An International Guide to
Patent Case Management for Judges

13.3.6 Proceedings on the merits

13.3.6.1 Pre-litigation

In France, the pre-litigation phase is a critical component of managing patent disputes. It is customary and common practice to seek an amicable solution to a dispute before taking legal action. In practice, such an attempt may take the form of formal and informal direct exchanges between the parties' managers or representatives, or by sending a formal notice to the alleged infringer.

Formal notice may be sent directly by the patent owner or its licensee, but it is more common for it to be drafted and sent by their lawyers. In such cases, the lawyer has a professional obligation to invite the recipient to forward the letter to their own counsel. Communications between French lawyers or industrial property attorneys remain confidential.

The aim of the formal notice letter is to inform the recipient of the facts and charges against them, particularly the patent(s) and product(s) in question. It also offers them the opportunity to cease the infringement, agree not to repeat it and pay compensation for the prejudice suffered before any referral to the courts.

The letter creates an opportunity for the recipient to share their perspective, and for the parties involved to present their initial arguments and thereby assess the merits of their respective claims.

Nevertheless, caution should be exercised when sending such a letter. In principle, it should be addressed only to the alleged infringer and not to third parties, such as resellers, distributors or their customers. It should be couched in neutral, measured and objective language and use conditional phrasing when necessary. Threatening language should be avoided. Otherwise, it may constitute an act of unfair competition and/or defamation, for which the author may be held liable.¹⁶⁵

Although common and useful in most cases, sending a formal notice is not a mandatory prerequisite for initiating legal action. Indeed, certain special procedures, such as seizure for infringement or an ex parte provisional injunction, need to be initiated without notifying the opposing party, in order to achieve an element of surprise and prevent the destruction of evidence.

Third parties other than the manufacturer, importer, exporter or transfer agent (i.e., those guilty of offering, placing on the market, using, or holding for the purpose of use or placing on the market) may be held liable for claims relating to a product or a product obtained directly by a process only if they were aware of the alleged infringement (Article L. 615-1 of the IPC).

In certain contractual contexts, seeking an amicable resolution between the parties may constitute a mandatory prerequisite for bringing an infringement action. For example, this would apply in the event of a dispute between a licensor and a licensee if the contract contains a clause requiring a prior attempt at amicable resolution of the dispute (e.g., an escalation clause) or mandating conciliation or mediation.

In that regard, case law excludes the application of conciliation clauses that are overly general or vague.¹⁶⁶ Only those that are precise and clearly impose mandatory amicable procedures before legal action is initiated have legal force (for instance in the case of a plea of inadmissibility).

Even when pre-litigation steps are not mandatory, they are nevertheless recommended in practice. They are often the subject of specific details mentioned in the statement of facts of any subsequent complaint to explain to the court the events that led to the initiation of the proceedings.

Lastly, sending a formal notice, even by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt, is merely a prelude to legal action and does not affect the statute of limitations;¹⁶⁷ therefore, particular attention must be paid to the timing of filing the action to ensure that it is not barred by a statute of limitations.

13.3.6.2 Conduct of the trial

In France, patent litigation is conducted according to the general rules applicable to civil and commercial court proceedings. Those rules are designed to ensure compliance with fundamental due process guarantees. The rules of procedure are those of general civil litigation law, subject to certain specific provisions, such as territorial jurisdiction, evidentiary measures, reversal of the burden of proof and declaratory actions.

In urgent cases where a decision on the merits is necessary, the plaintiff may use a special proceeding known as the “fixed-date proceeding,” which allows a decision to be obtained within a few months. The conditions for the fixed-date proceeding are set forth in Article 840 of the CCP and are authorized by the president of the court upon a motion filed by the plaintiff in an ex parte proceeding. The plaintiff must set forth the grounds for urgency in the motion and submit the draft summons and documents to be produced. The plaintiff must present all claims, arguments and evidence when the summons is served. They cannot add anything except in response to their opponent’s arguments (a “front-loaded” proceeding).

In ordinary proceedings, pre-trial preparation and scheduling a hearing rarely take less than two years.

