France: Confidentiality obligations and SPC update
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

France: Confidentiality obligations and SPC update

In June 2015, in a case concerning patent validity, the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) issued a decision (Cass Com 13-15.862) relating to confidentiality obligations to prevent any risk of public disclosure in an inter partes relationship:

i) Contrarily to what was mentioned in previous decisions rendered by courts of appeal, the Supreme Court decided that a confidentiality obligation could not be implied in commercial or business relationships between parties.

ii) To be valid, a confidentiality clause does not need to be in writing.

iii) An ownership clause – such as the usual "The transmitted documents are the ownership of the sender and cannot be transmitted" – should not be equated to a confidentiality clause.

In view of the above, I want to highlight the necessity of drafting written confidentiality clauses and the use of a corresponding "Confidential" mark on the documents they relate to.

In September 2015, the Tribunal de Grande instance of Montpellier issued a first instance decision (17.09.2015 RG2013/05047) in a case where the contractual relationship between the parties was based on an oral agreement or a so-called gentlemen's agreement concerning product development including exclusivity owed by the consultant for all projects retained by the creator.

According to the decision:

a) The protection of trade secrets is one of the consequences given to the consultancy agreement by equity, usage or law.

b) Scientific or technical information that result from the collaboration with a consultant are not considered information belonging to the public domain.

c) The use of trade secrets by the consultant to develop his own product or commissioned by a third party is a breach of contractual obligations of loyalty and confidentiality.

Impact of CJEU Seattle Genetics decision

The French Patent Office has confirmed that the new rule for calculating the duration of SPCs also applies to SPCs under examination.

For the already granted SPCs, the FPO can neither modify the granting decision, nor correct the term of the SPC. For informative purposes only, the patentee has the possibility to proceed with a registration in the French Patent Register in order to inform third parties about the date on which the marketing authorisation has been notified.

kohn.jpg

Philippe Kohn


Gevers & Ores41, avenue de FriedlandParis 75008, FranceTel: +33 1 45 00 48 48Fax: +33 1 40 67 95 67paris@gevers.euwww.gevers.eu

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article