If you are building real tech—AI, robotics, sensors, chips, systems—your IP plan is not “nice to have.” It is part of your product. It is part of how you raise. And it is part of how you stop bigger teams from copying the thing you spent nights and weekends inventing.
At the seed stage, most founders ask the same question:
Should we file a PCT, or should we file directly in the countries we care about?
The confusing part is that both routes can be smart. Both can also be a waste—if you choose them for the wrong reason, or at the wrong time, or with weak claim strategy.
This guide will help you make the choice like an operator, not like someone guessing. We will keep it simple and practical. You will learn what each path really does, what it costs in real life, how timelines work, and how to pick based on where your startup is today—not where you hope it will be someday.
And if you want expert help building an IP plan that fits your tech and your runway, Tran.vc can support you with up to $50,000 in-kind patenting and IP services. You can apply anytime here: https://www.tran.vc/apply-now-form/
PCT vs Direct Filing: What Seed Startups Should Choose
The simple way to think about this choice
At seed stage, you are not trying to “do patents.” You are trying to buy time, protect the core idea, and keep your options open while you learn what the market wants. The filing path you pick should match your runway, your sales path, and how fast your product is changing.
A PCT filing is often a time-buying move. It can help you hold your place while you decide where you will actually file later. A direct filing plan is often a committing move. It can help you get faster traction in the exact countries that matter to your business.
The mistake is treating PCT as the “better” option or direct filing as the “cheaper” option without looking at the real goal. Your goal is not to collect legal papers. Your goal is to create an asset that helps you build and raise.
If you want a team to help you map this decision to your tech, Tran.vc supports seed startups with up to $50,000 in-kind patent and IP services. You can apply anytime here: https://www.tran.vc/apply-now-form/
What “PCT” really means in real life
PCT stands for Patent Cooperation Treaty. The first thing to know is that a PCT is not a global patent. There is no such thing. A PCT is a process that keeps many country options open for longer, using one early filing.
When you file a PCT, you usually start with a first filing. That first filing is often a provisional, or it can be a full non-provisional filing in one country. Then, within the allowed time window, you file the PCT application which “claims priority” back to that first filing date.
From a founder point of view, the PCT is a planning tool. It gives you a structured timeline where you can learn more before paying the bigger bills of many country filings. It also creates a document that investors and partners can point to as evidence you are taking protection seriously.
The PCT system also includes an international search. That search is helpful, but it is not a final answer on whether you will get a patent. It is more like a strong early signal about prior art that might matter.
What “direct filing” really means in real life
Direct filing means you file a full patent application straight into the countries you care about, instead of going through the PCT route first. Most seed startups that “direct file” still start with a first filing date, often through a US provisional. Then, within twelve months, they file in specific places like the US, Europe, and sometimes one or two more.
Direct filing is more decisive. You are telling the world, “These are the markets where we will defend this.” That can be a good thing when you have clarity early. It can also be risky when your product and market are still moving, because you may spend money in places that end up not mattering.
Direct filing can also move prosecution forward sooner in a key jurisdiction, which matters if you need an issued patent earlier for a deal, for procurement, or for a high-stakes competitor situation. For most seed startups, speed to issuance is not the main need, but there are cases where it is.
Why this decision matters more for AI and robotics startups
AI and robotics teams often build in layers. There is the model or control logic. There is the data pipeline. There is the hardware setup. There is the edge device behavior. There is the safety system. There is the integration with a customer workflow.
That means your “invention” is usually not one thing. It is a set of choices that work together. If you file too early, your patent may describe an early version that is not the one you ship. If you file too late, someone else may publish something close, or a competitor may file first.
The PCT route can work well when you know the core concept but you are still discovering the best form. Direct filing can work well when you already know the buying market and you can describe the key system in a stable way.
The right answer is not about being conservative or aggressive. It is about matching your filing move to how fast your tech is evolving and how clear your market path is.
The timelines founders actually need to know
The priority date is the anchor for everything
No matter what route you take, the first date you file is the date that matters most. That is the date that sets your place in line. It is the date you point to when you say, “We invented this by then.”
If you file a provisional in the US today, and later file a PCT or direct national filings, those later filings can rely on that earlier date for what was fully described in the first filing. This is why the first filing must be written like it matters, because it does.
Many founders treat the first filing like a quick placeholder. That often becomes expensive later. If the first filing is thin, you may not be able to rely on it for key parts of the later claims. That can weaken the whole family.
A strong first filing explains the system clearly, gives multiple versions, and shows why it is new. It is not just a concept note. It is a legal foundation.
The PCT clock in plain words
A common path looks like this. You file your first application, often a provisional. Then, within twelve months, you file a PCT that claims priority to that first filing.
After that, the PCT route typically gives you additional time before you must pick countries and pay large country-by-country costs. That later step is often called “national phase entry.” The exact timing depends on the country, but founders usually think of it as roughly thirty months from the first filing.