The roles of the parties and the judge are determined by the principle of party disposition (Articles 1–13 of the CCP), whereby the parties (i) initiate the proceedings by filing the complaint and performing the necessary procedural acts in the required form and within the prescribed time limits, and (ii) indicate the subject matter of the dispute through their respective claims, which are binding on the judge. The judge may not alter the subject matter nor base a decision on facts or arguments that lie beyond its scope (prohibition of judgments rendered infra or ultra petita), except in certain cases. For example, pursuant to Article 125 of the CCP, the judge may raise points of order on their own initiative, provided that they concern matters of public policy. This is particularly true when the failure is to observe the time limits within which remedies must be exercised or to initiate a remedy.

The parties are also responsible for bringing charges and presenting evidence of the facts supporting their claims (Article 9 of the CCP) while respecting rights protected by law and using fair procedures. The parties have access to tools specific to patent litigation, particularly the infringement seizure procedure and the right to information.

The judge, particularly the pre-trial judge, acts as guarantor of the proceedings' proper conduct and compliance with deadlines. In that capacity, the judge must ensure that communications are timely,¹⁶⁸ bearing in mind that extensions to deadlines set in the schedules may be granted only for serious cause,¹⁶⁹ and may order a partial closure of the proceedings in the event of a party's failure to meet deadlines.¹⁷⁰

The judge ensures the regularity of the proceedings, sets deadlines to structure the trial and may invite the parties to provide explanations or, on the judge's own initiative, order legally admissible investigative measures.

The judge also ensures compliance with the adversarial principle, making sure that each party is aware of the opposing party's arguments and documents in a timely manner and can address them (Articles 14 to 16 of the CCP). The judge thereby ensures a balance between the parties' rights and the proper administration of justice, while respecting the freedom of the defense and the public nature of the proceedings.

The pre-trial judge rules under relatively flexible procedures by means of a "note in the record", that is, an entry in the case management software. In practice, French judges, either on their own initiative or at the request of the parties, schedule judicial hearings to efficiently resolve issues arising during the pre-trial phase. That approach ensures flexibility. The judge is authorized to issue orders exclusively in response to requests for disclosure of documents, advance payments, pleas of inadmissibility and exceptions, as well as to declare the proceedings terminated.¹⁷¹

13.3.6.2.1 Pre-trial proceedings and preliminary hearing

In France, patent litigation proceedings begin with a preliminary phase known as "pre-trial proceedings." These proceedings are governed by Articles 776 et seq. of the CCP and conducted under the supervision of a judge from the chamber assigned to the case. The judge's role is twofold: to ensure the smooth conduct of the proceedings, particularly by ensuring the timely exchange of pleadings and the production of documents; and to resolve any procedural issues that arise. That allows the focus to remain on the merits of the case.

The preliminary hearing: once the plaintiff's summons has been served on the defendant and filed with the court clerk's office, the case is called during the preliminary hearing. The hearing is held by the presiding judge of the division to which the case has been assigned. If the presiding judge determines that the case is not ready for immediate adjudication (Article 779 of the CCP), as is typically the case in patent litigation, they will appoint a pre-trial judge. This hearing takes place in person, not remotely; judges strongly encourage attorneys to be present, in particular with a view to considering a participatory procedure (Article 776 of the CCP), discussing potential mediation, clarifying the course of the proceedings (timeline, other procedural issues already identified), or filing a non-compliance judgment if the defendant, despite having been duly summoned, fails to appear (Article 778, paragraph 4, of the CCP).

Pre-trial proceedings: Once the pre-trial phase begins, pre-trial hearings are held regularly on dates set by the presiding judge or the pre-trial judge, in consultation with the attorneys. During this phase, written pleadings and supporting documents are exchanged between the parties until the case is ready for trial. These hearings are conducted remotely, and communications between attorneys and judges take place electronically via the RPVA. Nonetheless, the parties may request in-person hearings, known as “judicial meetings,” to engage in adversarial discussion with the other party before the judge regarding one or more issues or potential difficulties.

