France moves towards harmonising law on ownership of inventions and software

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 moves towards harmonising law on ownership of inventions and software

Sponsored by

beau-de-lomenie.png
binary-code-4826796-1280.jpg

New rules now apply in France to inventions and software created by individuals who are neither private nor state sector employees, as Gaston Vedel of Cabinet Beau de Loménie explains

Order No. 2021-1658 of December 15 2021 concerns the attribution of IP rights relating to assets generated by software developers and inventors who are neither company employees nor civil servants and who have been working in a company or public institute carrying out research. This order has introduced new provisions into the French Intellectual Property Code (CPI), namely Articles L 113-9-1 and L 611-7-1.

These new provisions seek to extend the existing rules concerning patentable inventions (Article L 611-7 CPI) and software (Article L 113-9 CPI) created by public or state sector employees to other categories of authors and inventors.

These categories include interns, PhD students, scholarship students from overseas and emeritus professors or directors, who have been working in a company or public institute carrying out research acting as a host institution.

The new provisions provide that the host institution will own inventions or software created by an inventor or author in the context of their regular activities/mission or on the basis of explicit instructions given by the host institution. They also provide for the possible assignment to the host institution of certain inventions not resulting from the regular activities of the inventor or from instructions that are explicitly entrusted to the inventor. 

These provisions will apply whatever the type of host institution having an R&D activity (public or private), provided that the inventor or developer is bound to the host institution by an agreement and, as regards software, that the author was working under the orders of a manager and received compensation for the work carried out.

The new provisions seek to simplify the situation for institutions carrying out research and to harmonise the situation with respect to staff members being company employees or civil servants.

An implementing decree is expected to define in more detail the nature of the financial compensation which will be due to the inventors or developers.

Articles L 113-9-1 and L 611-7-1 entered into force on December 17 2021 and apply to inventions or software created from this date.

 

Gaston Vedel

IP lawyer, Cabinet Beau de Loménie

E: gvedel@bdl-ip.com

 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Judge Alan Albright is to leave his role at the Western District of Texas, and could return to private practice
Stobbs has successfully seen off a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
After almost a quarter of a century, Marshall Gerstein has a new managing partner
Abbott winning another round against Sinocare and Menarini, and 'long arm' clarification on the UK's position within the UPC, were also among major developments
Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Michelle Lee discusses reaching milestones at the USPTO, AI’s role in legal work, and how to empower women in tech and IP
Executive chair Matt Dixon, who reveals a new associate hire, says the firm wants to offer a realistic pathway to partnership while avoiding the ‘corporate machine’ route
Mayer Brown’s role in cardiovascular technology dispute reflects how firms are pursuing precedent-setting cases to try and guide AI and patent law
Gift this article