{"id":1222,"date":"2026-06-19T18:20:29","date_gmt":"2026-06-19T18:20:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.franke-ip.com\/en\/?p=1222"},"modified":"2026-06-19T20:47:23","modified_gmt":"2026-06-19T20:47:23","slug":"micro-entity-fee-reductions-what-the-gpto-offers-and-what-it-does-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.franke-ip.com\/en\/micro-entity-fee-reductions-what-the-gpto-offers-and-what-it-does-not\/","title":{"rendered":"Micro Entity Fee Reductions: What the GPTO Offers \u2013 and What It Does Not"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

We are regularly asked whether Germany offers a special fee reduction for small applicants \u2013 a “micro-entity discount” of the kind familiar from the United States or the European Patent Office. The short answer is that the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (GPTO) does not provide such a status-based micro-entity discount.<\/strong> The widely noted 30% reduction is a scheme of the European Patent Office (EPO)<\/strong>. This article explains both regimes and, in particular, looks at Germany’s own cost-relief instrument \u2013 procedural cost assistance \u2013 and why it compares unfavourably with the international reductions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPO micro-entity reduction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Since April 1, 2024, under Rule 7a EPC, the EPO has granted a 30% reduction<\/strong> on the principal procedural fees where the applicant qualifies as a micro-entity. The reduction covers, among others, the filing, search, examination, designation, grant and renewal fees, as well as certain Euro-PCT fees where the EPO acted as International Searching Authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eligible applicants are not only microenterprises in the narrow sense, but also natural persons, non-profit organisations, universities and public research organisations. A microenterprise<\/strong> is defined \u2013 following EU Recommendation 2003\/361\/EC \u2013 as an enterprise employing fewer than 10 persons with an annual turnover and\/or annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 2 million.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A filing cap<\/strong> applies in addition: each applicant must have filed fewer than five European or Euro-PCT applications in the five years preceding the relevant application. Where there are several applicants, each<\/strong> of them must independently meet the requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notably, the scheme applies irrespective of nationality, residence, place of business and language of the proceedings<\/strong> \u2013 a clear broadening compared with the earlier, language-based reduction. The status must, however, be expressly declared<\/strong>, at the latest when the relevant fee is paid; it is not applied automatically. If the status changes (for example because the thresholds are exceeded or the filing cap is reached), the EPO must be notified, and fees falling due thereafter are again payable in full. Incorrect declarations can have adverse consequences, so careful verification before declaring is advisable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And at the GPTO?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The GPTO currently provides no comparable micro-entity reduction<\/strong> and no size-based tiering of patent fees. German official fees are, however, moderate by international standards in any event \u2013 a key reason why a separate reduction for small applicants has not been introduced here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

German law does, nevertheless, have its own instrument for financial relief, although its purpose is fundamentally different: procedural cost assistance (Verfahrenskostenhilfe).<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Procedural cost assistance \u2013 Germany’s distinct route<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Procedural cost assistance (Verfahrenskostenhilfe, “VKH”) under Sections 129 et seq. of the German Patent Act (PatG) allows parties in proceedings before the GPTO, the Federal Patent Court and the Federal Court of Justice to have the costs borne by the state, in whole or in part. In grant proceedings, the applicant receives VKH on request \u2013 applying Sections 114 to 116 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) by analogy \u2013 provided there is a sufficient prospect of the patent being granted and the application does not appear frivolous (mutwillig). On a separate request, renewal fees may also be included; payments are made to the Federal Treasury. The effect of a grant is, in essence, that the legal consequences otherwise triggered by non-payment \u2013 such as the deemed withdrawal or lapse \u2013 do not occur. On request, a patent attorney or attorney-at-law may also be assigned to the applicant (Section 133 PatG).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

VKH is therefore a valuable instrument, particularly for impecunious individual inventors. It is, however, not a discount but a means-tested form of welfare support<\/strong> \u2013 and this is precisely where the decisive differences from the international reductions lie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Disadvantages of procedural cost assistance compared with the EPO and USPTO<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Set against the micro-entity schemes of the EPO (30%) and the USPTO (60% for a “small entity”, 80% for a “micro entity”), several weaknesses of VKH become apparent:<\/p>\n\n\n\n