During the pre-trial phase, judges have numerous powers allowing them to ensure the smooth conduct of proceedings. Those powers fall into two categories: (i) judicial administration and (ii) jurisdictional powers. The pre-trial judge may set the procedural timetable (Article 781, paragraph 1 of the CCP), grant extensions (Article 781, paragraph 2), issue orders to conclude or communicate documents (Article 780, paragraph 3), or impose penalties for non-compliance with those deadlines by the parties (Articles 800 and 801). Under their jurisdictional powers, pre-trial judges may rule on points of law and disputes before the case proceeds to consideration of the merits. Judges may rule on procedural objections and certain pleas of inadmissibility, grant a provisional payment for the trial when the claim is not seriously contested, or order certain provisional measures (Article 789). Judicial acts, unlike judicial administration measures,¹⁷² carry the force of res judicata and are subject to appeal.

For instance, during the pre-trial phase, the plaintiff may file a related claim for unfair competition or infringement, or request a seizure of infringing goods or provisional measures. The plaintiff may, of course, raise any defense against the counterclaim filed by the defendant during the proceedings.

The duration of the pre-trial phase varies based on several factors. They include the number of pleadings exchanged (in principle, a summons, a defense, a reply and a rejoinder), compliance with the schedule set by the pre-trial judge and the nature or complexity of the case. In practice, however, it generally takes a minimum of approximately 12 months for the case to be ready for trial.

Once the file is complete, the pre-trial judge declares the instruction closed at the end of a virtual hearing, as soon as the state of the case allows. At that point, the case is referred back to the court to be heard on the date set by the president or by the judge, if they have been delegated to do so.

After closure, it is not possible to file new pleadings or produce new documents, under penalty of automatic inadmissibility (Article 802), except in certain cases (revocation of the closure order by the judge, voluntary intervention, etc.).

13.3.6.2.2 Written exchanges between the parties involved

Written exchanges relate to the substance of the case and contain the parties' claims, arguments and defenses. They also concern exceptions and pleas of inadmissibility. Such matters must be addressed in separate pleadings, as detailed in Section 13.3.6.2.3.

Written exchanges between the parties take the form of “closing” pleadings. According to Article 768, paragraph 3, of the CCP: “The parties must include the claims and arguments presented or invoked in previous pleadings in their final pleadings. Otherwise, the court deems them to have been abandoned, and the court will only rule on the final pleadings.”

Consequently, each new version of the pleadings must refer to all the arguments and claims, old and new, unlike the practice in some countries, where only new arguments are mentioned. Where a claim is not included in a party's final pleadings at first instance, it is considered to have been abandoned. Furthermore, if an appeal is filed, that claim will also be considered a prohibited new claim. The same principle applies before the court of appeal (Article 954, paragraph 4, of the CCP).

The pleadings must adhere to a specific structure that enables the court to swiftly comprehend the contested issues, the pertinent facts and the legal arguments presented. They commence with a cover page that identifies the parties involved and their respective counsel.

The principles of concentration of arguments and timely delivery of justice determine the number of exchanges between the parties. In principle, they are limited to a summons, a defense, a reply and a rejoinder, followed by the closing arguments. Beyond two sets of pleadings per party, any new pleading must be specifically justified and may only be intended to respond to new arguments or new evidence presented by the opposing party. Such a new pleading may not introduce elements that could have been included in the initial pleadings. In practice, the parties generally exchange between two and four sets of pleadings each.

The exchange of pleadings and exhibits among attorneys is mostly conducted electronically, primarily via the RPVA. It is necessary and customary, when a party files pleadings, to provide the opposing party and the court with a version in which changes from the previous pleadings are clearly indicated, for example by a line in the margin, to allow for quick identification of additions or changes (Article 768). Additionally, the transmission message must clearly indicate that these are pleadings, and the attached files must include the docket number, date and names of the parties involved.

The documents are to be communicated separately and must be listed in a schedule attached to the pleadings. Their numbering must remain unchanged throughout the proceedings and be retained in any new communications. Documents in a foreign language must be submitted in a language that is comprehensible to the parties and the court. In practice, documents in English are sometimes submitted without translation. When a translation is provided, it may be unofficial and there is no requirement to use a certified translator.

