France: Attorneys obliged to invest in continuous training

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

This update includes a ruling from the Court of Appeal, a judgment of the Paris Local Division, news of upcoming hearings, and predictions for 2025
US counsel review the key copyright and trademark trends of 2024, including generative AI disputes and SCOTUS cases
If 2024 is anything to go by, the next 12 months could see more IP firms seek investment opportunities while IP lawyers are increasingly likely to work alongside other functions
Practitioners reflect on the impact of USPTO guidance, as well as PTAB and litigation trends
We discuss Managing IP’s 50 most influential people in IP list and look back on the biggest talking points in the last month
Firms explain how they question jurors and account for potential bias in trade secrets cases
A meeting between the EPO and Ericsson, Paul McCartney weighing in on AI and copyright, and a law firm’s STEM pledge were among the top talking points
National courts could combat inconsistencies over the speed of judgments – and provide parties with much-needed certainty – by looking to the UPC
Sources in four jurisdictions discuss the downsides of delayed judgments and why they prefer a well-reasoned, late finding, over a quick ruling that lacks substance
Counsel discuss how likely SCOTUS is to remand closely watched trademark case, which centres on the principle of corporate separateness
Gift this article