Grégoire Desrousseaux

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.

AD Article

Prescription of additional remuneration: the trend in case law is confirmed (again)

An order of the Paris Court of justice of 25 June 2021[1] confirms the rules governing the application over time of the successive provisions on statute of limitations for claims for additional remuneration of employees' inventions (1). In this decision, and in an earlier decision of December 2020[2], the Court also recalls the rules for assessing the starting point of the limitation period in concreto (2).

AD Article

Application of PACTE law provisions on the statute of limitations for infringement actions: a welcomed clarification

An order from Paris Judicial Court dated May 6, 2021 has clarified how to compute the statute of limitations for infringement actions further to the PACTE Law’s entry into force. The PACTE Law introduces two changes to the statute of limitations for infringement actions: the starting point of the limitation period becomes subjective, since it is necessary to consider the moment when the plaintiff in the action "knew or should have known" the offending fact, in accordance with the general regime of article 2224 of the Civil Code ; but the statute further specifies that it is "the last fact" upon which the action is based which must be considered. These changes became effective on May 24, 2019. The order of May 6, 2021 recalls the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation according to which the new law cannot have the effect of modifying the starting point of the limitation period which began to run under the old law. Thus, acts of infringement that occurred before May 24, 2019 remain subject to a five-year statute of limitations that runs from the time the act was committed. In other words, the PACTE law will not have any practical effect before May 24, 2024. It is only from this date that the court will be able to fully apply the provisions relating to the starting point of the limitation period set out in article L.615-8 of the French Intellectual Property Code as amended by PACTE Law.

AD Article

Les Ateliers du brevet – édition 2020

Pour la troisième année consécutive, Grégoire Desrousseaux, François Pochart et leur équipe de mandataires européens et d’avocats, ont proposé quatre Ateliers du Brevet pour aborder des solutions pratiques aux problèmes quotidiens des professionnels des brevets.

AD Article

Limitation period for employees’ additional remuneration: the trend in case law is confirmed

On December 5, 2019, the Paris court issued a ruling on the statute of limitations for an employee's claim for additional compensation for a mission invention.

AD Article

Decree n° 2019-1333 of December 11, 2019 reforming French civil procedure: impact of extension of the powers of the case management judge on intellectual property litigation

Entering into force on January 1, 2020, Decree n°2019-1333 of December 11, 2019 reforming civil procedure (the "Decree") has already caused a lot of buzz, in particular in that it details the procedure applicable before the new first instance civil court (resulting from the merger of the tribunal de grande instance and the tribunal d'instance), simplifies lack of jurisdiction incidents within the same first instance civil court and, above all, enshrines in principle provisional enforcement of court decisions.