Patent filing strategy is getting smarter, not broader

At the March 10–11, 2026 WIPR Summit in Chicago, Morris Wilder, Senior Business Development Director at RWS, took part in a discussion that touched on filing strategy across jurisdictions, and the topic reflects a much broader shift across the IP market as patent filing becomes more selective, more commercial and more dynamic than it was even a few years ago. 

That shift is happening against a backdrop of continued global growth in patent activity. WIPO’s figures show that patent applications worldwide reached 3.7 million in 2024, up 4.9% year on year, while China’s office received 1.8 million applications, up 9%, and India, Japan and the Republic of Korea also recorded growth. 

For IP leaders, that changes the question from “Where can we file?” to “Where will protection create real value?”

For years, many international filing programs followed familiar logic, protecting manufacturing hubs, covering the biggest economies and adding a defensive ring around the core portfolio, but that approach no longer goes far enough in a market where commercial priorities, budget pressures, enforcement realities and regional opportunities can all shift quickly. 

The numbers indicate a clear move away from broad defensive filing and toward portfolios that are commercially aligned, reviewed more actively and designed to adapt as conditions change. Growth is still concentrated in Asia, but the strategic picture is more nuanced than raw filing volume alone, because the most important question is not simply where applications are rising, but where protection is most likely to support revenue, licensing, enforcement or long-term competitive value. 

That is why filing strategy now requires active management rather than passive maintenance, and why the strongest portfolios are not necessarily the broadest, but the ones that reflect realistic business outcomes.

One of the clearest implications of this shift is that filing strategy needs to start earlier. Before the first foreign filing decision is made, teams need to be clear about what the asset is supposed to do, whether that means blocking a competitor, supporting licensing, strengthening a future enforcement position or preserving value for investment or M&A. 

That commercial objective should shape the drafting approach from the outset, because Europe, China and the US do not all reward the same drafting choices, and a specification that is built without those differences in mind can limit options later. Stronger front-end discipline helps applicants align claim scope with likely jurisdictions of enforcement, draft specifications with broader global support and build fallback positions that can stand up across different prosecution environments. 

In practical terms, filing strategy is no longer only about where to go. It is about building an asset that can travel well.

The Patent Cooperation Treaty remains valuable because it gives applicants time, but time on its own is not a strategy. 

A better way to use the PCT phase is as a decision window, using that period to review the search results and written opinion, understand how the invention is likely to be examined, monitor competitor activity and refine jurisdictional choices before national phase entry. In some cases, Chapter II can also help applicants improve their position before they enter higher-value jurisdictions. 

That kind of optionality matters when markets are moving quickly. A team may want to see whether product demand develops in India, whether a licensing conversation gathers momentum in Southeast Asia or whether a particular market becomes more attractive from an enforcement perspective, but preserving flexibility only adds value when it supports deliberate choices rather than delayed ones.

Europe offers a good example of how filing decisions are becoming more nuanced. According to the EPO, it received 199,264 patent applications in 2024, essentially unchanged from 2023, while the Unitary Patent continued to gain momentum, with 25.6% of all European patents granted in 2024 requesting unitary protection, totaling more than 28,000 requests, and Romania’s participation expanding coverage to 18 EU member states. 

For applicants, that means there is now a more meaningful choice between unified regional coverage and more traditional country-by-country validation. Some patent owners will favor the administrative simplicity and broad reach of the Unitary Patent, while others will still prefer classic validation where they want greater flexibility, have established litigation strategies or need protection outside the participating system. 

What matters is not which route appears simpler on paper, but which route best supports the value of the asset in the real world.

Budget discipline is another major force behind the shift, because deciding where not to file is becoming just as important as deciding where to file. Early jurisdiction triage, portfolio pruning, claim harmonization and more deliberate family design can all help redirect budget toward higher-value assets and stronger long-term positions. 

That does not mean cutting corners. Poor translations, thin specifications and fragmented workflows may reduce upfront spend, but they can also create downstream prosecution problems and enforcement risk, which means smarter cost management is really about concentrating spend where it strengthens the portfolio rather than simply shrinking a line item. 

This is also where AI is starting to change the workflow. It can support prior art triage, claim mapping, translation and quality control, but its value is greatest when it is paired with IP-trained human expertise, because strategy still depends on judgment and quality still depends on oversight.

The filing strategies gaining ground today tend to be flexible enough to respond to shifting markets, regulations and enforcement realities, while also being data-driven enough to use competitor intelligence, market signals and prosecution outcomes to shape decisions, and commercially aligned enough to connect portfolio choices to licensing, enforcement, revenue and long-term business value. 

They also tend to be more disciplined, because instead of treating broad filing as the default, leading teams are making tougher decisions earlier about which assets to prioritize, which jurisdictions still support the business case and where budget is better invested in stronger claims, better translations or follow-on filings. 

The result is a more deliberate model that asks more from IP leaders, but also creates stronger portfolios, with assets built around clearer commercial intent, better regional fit and more room to adapt as opportunities change. In today’s market, the goal is not to file more, but to file with purpose. 

Need help? Talk to an expert about the best approach for your use case.