Grégoire Desrousseaux

AD Article

Revocation, provisional enforcement and limitation: heads I win, tails you lose...

The Paris Court of Appeal has ruled a second time on the possibilities of limitation by the patentee, following a decision by the court of first instance t

AD Article

Appeal against French Patent Office's opposition decision: new prior art and new requests before the Court of Appeal

In a previous article (available here), the question of whether the patent proprietor could file new auxiliary requests in response to new prior art produc

AD Article

Appeal against French Patent Office's opposition decisions: confirmation of the inadmissibility of new claims in the absence of new elements

On 4 July, the Paris Court of Appeal handed down a new ruling on an appeal against a decision of the Director General of the French Patent Office (the “INP

AD Deal

August Debouzy Advises Menix Group on the Sale of Global D to Naxicap Partners

The law firm August Debouzy advised the Menix Group on the sale of its subsidiary Global D, specializing in dental implantology, to Naxicap Partners. This strategic transaction aims for significant growth over the next five years through a buy-and-build strategy, industrial innovations, and international expansion. August Debouzy’s multidisciplinary team, led by Étienne Mathey, leveraged its expertise in Corporate, Tax, Employment Law, and IP/IT to support this key deal.

AD Article

Sony Court of Cassation ruling of April 24, 2024: admissibility of infringement claims even for events occurring prior to registration of the assignment.

Registration of the assignment in the National Patent Register (NPR) enables the assignee of a patent to enforce the assigned patent against third parties

AD Article

Programme de rémunération supplémentaire porté à la connaissance du salarié : condition suffisante mais pas nécessaire pour mettre en route la prescription de l’action en rémunération supplémentaire de l’inventeur salarié

Un programme de rémunération supplémentaire porté à la connaissance du salarié : une condition suffisante mais pas nécessaire à la mise en route de la prescription de l’action en rémunération supplémentaire de l’inventeur salarié. Par un arrêt du 1er avril 2022, la Cour d’appel de Paris confirme l’application des règles de prescription de l’action en rémunération supplémentaire des inventeurs salariés découlant de la réforme de la prescription de 2008 : le délai de prescription triennal court à partir du moment où le salarié avait connaissance des faits lui permettant d’exercer l’action.

AD Article

1st date of proceeding before the Paris Court of Justice: 60 days after the service of summons, even for foreign defendants

The Economic and Commercial Activity Department of the 1st instance court of Paris has modified its website. Thus, even for summonses involving a defendant residing abroad, it is possible to request a date for the orientation hearing within a standard period of 60 days rather than 180. Although it is only published on the page of the Economic and Commercial Activity Department, this clarification should concern all summonses subject to the obligation to take of the date of orientation hearing.

AD Article

San-Ei v. Nexira on the abuse of the right to sue for infringement: an isolated case or the beginning of a disturbing case law for right holders?

the abuse of the right to sue for infringement : When it comes to infringement proceedings, it is common for the defendant to counterclaim for abuse of process, and equally common for the defendant to be dismissed. The dismissal of such claims is usually based on the grounds that the plaintiff may be mistaken about the scope of his rights and that the mere bringing of such action is not abusive per se.

AD Article

FRAND licences: the Paris Court of First Instance confirms its jurisdiction

Two decisions of 7 December 2021 in the same case (i) confirm the jurisdiction of the Paris Court of First Instance to hear claims relating to the determination of a FRAND rate at the global level and (ii) recognise ETSI's standing to defend in this type of dispute. The case opposes Xiaomi against Philips and ETSI.

AD Article

Recours en restauration : la Cour de cassation impose à l’INPI d’harmoniser sa pratique avec celle de l’OEB

Dans un arrêt du 1er décembre, la Cour de cassation a annulé une décision du directeur général de l’INPI déclarant un recours en restauration irrecevable comme tardif. Elle retient une nouvelle interprétation du délai d’un an pour former un recours en restauration des droits à présenter une requête en poursuite de la procédure. Cette interprétation aligne la pratique de l’INPI sur celle de l’OEB.