Industrial Property Law

The INPI checks that the application and filing procedure comply with the formalities and conditions laid down in Articles L. 612-1 et seq. of the Intellectual Property Code and in the relevant regulations (Article L. 612-11 IP Code). In particular, from a strictly formal point of view, it ensures that the documents and information required for issuing the title are present. For example, it will v …

Examination as to formal requirements

The INPI checks that the application and filing procedure comply with the formalities and conditions laid down in Articles L. 612-1 et seq. of the Intellectual Property Code and in the relevant regulations (Article L. 612-11 IP Code). In particular, from a strictly formal point of view, it ensures that the documents and information required for issuing the title are present. For example, it will verify the designation of the inventor in the application for grant, but not the accuracy of this information (Article R. 611-15 IP Code) .

The INPI rejects the application if the wording of the description or claims does not enable the search report to be established (Article L. 612-12, 6° IP Code)  or if the claims are not based on the description (Article L. 612-12, 8° IP Code).

Finally, specific grounds for rejection apply to applications involving multiple inventions. A complex application which does not satisfy the rule of unity of invention is rejected if it has not been divided pursuant to Article L. 612-4 of the Intellectual Property Code (Art. L. 612-12, 2° IP Code), particularly in cases where the divisional application has been filed late . A divisional application which extends beyond the content of the description of the initial application is also rejected (Article L. 612-12, 3° IP Code). Where several successive divisional applications are filed, the initial application means the application before any division .

Once the formal examination has been carried out, the INPI verifies the patentability of the invention for which the application has been filed.

Cass. com., 8 October 2002, no. 00-15.686, LawLex202200002369JBJ, PIBD 2002, no. 754, III, 561.

CA Paris, 14 February 2014, LawLex202200002359JBJ, which states that the INPI is right to reject a patent application where neither the initial claims nor the amended claims make it possible to define the subject matter of the protection sought, and thus to establish the search report.

CA Paris, 22 November 2019, LawLex202200002357JBJ, which rules on a divisional application filed after payment of the fee for issuing and printing the initial patent specification, contrary to the requirements of Article R. 612-34 of the Intellectual Property Code.

CA Paris, 22 November 2019, LawLex202200002357JBJ, which specifies that when the applicant files two successive divisional applications, the main divisional application, and where applicable the secondary divisional application, must not, in application of this article, exceed the content of the main application, understood as the initial application.

Industrial Property Law

280. Examination as to formal requirements

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

280. Examination as to formal requirements

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise