision was driven by a 560% increase in Rocket Docket requests, examiner workload strain, and widespread misuse of micro entity certifications. The USPTO plans to undertake rulemaking to formally remove 37 C.F.R. 1.155 and the associated fee provision, closing this expedited pathway altogether.

III. Strategic Implications and Filing Recommendations

The new USPTO fee schedule necessitates a shift toward more compact, proactive prosecution strategies. As a result, it is essential to front-load substantive work during initial drafting and early patent prosecution. For critical inventions, especially those that will anchor a product line or be leveraged in funding rounds, companies should invest in stronger, well-developed original applications. The patent applications should include multiple embodiments and carefully constructed independent claims that minimize overlap. Given the higher cost of excess claims, careful attention should be paid to consolidating dependent claims and prioritizing claims that add strategic value.

International patent filings via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) can serve as a cost-effective mechanism for testing claim scope without incurring early excess claim fees. Because PCT applications are not subject to the USPTO’s new claim-count limits and yield early prior art insights through the International Search Report (ISR), they allow applicants to refine claims before entering the U.S. national phase. A favorable written opinion can also serve as a springboard for expedited Track One examination in the U.S., followed by a continuation to preserve broader claim scope. This approach can help avoid the new continuation timing surcharges while maintaining flexibility and reducing prosecution costs.

Applicants who are not interested in international patent protection may aim for compact prosecution. Before filing, in-house counsel or outside attorneys may conduct internal prior art searches to better anticipate examiner objections. Once prosecution begins, counsel should schedule examiner interviews immediately after receiving a non-final Office action to streamline the path to allowance. If rejection persists, it may be more cost-effective to file a notice of appeal rather than incur additional RCE fees, as many cases resolve favorably during pre-brief appeal conferences.

The new IDS fee structure discourages bulk citation of references, particularly across related applications. Applicants should reevaluate their IDS practices and prioritize submitting only references that are clearly material to patentability. Early IDS submission is also advisable, as late filings may require reopening prosecution through an RCE and trigger additional surcharges. In families with overlapping subject matter, applicants should consider segmenting references by relevance and limiting unnecessary cross-citation.

With the elimination of the Rocket Docket for design patents, applicants should revise expectations for design patent timelines. For high-priority design filings, early submission and alignment with product launch schedules and strategic international design patent filings will be more important.

Portfolio management is equally critical. Companies should conduct periodic reviews of issued patents at each maintenance stage to assess whether individual assets still support commercial products, competitive positioning, or licensing strategy. Underperforming or outdated patents may be abandoned, sold, or licensed to free up budget for higher-priority filings. In this environment, targeted pruning of the portfolio can increase overall value and ensure resources are allocated to strategic assets.

IV. Conclusion

The 2025 USPTO fee increases represent more than just administrative adjustments; they reflect a broader policy shift toward faster, more focused, and less repetitive patent prosecution. With higher costs now tied to IDS volume, continuation timing, claim count, and RCE frequency, both patent owners and their counsel must reevaluate legacy prosecution strategies and align future filings with cost-efficient best practices.

Success under this new regime requires legal precision and strategic foresight. Companies that invest in high-quality initial filings, minimize unnecessary procedural steps, refine IDS submissions, and conduct regular portfolio audits will be best positioned to absorb the fee increases while preserving strong and enforceable patent protection. Patent attorneys who offer integrated strategies, cost modeling, and actionable insights will deliver greater value to their clients and help them stay competitive in an increasingly complex IP landscape.

Special thanks to Summer Associate Iris Tang for contributing to this article.