Contact
Within our Technologies Intellectual Property Media department, specifically our Intellectual Property, Media and Art team, Anaïs Pallut provides advisory and litigation support to French and international clients on all issues related to patent law and trade secrets, in a variety of sectors (pharmaceutical industry, mechanical engineering, consumer goods, etc.). She has extensive experience in coordinating cross-border disputes and in handling employee invention disputes.
As a graduate of the universities of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas, Anaïs has strong skills in intellectual property law.
She has been a member of the Paris Bar since 2014. Prior to joining August Debouzy in 2024, she practised patent, trademark, design, unfair competition and parasitism law at the hw&h, Abello, and Hoyng ROKH Monégier law firms.
Paris, 2014
LANGUAGES
French | English
AD Article
1st decisions on the merits issued by the UPC Central Division (2/2): key findings from the CD Paris decisions of 19 and 29 July
On 19 July, we published the first part of our study on the assessment of inventive step by the UPC Central Division. On the same day, the Central Division
AD Article
1st decisions on the merits issued by the UPC Central Division (1/2): what does the UPC say about the assessment of inventive step compared to the EPO?
Since the entry into force of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), one of the burning questions that practitioners have in mind is whether the UPC will apply the problem-solution approach of the European Patent Office (EPO) in its assessment of the inventive step. While it is still too early to draw any conclusions, it would appear from the decisions we have studied that the UPC applies its own standards, drawing inspiration from the EPO's problem-solution approach without duplicating it. We offer here a first analysis of how UPC assessed inventive step up to the recent decisions of the Central Division issued on 16 July (Sanofi v. Amgen and Regeneron v. Amgen ). A second publication will focus on the Central Division's decisions of July 19 (Meril v. Edwards Lifesciences ).
More
Publications