France: Attorneys obliged to invest in continuous training

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

France: Attorneys obliged to invest in continuous training

Since the beginning of this year following law n° 20104‐315 of March 11 2014 reinforcing the battle against counterfeiting, an article was introduced in the Intellectual Property Code regulating the IP profession stipulating that all qualified patent and trade mark attorneys (conseils en propriété industrielle) need to dedicate a significant part of their time to professional training.

This decision has been preceded by a hefty debate between professionals claiming that such an obligation should not be regulated but left to the initiative of each individual, and those claiming that it is a must, testifying to a strong willingness to maintain a high level of expertise all along one's career as an IP attorney.

The article L422‐10‐1 of the Intellectual Property Code stipulates that all French IP attorneys have to spend (at least) 20 hours per calendar year on on professional training.

Interestingly, four types of intervention can be taken into account to fulfil this obligation.

First of all one can fulfil this obligation by participating in training such as academic seminars or courses related to IP ‐ think of law changes or case law evolutions. Note that seminars or courses given by a qualified patent or trade mark attorney outside an academic environment can also qualify. It gives IP attorneys the possibility to follow specific training referring to specialised matters not (yet) dealt with by the academic world. Luckily the hours one commits to acting as a speaker on IP or teacher in the matter also count.

Finally, publishing articles or work related to IP, are also valid to comply with this training obligation The Compagnie Nationale des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle (CNCPI) will assess whether the

training obligation has been fulfilled by the IP practioners. However, the legal framework detailing the control of such obligation and the nature of the potential sanctions in case the obligation is not fulfilled still needs to be set up. For the most proactive French law firms these new rules just confirm what they are already promoting internally. On a wider scale, it shows the willingness of the French IP profession to ensure its expertise is continuously developed and kept up to date in an ever changing world.

Rolland_Jean

Jean‐Christophe Rolland


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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Six hires across the IP spectrum reflect Orrick’s efforts to better serve tech clients across the IP lifecycle
David Stone, partner at White & Case, argues that the government’s planned reforms will modernise and futureproof UK design law, but leave two of the thorniest problems unresolved
Max Scott will join the firm’s IP transactions group in California, becoming the latest Weil IP partner to secure their future
Yonatan Drori, attorney at Drori-Stav IP in Israel, explains why foreign counsel must treat Israel’s patent disclosure requirements as an ongoing obligation, rather than a one-off formality
From Japan to Southeast Asia, domestic and regional firms picked up some of the biggest prizes, while key foreign players maintained momentum
Earlier this month, Managing IP had exclusively reported that the French arm of Taylor Wessing was minded to pull out of the deal
Our latest podcast examines how Weil’s IP practice evolved, where its practitioners could (and will) go next, and which firms and markets stand to benefit from the redistribution of talent
Former Latham partner Chris Henry and transactions lawyer Liza Cotter are heading to the firm as Weil’s IP practice starts to disperse
Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Gift this article