Out of sheer laziness, I am usually reluctant to report on bills that are still in the legislative process.
After all, you never know whether your report will still be consistent with what comes out of the process in the end. You may call that the UPC syndrome.
But the reform of the French patent granting procedure currently in gestation represents such an upheaval of the world as we French patent attorneys know it that it is getting more and more difficult to ignore it on this blog.
So, today, I will update readers on the “Projet de loi relatif à la croissance et la transformation des entreprises“, also known as the PACTE bill. Don’t ask me what the A in the acronym stands for. It is probably just easier to pronounce than “PLRCTE“, that’s all.
This is a very complex and long (some would say catch-all) bill that spans labor law, tax law, commercial law, etc. And there are a few provisions on patent law, which are rather far-reaching.
The bill, updated as of today, can be found here. All provisions have now been approved by the Assemblée nationale (the lower chamber of our parliament), which prompted today’s post. Please bear in mind that these provisions can still be modified during the rest of the legislative process though, but by now it is more likely than not that they will indeed become law.
The first relevant part of the bill is article 40, which deals with utility certificates. That’s the local name for utility models. These are seldom used in this country and probably not very well known. The three current main features of the utility certificate are the following:
- no search report is established for a utility certificate;
- the maximum duration of the utility certificate is 6 years from the filing date; and
- a patent application can be converted into a utility certificate application but not the other way around.
In order to make the utility certificate a more attractive option for innovators, the maximum duration of the certificate will be brought to 10 years instead of 6. Its duration will thus be on a par with that of utility models in foreign countries, notably Germany.
A second change is that it will now be possible to convert a utility certificate application into a patent application. The conditions for this conversion will be further specified by way of an executive order.
If we assume that flexibility is always appreciated by applicants, these changes will indeed make the utility certificate more palatable to them. While we are at looking at what the Germans do, we might as well have imported the “Abzweigung“, i.e. the possibility to file a utility model application as a split-off from a patent (including European) application. This can be quite a powerful tool for applicants. Maybe next time – together with a (much awaited) re-opening of the French national phase PCT route?
The second topic addressed in the bill is a much bigger prize, though.
Article 42 authorizes the government to create national opposition proceedings, so as to allow third parties to request the revocation or modification of a French patent, by way of an “ordonnance”.
An “ordonnance” is a special kind of executive order which has the same effect as a law passed by the parliament, provided that it is later ratified by the parliament.
There are absolutely no details as to this future opposition in the bill, as the parliament has precisely surrendered its prerogative to set rules on this matter to the government, by way of this article 42. So we will have to wait until we see the “ordonnance”.
For what it is worth, a survey was conducted by the French patent and trademark office (INPI) on this topic a few months ago. Among the questions which were addressed in the survey, were the following:
- Should any person be allowed to file an opposition, like at the EPO, or should an opposition be reserved to persons and entities having standing? (And, boy, we know that the appraisal of standing in nullity suits can be tricky.)
- Should the opposition period be set to 6, 9, or 12 months?
- What should the grounds for opposition be?
- Should it be possible to file an opposition against a granted utility certificate?
- Should the decision on the opposition be open to appeal in front of the Paris Tribunal de grande instance (first instance court) or in front of the Paris Cour d’appel (appeal court)?
- What should the effect of an opposition be on parallel litigation, in particular concerning a possible stay of proceedings?
- Should oral proceedings be summoned?
- Should an accused infringer be able to intervene in opposition proceedings?
- Should the examiner who granted the patent be part of the panel of three examiners who will decide on the opposition?
As you can see, things were (still are?) very open. Rumor has it that the INPI is contemplating a rather extensive alignment of the future French opposition proceedings on the EPO model.
As a side note, article 42 of the bill specifies that the future “ordonnance” should make sure to prevent abusive oppositions. I have no idea what they mean by this, but I do hope that there will be no standing required to oppose a patent. This would certainly lead to useless complexity and legal uncertainty.
Now, the third topic of interest in the bill is as big as the second one – if not bigger.
At present, the INPI has limited power to refuse a patent application. Basically, a French examiner can raise objections (such as lack of clarity or unity) before the issuance of the search report. Then the search report and a complete written opinion are drafted, either by the EPO or directly by the French examiner. Then the applicant files observations as a response – which can very well be very brief. And a refusal can only take place in exceptional circumstances, e.g. if it is “blatant” that the application relates to subject-matter which is not an invention (such as discoveries, aesthetic creations, etc.); or if there is a “blatant” lack of novelty.
There are further (more minor) grounds for refusal, such as lack of unity. But the major fact is that lack of inventive step is not a ground for refusal – although of course it is a ground for nullity of the issued patent in front of a court. And lack of novelty or lack of patentability are grounds for refusal only insofar as the objection is crystal clear and there is no possible defense.
Well, it seems like this fundamental peculiarity of French patent law is about to become a thing of the past.
Article 42bis of the bill will make it possible for the INPI to refuse an application for lack of novelty or non-patentability, period (i.e. the objection will no longer need to be blatant); and also for lack of inventive step.
A huge change indeed. Hailed by some, as it is believed to increase the value of French patents. Lambasted by others, as applicants (especially local ones) may be less incentivized to file national applications if the local granting procedure becomes similar to the European one.
To me, the success or failure of the above reforms will mostly depend on their implementation by the INPI.
Tremendous efforts will have to be undertaken to hire and properly train new examiners to perform these tasks. Let’s hope that this aspect has not been underestimated by the government and that sufficient funding will be available to support these efforts.
One good point is that the new, beefed up, granting procedure will only come into force two years from the entry into force of the PACTE law. This transition period will certainly be necessary in order for everyone to get ready for this new enterprise, in other words “to explore strange new worlds, […] to boldly go where no man has gone before“.
And by the way, who said the unitary patent and the UPC would be the kiss of death for national patent rights?
PS: for those eager to know everything about the debates that took place in the Assemblée in connection with the above provisions, here is the link to the full transcript. Don’t hold your breath though, it is fairly high level and there was no discussion on the nuts and bolts of the new system.