So in a simple story, a PCT path can feel like: file now, then you have about a year to decide to file the PCT, then you have more time to decide where to spend the larger money. That extra time is the main reason seed startups use PCT.
This time can be used to find real customers, learn which regions matter, raise a round, and refine the invention so your claim strategy is sharper when you finally commit to key places.
The direct filing clock in plain words
Direct filing is usually faster to commitment. If you start with a provisional, you typically have twelve months to file full applications in the places you want. That means you must decide earlier.
If you do not start with a provisional and instead file a full application immediately, the timeline still pushes you to make country decisions earlier than a PCT would. Some teams do this when they already know they will go US and Europe no matter what, and they want to move forward without extra steps.
The direct route can be cleaner. It is also less forgiving. If your market focus changes later, you may wish you had kept options open longer.
What “keeping options open” really buys you
When founders hear “options,” they often think in abstract terms. In practice, options mean you can wait to see which markets create real revenue, which partners are serious, and which competitor threats are real. Options also mean you can wait to see whether your product becomes a platform or stays a narrow tool.
For example, you may think Europe matters because “enterprise buyers are there.” Then you discover your first five customers are all in the US, and your next big partner is in Japan. Your filing plan should follow reality, not the early guess.
The PCT route can help you avoid locking into the wrong map too early. But it is not free. You still pay for the PCT filing, and you still have to do the hard work of writing a strong application early.
The core differences that should drive your decision
PCT is a delay strategy, direct filing is a focus strategy
This is the cleanest way to separate them. PCT is often about delaying the large spend while keeping the door open. Direct filing is often about focusing on the countries that matter now, and moving sooner in those places.
If you are still shaping your product and market, delay can be smart. If you already have clear buyer pull in a specific region, focus can be smart.
Seed startups often have limited cash, but they also have limited attention. A direct plan can reduce complexity if you only care about one or two places. A PCT plan can reduce regret if you are not sure yet.
Cost is not just “how much,” it is “when”
Many founders ask, “Which is cheaper?” The more useful question is, “When do I pay the big part?” PCT can shift bigger country costs later. Direct filing can bring them forward.
In the early months, your main job is survival and learning. Pushing large costs later can be a relief. At the same time, some startups would rather pay early for a smaller set of countries, instead of paying for a PCT plus later paying again.
The cost story changes depending on how many countries you might want. If you only ever want one country, PCT often makes less sense. If you might want many, PCT can be a practical staging step.
Speed to strong enforcement can be different
If you need an issued patent quickly in a key region, direct filing can move you toward that faster, since you are already in that country’s system. With PCT, you are in an international stage first, which can slow down when you enter national phase later.
Most seed startups do not need an issued patent next month. What they need is a credible filing that supports fundraising, partnerships, and a clear moat story. Still, in some regulated markets or procurement-heavy markets, speed can matter.
If you are trying to win a deal where a buyer asks, “Do you have granted patents?” then the path might change. That is less common early, but it does happen in robotics, medical devices, and some defense-adjacent areas.
The writing quality matters more than the route
A weak application filed through any route is still weak. A strong application filed through either route can be powerful. Founders sometimes spend too much time choosing the route and not enough time making sure the invention is described in a way that can support broad, useful claims.
The best seed-stage IP plans start with a clear map of what is truly unique. Then they turn that uniqueness into claims that cover the value, not just the feature.
This is exactly where many technical teams benefit from hands-on support. Tran.vc invests up to $50,000 in-kind in patent and IP work, so you can build an IP-backed moat without burning your early cash. You can apply anytime here: https://www.tran.vc/apply-now-form/
How to choose based on where your startup is today
If your market is still unclear, PCT often fits better
Many seed teams are still learning who will pay, how they will pay, and what problem they truly care about. You may be building a strong technical system, but the business shape is not stable yet. In this case, the main risk is filing too narrowly in the wrong places, then wishing you had saved your money for the places that ended up mattering.
A PCT route is often helpful here because it buys you decision time. That time is not just for sales discovery. It is also for product discovery. You might start by thinking your edge model is the invention, then realize the real invention is your data collection method. Or you might think the robot hardware is the invention, then realize the real differentiator is your calibration workflow that makes deployment cheap.
When the core value is still getting sharper, it helps to delay the “country commitment” part while still locking in an early priority date. That way, you can keep building and keep learning without losing your place in line.
This does not mean you wait on doing the hard work. You still need a strong first filing that actually explains your invention. The difference is you do not have to bet early on the exact countries you will defend later.
If you already know your buyer region, direct filing can be clean and smart
Some startups get clarity early. You might have pilots already lined up in one region. You might be selling to US customers only. You might be building for EU compliance from day one because the EU is your target. Or you might have a partner that will only move forward if you protect the invention in their home market.
When you have that kind of clarity, direct filing can be simpler. You focus on the key jurisdictions and move forward without extra steps. This can reduce planning overhead, because you are not carrying many “maybe” country options in your head.
Direct filing can also feel better for a founder who wants to be decisive. Instead of telling investors, “We might file in these markets later,” you can say, “We filed where we sell.” That can read as confidence, especially when it matches your go-to-market plan.