In France, there is no requirement for front-loading, meaning that while it is preferable to present as many arguments and exhibits as possible at the outset of the proceedings, the addition of new arguments or exhibits during the proceedings is not prohibited in principle. However, the judge may consider any late submission of arguments or evidence, particularly in the context of Article 700 of the CCP, which addresses the award of costs known as irrecoverable costs (primarily lawyers' and consultants' fees) in cases of conduct designed to delay proceedings.

The pleadings and documents exchanged between the parties are not accessible to the public. The public is privy only to the proceedings, including the hearings, and the court's decision. However, certain hearings may be closed to the public and held in chambers, particularly when dealing with trade secrets. Additionally, the court has the discretion to issue two versions of its judgment: one public and the other confidential.

13.3.6.2.3 Procedural objections and pleas of inadmissibility

The pre-trial judge has sole jurisdiction from the moment of appointment by the president of the section until the closure of proceedings. The judge rules on two types of incident that may lead to the suspension or termination of proceedings. Those incidents most often occur at the defendant's initiative and include procedural objections and pleas of inadmissibility, pursuant to Article 789 of the CCP. In practice, the parties submit separate pleadings relating to each incident, addressed specifically to the pre-trial judge (Article 791 of the CCP).

Under the standard instruction procedure, applicable as of September 1, 2025,¹⁷³ the pre-trial judge retains the authority to adjudicate procedural objections and pleas of inadmissibility.¹⁷⁴ That said, pre-trial judges rarely rule on the pleas of inadmissibility brought before them. Rather, they are referred to the court to be examined at the same time as the merits. This mechanism is intended to prevent pleas of inadmissibility from being used as a delaying tactic to prolong the proceedings.

According to Article 73 of the CCP, procedural objections generally result in one of three outcomes: the declaration of an irregularity in, or termination or suspension of proceedings. Such objections relate primarily to the court's lack of jurisdiction,¹⁷⁵ lis pendens,¹⁷⁶ the invalidity of procedural documents¹⁷⁷ or a judicial stay of proceedings.¹⁷⁸

Therefore, objections must be submitted to the judge before any defense on the merits or pleas of inadmissibility,¹⁷⁹ in other words before any other defense argument.¹⁸⁰ There are two exceptions. The first applies where the act whose nullity is sought is performed after the commencement of proceedings. The second applies where the defect concerns a lack of capacity to appear in court or the representative's lack of authority.¹⁸¹ Where a procedural objection is to be made, the party that notices it must raise the issue promptly. Any deliberate delay in doing so renders that party liable.¹⁸²

The aim of pleas of inadmissibility is to have the opponent's claim declared inadmissible without examination of the merits (Article 122 of the CCP). Unlike procedural objections, such pleas relate to the individual and the claims made, rather than the lawsuit itself.

Pleas of inadmissibility may be brought at any time during pre-trial proceedings,¹⁸³ but not after their closing, unless their ground comes to light after that order. Such pleas may be remedied by the party against whom they are brought.¹⁸⁴

The plaintiff's lack of standing or interest in bringing the action is a plea of inadmissibility that is frequently raised before the judge.¹⁸⁵ In that regard, it has been ruled that the assignee of a patent is only entitled to initiate an infringement action from the date of registration of the assignment in the national patent register.¹⁸⁶

Pleas of inadmissibility may also relate to actions brought after deadlines, as in the case of a statute of limitations or extinctive time limits,¹⁸⁷ or where avenues of appeal are only available to a person harmed by a patent alleged to be invalid, to the exclusion of any other interested party.¹⁸⁸

Appeals against the decision of the pre-trial judge are subject to specific rules. If the appeal is directed against a decision regarding an objection or a plea of inadmissibility that terminates the proceedings, it may be lodged immediately.¹⁸⁹ Otherwise, it is necessary to wait for the judgment on the merits, and it will then be possible to appeal the decision of the pre-trial judge together with the appeal against the judgment on the merits. This regime also applies to the nullity of procedural acts. However, special rules exist for other exceptions, in particular for stays of proceedings.

