Industrial Property Law

By way of derogation from the principle of the separation of powers and the dual nature of the court hierarchy , appeals against individual administrative acts issued by the director general of the INPI are heard by the courts of appeal designated by regulatory authority . Ten courts of appeal designated by decree hear appeals directly against decisions of the director general of the INPI. The cou …

Jurisdiction of the courts

By way of derogation from the principle of the separation of powers and the dual nature of the court hierarchy , appeals against individual administrative acts issued by the director general of the INPI are heard by the courts of appeal designated by regulatory authority . Ten courts of appeal designated by decree hear appeals directly against decisions of the director general of the INPI. The court of appeal having jurisdiction is the one of the place where the person filing the appeal resides. If the person resides abroad, the Court of Appeal of Paris has exclusive jurisdiction. The latter also has exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals directly against the decisions of the director general of the INPI concerning the granting, rejection, refusal or renewal of patents, certificates of utility, supplementary protection certificates and topographies of semiconductor products.

Pursuant to Article R. 411-21 of the Intellectual Property Code, appeals against the judgments of the director general of the INPI must be filed within a time-limit of one month following the date of receipt of their notification. This time-limit is extended by one month if the appellant resides in an overseas department or territory, and by two months if he/she resides abroad. The time-limit starts to run as soon as the INPI's decision has been duly notified to the address declared in the application for registration, and appeals filed after this time-limit are inadmissible .

Only the final decisions of the director general of the INPI can be appealed. Statements of irregularity or notifications of draft decisions issued by the director general of the INPI are not subject to appeal . As the appeal is made before a court, the applicant must be able to justify an interest in bringing proceedings. The appeal must, at the risk of being ruled inadmissible, include the elements listed in Articles R. 411-24 and R. 411-25 of the Intellectual Property Code, which include in particular the object of the appeal, the name of the applicant, the name of the owner of the title or the person who made the application, the copy of the contested decision, the statement of the grounds invoked, or the appointment of the lawyer. The statement of grounds must, on pain of inadmissibility, be exhaustive and communicated either in the statement of appeal or within one month following that statement .

When the circumstances giving rise to the dismissal of an appeal are capable of being rectified, the appeal is inadmissible if the grounds for the dismissal have disappeared by the time the court rules, according to Article 126 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Traditionally, the courts have not invoked that article for appeals against decisions of the director general of the INPI, but rather have applied the provisions specifically applicable to such appeals . In a judgment handed down on 12 May 2021, the Court of Cassation reversed its position and confirmed the applicability of Article 126 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appeals against a decision of the director general of the INPI . In any event, only parties who have not been summoned to the hearing may plead an omission to have a decision invalidated .

The INPI is not a party to the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. The director general is nevertheless examined or summoned, and given the opportunity to present his/her observations, either in writing or orally. The Public Prosecutor's Office may take cognizance of cases in which it considers it appropriate to intervene ( Art. R. 411-23 IP Code).

Unless excluded from the appeal procedure, a third party opposition may be filed against the decisions of the director general of the INPI . In addition, an appeal in cassation is open to both the parties and the director general of the INPI .

CA Paris, 13 October 1994, LawLex202100003036JBJ; Cass. com, 11 March 2014, LawLex202100003022JBJ; Cass. com, 3 November 2016, LawLex201600001831JBJ,

Art. R. 411-19-1 and R. 411-19-2 of the Intellectual Property Code.

CA Paris, 25 April 2017, LawLex202100006441JBJ.

Cass. com. 3 May 2018, LawLex202100003024JBJ.

Cass. com., 30 May 2007, LawLex202100006444JBJ. 

Cass. com. 12 May 2021, LawLex202100006295JBJ.

Cass. com., 30 May 2007, LawLex202100006444JBJ.

CA Paris, 27 October 2017, LawLex202100003057JBJ.

Industrial Property Law

10. Jurisdiction of the courts

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

10. Jurisdiction of the courts

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