Still, the direct path can punish wrong assumptions. If you file in places that do not end up matching your revenue path, you may have spent precious seed-stage budget in the wrong direction.
If your tech is changing fast, focus on protecting the concept, not the exact build
A common seed-stage problem is filing a patent that matches a prototype too closely. In AI and robotics, what you ship six months from now may be a different structure than what you demo today. If the patent reads like a snapshot of an early build, it may not cover the real product that wins.
So, the key is not only PCT versus direct. The key is whether your patent is written to protect the underlying method and system, with multiple versions, so it still fits when your implementation improves.
For example, if your current system uses one sensor, but you might switch to another, your application should describe sensor-agnostic versions. If your model is a transformer today but could be a different architecture later, your application should focus on the training flow, data handling, and the decision system rather than only naming a model type.
This is where a well-built strategy matters more than the filing route. A good IP plan anticipates change and still protects the value.
If you are fundraising soon, choose the path that supports a clear story
Seed investors do not invest because you filed a PCT. They invest because they believe you can win and defend your win. Patents help when they make that belief stronger and more concrete.
If you are raising in the next three to six months, you want to be able to say three things clearly. First, you filed early and you have a strong priority date. Second, your application covers the core value, not just a tiny feature. Third, you have a plan that matches your market path.
A PCT can sound good because it signals you are thinking globally. But if you cannot explain why global matters for you, it can also sound like you are copying a template. Direct filing can sound focused, but only if it aligns with how you will sell.
So for fundraising, the “best” option is the one you can explain in plain words. You should be able to tell an investor, “Here is what we protect, here is why it is hard to copy, and here is where it matters.”
If you want help building this kind of investor-ready IP story, Tran.vc invests up to $50,000 in-kind in patents and IP services for seed-stage AI, robotics, and deep tech startups. You can apply anytime here: https://www.tran.vc/apply-now-form/
How investors often react to PCT vs direct filing
Most investors care more about claim strength than filing labels
Founders sometimes worry that investors will judge them for not having a PCT. In practice, strong investors look past the label. They want to know whether you understand your moat and whether you are building protection around it.
If your application reads like a broad, well-thought system description with clear novelty, that matters more than whether you went PCT first. If your application is vague, thin, or mismatched to your product, the route does not save you.
This is why a seed startup should treat the patent as a product document. It should be written with care, because it may become part of due diligence later.
PCT can feel like a “signal,” but signals only work when they are true
A PCT can be a strong signal when the startup has real global intent. Maybe your market is cross-border by nature. Maybe you are building a platform that will be used in many regions. Maybe your supply chain and manufacturing partners are spread out. In these cases, a PCT can match the truth of your business.
But if you file a PCT only because you heard it sounds impressive, investors can sense the mismatch. They will ask, “Which countries will you enter?” If you cannot answer, it can feel like you filed without a plan.
A PCT should not be a costume. It should be a tool that fits your situation.
Direct filing can read as mature when it matches revenue reality
When you direct file into the US and Europe, for example, and your customers are in those markets, it reads as clean execution. It says you are spending money where it matters and you are not carrying extra complexity.
However, direct filing can also raise questions if you pick unusual jurisdictions without a clear reason. Investors might ask why you filed in a place where you have no buyer path. So the key is simple: do what matches your real plan, and be able to explain it.
In fundraising, clarity beats cleverness.
Real examples: how the choice looks for AI and robotics startups
Example one: an AI startup selling to US mid-market teams
Imagine you are building an AI system that automates a painful workflow inside US companies. Your early customers are in the US. Your sales motion is US-based. You do not expect large EU revenue for two years.
In this case, a common smart path is to secure a strong priority date early, then move directly into a US non-provisional within the proper time window. You may skip the PCT if you truly do not see near-term international value.
If you do want the option to go global later, a PCT could still be worth it, but only if the extra delay and future flexibility are valuable enough to justify the added step and cost. The decision becomes a runway question and a market expansion question, not a legal-fashion question.
Example two: a robotics startup with manufacturing and partners in multiple regions
Now imagine you are building a robotics system that might be assembled in one region, sold in another, and integrated by partners in a third. You may also have competitor risk from teams in different countries.
In this case, a PCT can be very useful because the future map is complex early on. You want to protect the core system while you learn where your strongest business relationships will land. The PCT timeline gives you space to lock deals and pick the right countries later, while still holding your early priority date.
You can also use the international search stage to get early insight into prior art, which helps you refine claims before national phase entry.
Example three: a deep tech startup where the invention is still settling
Some inventions are still forming at seed stage. Your first version works, but you already know the second version will be different. In this case, the biggest threat is writing a patent that is too narrow and too tied to v1.
A PCT can be helpful if it gives you time to sharpen the application and plan follow-on filings. But again, the route is not the magic. The magic is writing the application so it captures the core idea in multiple forms, and then planning continuation work as the invention matures.