13.3.6.2.4 Bifurcation

Bifurcation (or splitting), also known as "sequencing", is a novel procedural instrument derived from the practices of judges and attorneys specializing in IP. It has been codified in Articles 807-1 to 807-3 of the CCP. Its purpose is to enhance the efficiency of the proceedings by focusing on the main issue in dispute.

The parties may decide to refer only part of their claims to the judge by means of a document countersigned by a lawyer. The presiding judge then issues an order to refer the matter to the court, which rules only on the issues raised by the parties.

In practice, the split allows the entire dispute to be avoided when a preliminary issue needs to be decided. For example, the commission of acts of infringement in France, or more generally the principle of infringement, can be decided without addressing the issue of remedies. This tool is also useful in the case of essential patents subject to a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) standard.¹⁹⁰ It allows for the preliminary determination of validity and infringement, followed by the determination of a license rate if necessary.

Once the judgment on this issue, known as a “partial judgment”, has been rendered, the case is referred back to the pre-trial judge, and the pre-trial proceedings can continue. However, it is common for the parties to attempt an amicable settlement at this stage, given that the central issue of their dispute has been decided by the partial judgment.

It is also possible to organize the split as part of the conventional pre-trial proceedings. In this case, however, the case must be referred to the pre-trial judge.

The court’s ability to order an accounting before a separate proceeding on damages and interest does not fall within the scope of the split. It is an old practice that predates this system.

13.3.6.2.5 Amicable methods of dispute resolution during proceedings

Amicable dispute resolution methods have long existed in French law, but have developed considerably since the entry into force of Act No. 2019-222 of March 23, 2019, on the programming and reform of the justice system, and Decree No. 2025-660 of July 18, 2025, which strengthen the judge’s hand in encouraging parties to resolve their disputes amicably.

The age-old principle is that “it is part of the judge’s role to reconcile the parties” by determining with them “the most appropriate method of dispute resolution for the case.” In practice, lawyers are invited to offer their professional opinion on the most appropriate means of amicably resolving the dispute, or to explain why such a settlement is not possible. The latter may be necessary in cases of proven bad faith on the part of one of the parties or alleged violence between them.

Common aspects of amicable dispute resolution methods. Such methods may be initiated at any stage of proceedings if the parties agree, including before, during and after the trial, and during the court’s deliberations. The parties may address their dispute, as well as any external elements of conflict that may have caused it, even if the judge lacks jurisdiction over those other points. It is therefore possible, for example, to discuss foreign proceedings or non-legal matters. The aim of amicable dispute resolution procedures is to facilitate flexible dialogue between the parties. Third parties involved in the dispute, such as industrial property attorneys, in-house counsel or company employees, may participate in such amicable meetings provided that the parties agree. Other parties not involved in the proceedings may also be included. However, the parties may only conclude an agreement on “rights over which they have free disposal.”¹⁹¹ In other words, agreements relating to the rights of third parties or contrary to public policy or morality are not permitted.

Amicable dispute resolution options at trial. Under Article 1528 of the CCP, several tools are available to help the parties find the most appropriate amicable solution.

Mediation is defined as “a structured process, however it is named or referred to, in which two or more parties to a dispute voluntarily attempt to reach an agreement on the resolution of their dispute with the assistance of a mediator.”¹⁹² The mediator remains neutral and does not propose a specific resolution. Rather, they help the parties to build or re-establish dialogue and reach agreement. Mediation is a paid service, governed by the contractual agreement between the parties involved. Referred to as conventional mediation,¹⁹³ it may occur in parallel with legal proceedings. In certain cases, the judge may order mediation, in which case it is referred to as “judicial mediation.”¹⁹⁴ One benefit of this option is its limited duration, which is capped at a maximum of five months.¹⁹⁵ It can be renewed once if all parties and the mediator agree. The cost is typically between 3,000 euros and 5,000 euros for patents, which includes 10 hours of work, typically spread over two to three meetings.

