Grégoire Desrousseaux

AD Article

InterDigital v Amazon: The UPC pushback against ASI-Equivalent interim licensing in a post-Brexit landscape

In a post-Brexit context falling outside the scope of EU Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis), the Local Division of Mannheim the UPC, in its Order of 22 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_936/2025), confirmed in full its ex parte order of 30 September 2025, rejecting Amazon’s application for review.

AD Article

Warning letters and disparagement: a recent Supreme Court ruling on copyright and its potential repercussions on patent law

In its decision of 15 October 2025 (Cass. Com. No. 24-11.150), the French Supreme Court adopted a particularly strict approach to disparagement. It held that, in the absence of a court ruling establishing copyright infringement, merely informing third parties of a possible infringement constitutes an act of disparagement under Article 1240 of the French Civil Code. The ruling, issued in a copyright dispute, sanctions the sending of warning letters to third parties — such as resellers — prior to any judicial finding of infringement, regardless of the measured tone of the communication. According to the Court, referring to a potential infringement alone is sufficient to characterise disparagement, particularly where the communication goes beyond what is strictly necessary or is sent to multiple recipients. Although the decision concerns copyright law, it raises significant questions for patent litigation. Under French law, Article L. 615-1(3) of the Intellectual Property Code may require prior notice to certain non-manufacturing parties in order to establish liability, which can justify informing customers or distributors. However, the Supreme Court reiterates that such information must be strictly limited, proportionate and carefully drafted, without threatening, excessive or one-sided language. Recent case law in patent matters — including disputes relating to standard essential patents and proceedings before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) — confirms that premature or insufficiently contextualised communications (whether warning letters or press releases) presenting a competitor as a potential infringer may constitute disparagement. In a context where prior notice is no longer required to bring infringement actions before the UPC, this decision further reinforces the duty of caution. Any communication addressed to third parties before a judicial finding of infringement must be objectively necessary and narrowly framed, failing which the rights holder may incur liability for disparagement.

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.