Patent Translation Services (PCT/EP): Pricing Models, Glossaries, and QA
Patent translation services (PCT/EP) demand legal-technical precision, consistent terminology, and strict confidentiality. This guide explains pricing, QA, glossaries, and SLAs so GCs and IP teams can buy with confidence.
Table of Contents
Why PCT/EP patent translation is different
International filings compress legal and technical risk into tight deadlines. Claims must stay enforceable while aligning with local style and case-law expectations. Our team bridges specialist subject knowledge with legal translation routines to keep claims scope intact and defendable across jurisdictions. See our approach to legal translation services.
Beyond court-grade language, terminology must be consistent across the specification, drawings, and sequence listings. For complex inventions, we pair specialist engineers with linguists and apply our technical translation workflows so terminology remains coherent from abstract to detailed description.
Patent translation services (PCT/EP) for real-world filings
For PCT national phase entries, we standardise instructions, file sets, and delivery formats by office, then provide a single coordination point. For EP filings, we align with the latest EPO practice and validation requirements, combining certified deliverables when needed through our certified translations service. Consistency checks (cross-refs, figure labels, and term variants) run under our internal quality control process and second-linguist review.
Pricing models and turnaround SLAs
Budget clarity matters to GCs and IP operations. We support predictable models that map to different risk profiles and document types.
| Scenario | Pricing Model | Typical SLA | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claims & abstracts (straightforward) | Per-word + minimum fee | 2–4 business days | Ideal for simple updates and abstracts. |
| Full spec with drawings | Per-word (tiered by volume) | 5–10 business days | Includes glossary alignment and terminology QA. |
| Rush for statutory deadline | Per-word + rush multiplier | 24–72 hours | Parallel teams; staged delivery by sections. |
| Attorney-review package | Per-word + hourly legal review | +2–3 days | Optional bilingual check and counsel alignment. |
Turnarounds are backed by project plans, handoffs, and fallbacks. See how we balance deadlines and quality and our commitment to zero errors & total satisfaction. When scope is unclear, we can provide a capped estimate via our request a quote form with clearly stated SLAs.
QA under ISO 17100: TEP, second-linguist review, and sign-off
Our quality system follows ISO 17100—translator → editor → proofreader (TEP)—with role separation and competence criteria. We document each step, capture issues, and confirm fixes before delivery. Read more about our ISO 17100 certification and supporting routines like rigorous second look.
For machine-assisted workflows on legacy assets, we only use post-editing under a separate standard with trained linguists and oversight. See our stance on ISO 18587 certification. Final sign-off includes checklisted acceptance criteria—layout, numbering, claims structure, and consistency across the application.
Terminology governance: custom glossaries for claims and abstracts
Terminology drives enforceability. We create client-specific glossaries that codify preferred renderings for claims verbs, transitional phrases, and recurring technical nouns. Our team aligns terms during onboarding and updates them after each action, using our customised glossaries and guidance on glossaries and coherence.
Governance includes approval flows with in-house counsel or external agents, plus drift monitoring to prevent synonym creep. When a change is needed, we run impact analysis on prior filings to keep the portfolio consistent.
Operational playbook for PCT national phase and EP validation
PCT national phase translation hinges on jurisdiction-specific requirements (character counts, forms, sequence standards). Consult the official WIPO PCT overview for procedural baselines and filing windows, then give us your target offices so we can stage deliveries by urgency. For EP, follow EPO practice and—in many cases—consider Unitary Patent vs. classical validation; the official European Patent Office guidance explains the routes and language rules.
We map each office’s expectations into templates: accepted file formats, required certifications, and whether a translation is needed for claims only or the full spec. Our operations team coordinates counsel sign-offs and bundles agent remarks into bilingual instructions to reduce back-and-forth.
When to use bilingual revision and attorney review
Most projects run through TEP with second-linguist review. Choose bilingual revision when terminology is still being defined or when prior art mapping is sensitive. Add attorney review when claim language must mirror a house style, or to align translations with prosecution strategy. For risk-heavy filings, pair TEP with counsel notes and a final proof pass. If you need references or outcomes, see our client testimonials and general translation services hub.
FAQ
Q1. What does a full ISO 17100 workflow include for patent translation?
An ISO 17100 workflow assigns distinct professionals to translation, editing, and proofreading—each with verified qualifications and domain experience. In practice, that means your claims and specification are translated by a subject-matter linguist, then edited by a second expert for accuracy and style, and finally proofread for formatting and coherence. Role separation avoids single-point failure and produces a documented audit trail.
Beyond TEP, we implement terminology governance: a client-approved glossary, change-tracking, and concordance checks to ensure consistency across the application. We also verify numbering, figure references, and cross-references. For high-risk filings or new portfolios, we can add bilingual revision and optional attorney review, so legal nuance is preserved and aligned with your prosecution strategy.
Q2. How are PCT national phase translations scoped and budgeted?
We scope around document type (claims, abstract, description, drawings), word count, subject complexity, and urgency. The estimate pairs a per-word rate with clear SLAs and any rush multipliers needed to meet statutory deadlines. Where appropriate, we stage deliveries—claims first, then the full specification—so counsel can begin review earlier.
Budget predictability matters to GCs and operations. That’s why we provide capped quotes, a single coordinator for all target offices, and standardised acceptance criteria. If you have preferred agents, we incorporate their glossaries and formatting requirements. If not, we propose templates based on office-by-office norms to avoid rework and late surprises.
Q3. What’s different about EP filings and EP validation translations?
EP filings must align with EPO language rules and evolving practice, especially if you’re weighing a Unitary Patent versus classical EP validation. That choice affects when and where translations are required, as well as the level of detail expected in claims renderings. We track these variables and adjust deliverables accordingly—claims-only versus full text, certifications, and file formats.
Operationally, we maintain checklists by jurisdiction so teams know exactly which artifacts to provide and how to format them. We also harmonise terminology across validation countries so your claims language reads consistently in all markets. A single glossary and sign-off flow keeps style and scope aligned from abstract to detailed description.
Q4. When should we add bilingual revision or attorney review on top of TEP?
Use bilingual revision when the portfolio is new, terminology is unsettled, or there is significant prior art to consider. The bilingual pass ensures that subtle distinctions—like “comprising” versus “consisting of”—carry through precisely into the target language. It also helps when legacy translations exist and you need to reconcile style and terminology.
Add attorney review for strategic claims drafting, contested subject matter, or when in-house counsel requires harmonised phrasing across markets. We integrate counsel comments directly in our workflow and confirm acceptance criteria before delivery. This extra layer is optional but valuable for inventions with high litigation exposure or licensing value.
Links
- Internal:
- Translation Services
- Legal Translation
- Technical Translation
- Certified Translations
- ISO 17100
- Quality Control
- Customised Glossaries
- Rigorous Review
- Deadlines & Quality
- Request a Quote
- Testimonials
- External:
- WIPO — PCT Overview
- European Patent Office — Apply for a patent
- WIPO Standard ST.26 (sequence listings)
