The race to protect intellectual property in multiple jurisdictions has become a defining feature of the global innovation economy. For inventors, startups, and multinational corporations alike, patents are not just legal instruments but commercial shields that safeguard technological investments. As Indian companies increasingly innovate for global markets, the question of how to pursue International Patent Filing and Registration has become pressing.

Broadly, applicants face two pathways: filing patents directly in each foreign jurisdiction of interest, or relying on the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system. Both offer advantages, but they also raise practical and strategic considerations that businesses must weigh carefully.

The direct route involves filing patent applications separately in each jurisdiction where protection is sought. Each application must comply with local requirements, ranging from language translations to formal documentation, fee structures, and the need for local patent attorneys.

The benefit of direct filings is immediacy. For companies targeting only a few countries, or those seeking urgent protection in specific high-value markets, direct filing offers a faster way to secure patent rights. For example, a pharmaceutical company seeking exclusive rights in the US and Europe may prefer to file directly in those jurisdictions to avoid the procedural delays inherent in the PCT system.

However, direct filings can be administratively heavy and financially demanding. Each jurisdiction has its own timelines for examination, opposition, and renewal. Without careful management, this can lead to procedural lapses or unnecessary duplication of effort.

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), simplifies the process of seeking patent protection across multiple jurisdictions. An applicant files a single international application, designating over 150 member states.

The PCT does not itself grant patents. Instead, it provides a framework for deferring the need to file national applications while securing a priority date. Within the system, applicants receive an international search report and a written opinion on patentability. These documents offer valuable insight into the novelty and inventiveness of the application before committing to expensive national filings.

The primary advantage of the PCT route is time. Applicants have up to 30 or 31 months from the priority date to decide in which countries they want to pursue protection. This “breathing space” allows businesses to test market viability, seek investors, and refine commercial strategies.

That said, costs can still be significant once the national phase is entered. Translation, local attorney fees, and examination costs must eventually be borne. Thus, while the PCT postpones expenses, it does not eliminate them.

The choice between PCT and direct filing depends on a variety of strategic considerations:

Scope of protection: The PCT is ideal for applicants seeking broad international coverage, especially when the exact markets are not yet finalised. Direct filing may be more practical for applicants with a targeted strategy.

Time sensitivity: Direct filing can yield earlier grants in certain jurisdictions, which may be crucial in competitive industries such as pharmaceuticals or software.

Cost management: PCT spreads costs over time, while direct filing demands higher upfront expenditure.

Legal certainty: Some applicants prefer direct filings to avoid dependency on the PCT’s administrative timelines and to align directly with national patent offices.

Indian innovators are increasingly active in international patent filings. According to WIPO data, India ranks among the fastest-growing origins for PCT applications, reflecting the global ambitions of its technology and pharmaceutical sectors.

The Indian Patents Act, 1970, permits both PCT and direct filings, but requires applicants to first file in India or obtain permission from the Controller General of Patents before filing abroad. This safeguard ensures that sensitive innovations with defence or national security implications are not disclosed prematurely.

For Indian startups in particular, the PCT route offers breathing room. It provides two and a half years to assess international expansion before incurring heavy expenses in multiple jurisdictions. Larger corporations, by contrast, often adopt a hybrid model, filing directly in priority markets while also using the PCT to secure optionality in other jurisdictions.

Regardless of the route chosen, applicants must recognise that patents are territorial. Protection is granted only in jurisdictions where applications are filed and granted. Enforcement requires navigating local court systems, many of which vary significantly in their approach to infringement, damages, and interim relief.

Moreover, international patenting requires careful compliance with disclosure norms. A poorly drafted specification in the priority application can have cascading effects across jurisdictions. Professional drafting and foresight are therefore critical.

Globally, debates continue on whether the PCT system should be further harmonised with national patent offices to reduce duplicative examinations. Meanwhile, certain jurisdictions, including the United States and European Union, continue to refine fast-track examination programmes that make direct filings attractive in specific contexts.

At the same time, the rise of cross-border disputes in fields such as telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, and artificial intelligence has underscored the importance of aligning international patent strategies with litigation preparedness. Businesses are increasingly seeking advice not only on filing strategies but also on enforcement pathways.

The decision between the PCT and direct filing is rarely straightforward. It requires balancing speed, cost, and market priorities. For startups, the PCT often provides flexibility and strategic breathing space, while established corporations may pursue direct filings in core markets for faster results.

What is beyond doubt is that International Patent Filing and Registration has become a critical component of global business strategy. In an economy where intellectual property is often the most valuable asset, the ability to secure and enforce patents across borders can determine not just market share but survival.

About the author: Alhan Kayser is an Advocate at Kayser & Co.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.