France: PACTE Law introduces changes to French IP law

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

France: PACTE Law introduces changes to French IP law

The French law no. 2019-486 of May 22 2019 on business growth and transformation, known as the Action Plan for Business Growth and Transformation (PACTE) Law, introduces important changes into the French patent system, including conditions for infringement and invalidity actions for all industrial property rights.

Firstly, it will be possible to transform the application for a utility certificate into a patent application, whereas until now only the conversion of a patent into a utility certificate has been possible. Utility certificates will be issued for a 10 year period, rather than six years, from the day the application is filed.

The patent right is now subject to a full and substantive examination procedure including inventive step examination. Each criteria of patentability shall be fully examined. A one-year period is set in order to implement these amendments. These amendments will apply only to applications filed after this one-year period.

It should be noted that the PACTE Law does not provide the possibility of designating France directly in an international Patent Cooperation Treaty application.

In a nine-month period from the entering into force of the law, necessary measures will be adopted to create a patent opposition procedure in order to enable third parties to request before the French Intellectual Property Office (IPO) the revocation or modification of patents, while seeking to prevent abusive opposition procedures.

The order shall also provide the rules of appeals applicable to French IPO decisions on these oppositions.

Invalidity actions brought against patent, plant variety , design or model, or trademark rights, are no longer limited to a five-year period.

This puts an end to strong debates and contradictory decisions about the starting point of the five-year period previously applicable.

This provision applies from the publication of the law but has no effect on decisions which are final.

Until now, there was also a five-year limitation period, calculated from the last act of infringement, for starting an infringement action.

It is now stated that the limitation period for initiating the action starts from "the day the right holder knew or should have known the last fact allowing him/her to bring this action". This new calculation method applies to all IP rights.

This provision has already entered into force with no transitional provision for the ongoing cases.

The provisions of Article L 152-2 of the French Commercial Code on business secrecy have also been amended and are immediately applicable.

Finally, it is provided that the government is allowed to take by order, within six months from the enactment of this law, the necessary measures to implement the Trademark Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of December 16 2015, and to adjust the French trademark law with the new Trademark Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.

marie.jpg

Aurélia Marie

Cabinet Beau de Loménie

158, rue de l’Université

F - 75340 Paris Cedex 07 France

Tel: +33 1 44 18 89 00

Fax: +33 1 44 18 04 23

contact@bdl-ip.com

www.bdl-ip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article