Or should that be cosmic irony?
Today’s tale is that of an inventor applicant who is successful in obtaining the grant of a European patent – which is no small feat for a self-represented individual; and who then loses the French part of his European patent due to a minor misstep.
But he does not give up and is fully reinstated by the Paris Cour d’appel… due to what might also be a procedural error by the French patent office (INPI). Tit for tat.
And now, the somewhat more complete account of these events.
Mr. F (as he is referred to in the redacted version of the ruling) filed a PCT application in 2007, claiming the priority of a French patent application. The invention is a gas turbine engine. Based on this PCT application, a European patent was granted in 2011. If you have a look at the European patent register, you will see that the examination proceedings were mostly conducted by phone, the applicant being instructed which taxes he should pay and being advised as to which modifications would be acceptable for the examining division. Kudos to the EPO for explaining what needed to be explained – and for documenting these explanations in the record accessible to the public (more on this topic below).
Then, Mr. F started paying renewal fees at the INPI to keep the French part of his patent in force.
In 2015, the 9th renewal fee became due. That year, there was an increase in the schedule of fees, and the new rate was 180 euros. But Mr. F paid only 170 euros.
At the EPO, this would (presumably!) not have been a major difficulty, as “the EPO may, where this is considered justified, overlook any small amounts lacking without prejudice to the rights of the person making the payment (Art. 8 RFees)” (Guidelines, A-X, 7.1.1).
But the INPI was not lenient. “Un sou est un sou” – every penny counts. Thus, the French part of the patent was declared lapsed on May 31, 2016.
There are two ways to challenge a declaration of lapse. One is a request for restoration of rights. The other one is a “recours gracieux“ which I would probably not translate into a gracious appeal, but rather a petition for reconsideration.
The INPI dismissed this petition for reconsideration in a decision dated February 6, 2018. It is against this decision that Mr. F filed an appeal with the Paris Cour d’appel.
And then what?
For starters, the INPI argued that the appeal was inadmissible because the notice of appeal neither specified the date and object of the decision under appeal, nor the professional occupation and birthplace of the appellant. As you can guess, Mr. F did not hire an attorney at the appeal stage either. Usually, this is not a good idea, but in this case the court was satisfied that the decision under appeal could be properly identified by the mention “I hereby appeal the INPI decision for the lapse of my patent“, and the appellant was allowed to simply provide the missing information at the hearing.
On the merits, the INPI argued that the procedure had been clean. Admittedly, no reminder of the grace period was issued after the due date for the renewal fee – but the INPI is not required to send such a reminder.
As for Mr. F, he claimed that he was never informed that his payment was insufficient; that he moved in 2012; and that, although he duly received all correspondence from the INPI, as an exception he did not receive the communication on the declaration of lapse and he only became aware of it more than one year and a half afterwards.
By the way, this is reminiscent of the infamous pravastatin case, in which an SPC was considered lapsed and then had to be reinstated due to a correspondence problem.
Here is now the court’s position:
The court notes that, based on the patent datasheet submitted by the INPI, Mr. F residing in Palluau is mentioned as the patent proprietor, but Mr. F residing in Le Pallet is indicated as the representative. It is at this “representative” address that the INPI sent him each year from 2012 to 2018 the renewal fee receipts, including that of November 12, 2015 for the amount of 170 euros.
However, it has been established that the decision of declaration of lapse of May 31, 2016 was not sent to Mr. F at his address in Le Pallet, but at the one in Palluau; and that the registered letter came back with the mention “unknown recipient at this address”; and that these circumstances have prevented him to exert his rights to maintain or restore the patent in time.
It can be deduced from all of this that Mr. F’s appeal must be granted so that the decision to reject his petition for reconsideration is set aside.
Let me now express some conflicting observations.
First, the court’s reasoning may rest on shaky legal grounds.
Even if the declaration of lapse had been properly notified to Mr. F, it would still have been too late for him to pay the missing amount. Actually, declarations of lapse are only issued after the grace period is over, i.e. when it is already too late to redress the situation. A proper notification of this declaration of lapse would have enabled him to file a request for restoration – but it would not per se have entitled him to a reconsideration of his case.
Second, despite this somewhat shaky reasoning, I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. F – and thus for this judgment.
What happened to this inventor strikes me as mostly unfair. The INPI did not take any step to let him know that a minor amount of the recently increased renewal fee was still due, then messed up with the patentee’s contact information (how and why being unclear based on the judgment), and finally, as far as I understand, continued to bank the following renewal fees for several years despite the lapse.
Third, I assume that one of the reasons why the INPI stood its ground when Mr. F finally complained is the protection of the interests of third parties.
This is a very legitimate concern. It is true that reinstating a patent further to a procedure initiated a couple of years after the lapse (and thus initiated after the one-year restoration time bar) can also be very unfair – to third parties.
But I think one way to address this concern would be to make the office’s records more fully and readily available to the public, so that third parties can make their own assessment of the actual situation of any patent or application.
Progress has recently been made, but this is still not enough. If you look up the patent in suit on the INPI’s website, you will see that the only documents available for download are… the publication of the PCT application, and the B1 patent!
The declaration of lapse cannot be downloaded – let alone the no-delivery mailing receipt. The full renewal fee records cannot be checked – so that third parties cannot see that the patentee paid the major part of the 9th renewal fees and continued to pay the following ones. Last but not least, the “datasheet” mentioned by the court, in which the “representative address” is supposed to be indicated, can also not be retrieved from the website.
Some documents can probably be more or less easily obtained upon request – at least the communication on the declaration of lapse and hopefully the patentee’s petition for reconsideration and the INPI’s decision to refuse this petition. But I am pretty sure that not all of the relevant information can be obtained. Besides, this is 2020 – everything should be made available online.
Anyway, congratulations to Mr. F, and let’s hope he gets the next steps right when his patent is reinstated, especially regarding the payment of the various renewal fees.
CASE REFERENCE: Cour d’appel de Paris, pôle 5 chambre 2, June 19, 2020, Mr. F v. Directeur général de l’INPI, RG No. 19/06949.