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

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

Arrival of Caitlin Heard will bolster soon-to-be-merged Ashurst Perkins Coie’s IP presence in London
AI, cybersecurity and data practice group will provide clients with legal guidance around AI alongside a 'deep technical foundation’ in IP
Lawyers at Vondst and Biopatents say a ruling concerning the protected status of trade secrets could see the UPC flooded with requests to prevent access to confidential information
Sharad Vadehra of Kan & Krishme discusses why older IP firms still have an edge over up-and-coming boutiques and how the firm is using AI to provide quick and cost-effective service
Lawyers at Appleyard Lees share how they picked apart a plant breeder’s infringement claims concerning the ‘Tango’ mandarin
A further decision on long-arm status, and a new hire for Pentarc in Germany from Taylor Wessing were also among top developments
The US decision marks a rare grant of a request under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in a patent case
Stobbs has applied to strike out a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
With trademark volumes surging, trademark teams need to think beyond traditional clearance searches, towards a continuous, intelligence-led workflow, says Meghan Medeiros of Corsearch
Brazilian in-house counsel say law firms’ technology investments have not translated into tangible benefits, meaning tech use is a minor factor when selecting advisers
Gift this article