Drapeaux archives: Conseil en propriété industrielle

Vincent Remy à la Conférence « Global Intellectual Property Ecology 2018 »

Global Intellectual Property Ecology Congress 2018

Co-organisée par IPR Daily et l’association Capital Intellectual Property Services, la Conférence « Global Intellectual Property Ecology » constitue l’un des événements les plus importants de l’année en matière de propriété intellectuelle, une plateforme d’échanges entre responsables de la propriété intellectuelle, entrepreneurs et investisseurs.

Le 15 novembre 2018, environ 500 participants, issus de plus de 15 pays et régions du monde, représentant des entreprises telles que Lenovo, Clarivate Analytics, Tecent, Ant Financial, JD, Ericsson, Mobike, Alibaba, se sont rassemblés pour partager leurs expériences réussies et explorer des opportunités commerciales autour des thèmes « Nouvelles Circonstances, Nouvelles Technologies, Nouvelles Stratégies ».

En tant que membre de la CNCPI, Vincent Remy, cofondateur du Cabinet LLR, a décrit et resitué les stratégies de protection de brevets dans un contexte européen qui a beaucoup évolué.

Accélération de la procédure pour l’obtention d’un brevet en France

Bien que la procédure de délivrance en France soit généralement rapide, de multiples possibilités d’accélération de la procédure existent.

accélération de procédure
Photo par Pixabay

En France, environ la moitié des demandes de brevets sont délivrées dans les 30 mois à compter de leur dépôt. Cependant, il est dans certains cas possible d’obtenir la délivrance plus rapidement, ou d’accélérer la procédure concernant des demandes habituellement délivrées après une durée plus longue. Néanmoins, cette stratégie n’est pas toujours avantageuse, et votre CPI peut vous aider à déterminer la meilleure option adaptée à votre cas.

Lire la suite Accélération de la procédure pour l’obtention d’un brevet en France

Privileged at last…

A new Rule at the U.S. Patent Office establishes that communications with foreign patent attorneys can be privileged.

Privileged information Since its coming into force on 7 December 2017, a new Rule (§ 42.57)[i] establishes that US patent agents, as well as foreign patent “practitioners”, who are qualified in their jurisdiction, will receive the same treatment as US attorneys on all issues affecting privilege or waiver. 82 Fed. Reg. 51570-75 (Nov. 7, 2017).

This clarification was long overdue as the status of a communication between a litigant and its domestic or foreign patent agent had been a hotly debated topic in the United States (US) for the last 50 years.

This is of real importance as patent litigations on an international level frequently involve the US, including challenges regarding the validity of patents which are heard before the US Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Privileged information and the US discovery process

In the US, pre-trial steps will generally involve the dreaded “discovery” process[i].  In this process reciprocal demands will be made by the parties for production of documents, depositions of parties and potential witnesses, written interrogatories etc…. The theory underlying the US rights of discovery is that all parties will go to trial with as much knowledge as possible and that neither party should be able to keep secrets from the other (except for protection against self-incrimination). This common law pleading principle is mainly applied to civil disputes and is the object of some detailed dispositions[ii] at the Federal level.

Therefore some information may not have to be disclosed and may be kept secret. Such information is described as being “privileged”.  Legal advice provided by an attorney to her/his client can enter the category of privileged information upon very specific conditions[iii] and is generally referred to as being “client-attorney privileged”.

Litigation involving patents offers several very specific challenges when the parties come to the discovery step and have to determine if a communication is, or is not, privileged.  In particular this is due to fact of:

  • the nature of patent-related communications: they may comprise a great deal of highly sensitive technical information.
  • the legal status of the advisers: they are frequently not registered before a US court to practise law and therefore, strictly speaking, not “attorneys”.  They can be US patent agents, or in-house counsels. Even more difficult is the case of foreign patent practitioners, who can also be either independent or in-house advisers of the litigant.

The new provisions now clarify at least the issue of professional status before the USPTAB of qualified independent patent practitioners such as the French CPI (Conseil en propriété industrielle), German (Patentanwalt) and British CPA (Chartered Patent Attorneys).

It is however always worth keeping in mind that the “privilege” status is to be decided on a document-by-document basis.  The nature of the communication is as important as the person writing it in order to decide if the privilege can be asserted.  The communication must be confidential in nature and “reasonably necessary and incident to the scope of the practitioner’s authority”[iii].  Opinions relating, for example, to commercial matters are unlikely to qualify.  Likewise, results of a patent search, even if carried out by a qualified patent attorney, may not be privileged although a detailed patentabilty opinion based on said search should be.

Thus, the issue of privileged information will stay an exceptionally delicate matter for patent attorneys worldwide and should be considered most carefully before starting any litigations involving countries, like the US, which have discovery-like provisions.

[i] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-11…/2017-23048.pdf

[ii] Chapter V of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

[iii] The standard set forth in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp. 1918 is often cited as « the » test for privilege:

“The privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication is made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with the communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication related to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) or legal services or (ii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client.” (emphasis added).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/247/32/case.html

Article written by Sophie McDade from LLR Patent and Trademark Attorneys

LLR logo

Mandataire ou mandataire ? N’est pas mandataire qui veut !

Lorsque des sociétés procédant uniquement au paiement d’annuités tentent d’obtenir – sans succès – un élargissement de leur mandat auprès de l’INPI, constitué pour le simple paiement des redevances.

N’est pas mandataire qui veut !Pas moins de trois arrêts ont été émis par la Cour d’appel de Paris en 2017 pour rappeler que les avertissements avant déchéance ou les constatations de déchéances ne peuvent être transmis par l’INPI qu’au Conseil en Propriété Industrielle dûment constitué ou au titulaire du brevet, et non aux sociétés procédant uniquement au paiement des annuités.

 

Lire la suite Mandataire ou mandataire ? N’est pas mandataire qui veut !