Conciliation is rarely used in patent cases. Unlike with mediation, the conciliator actively proposes concrete solutions to the parties, which they must either accept or reject. It is generally shorter and has the advantage of being free of charge. In principle, the judge acts as conciliator¹⁹⁶ and oversees proceedings. However, because the parties are not physically present during those proceedings, which are managed by their respective lawyers, the judge rarely appears personally. Rather, the judge delegates the task to a judicial conciliator by a decree defining the latter's duties¹⁹⁷ and sets the parameters for the conciliation attempt.

The amicable settlement hearing¹⁹⁸ is akin to mediation conducted by a judge, who can inform the parties about the “understanding of the legal principles applicable to the dispute”¹⁹⁹ and take delivery of their documents and submissions. In practice, the judge overseeing the case will appoint another judge from the court who specializes in patent law to attempt to find a mutually acceptable solution. A meeting generally consists of collective and separate discussions, during which the amicable settlement judge meets privately with each of the parties and their respective lawyers. Where the parties fail to reach an agreement, this judge may not then rule on the case in question.²⁰⁰ The amicable settlement hearing is confidential, and the judge is therefore prohibited from discussing the case with the judges assigned to the case. Finally, the judge ensures that the agreement between the parties relates to rights over which they have free disposal and does not contain any clauses contrary to public order.

The participatory procedure to reach an amicable resolution is an informal process organized solely by the parties and their lawyers, without the involvement of a third party. It requires a formal agreement whereby the involved parties commit themselves to working together in good faith to resolve their dispute amicably.²⁰¹ The parties are then free to organize the terms of their discussions and the drafting of their agreement.

The confidentiality rules for amicable proceedings are set out in Article 1528-3 of the CCP. Unless the parties agree otherwise, anything “said, written or done during the amicable settlement hearing, the conciliation entrusted to a judicial conciliator, or the mediation is confidential.” While documents drafted during such proceedings are also treated as confidential, pre-existing documents exchanged during those proceedings are not. In practice, particularly in patent matters, a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement may need to be signed before such documents are provided during amicable exchanges.

The judge's active role in promoting an amicable settlement. The presiding judge may order the parties involved to convene with a mediator or judicial conciliator.²⁰² Attendance in person is mandatory for the parties involved. Failure to attend without a valid justification may make them liable to a fine of up to 10,000 euros.²⁰³

In such cases, the parties are required to attend a preliminary session with the mediator free of charge. During the session, the mediator explains the benefits of mediation, how it works and the associated costs. The parties then decide whether to proceed with conventional or judicial mediation, or to decline.

Ordering meetings with a mediator in this way allows parties to engage in talks without taking the initial step, which may be perceived as a sign of strategic weakness in certain cultural contexts. The measure frequently leads to the lawyers reaching agreements as part of their mission to propose such avenues, without the mediator's intervention. Judges frequently order parties to meet a mediator over an extended period, enabling lawyers to engage in negotiations that, ultimately, mediation can guide to a successful resolution of the most contentious issues. As yet, little statistical information is available on this comparatively new approach. It may nevertheless be observed that such orders are now issued in most cases and result in approximately 33 percent of settlements or withdrawals following settlement before the specialized patent chamber of the Paris Judicial Court.

The issue of the confidentiality of exchanges at the first session following an order to meet a mediator is a source of contention because, after all, it is held merely to provide information and does not require exchanges between the parties. Often, however, the parties embark directly on mediation after the information session. In such cases, the confidentiality of the mediation process is legally protected. Nevertheless, it is advisable to sign a confidentiality agreement to formally qualify it as such and prevent any potential disputes later on.

An alternative to mandatory mediation is a system involving the direct participation of the judge, which is permitted under European law.²⁰⁴ In France, the system applies only to small claims of less than 5,000 euros,²⁰⁵ but the regulatory authorities wish to expand it. Encouragement to mediate should not compromise access to the courts, as guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. That article “establishes the right to a court hearing, including the right to access the court system for civil matters.”²⁰⁶

The Third Chamber of the Paris Judicial Court and the Paris Court of Appeal ensure that orders to meet with a mediator are organized in consultation with lawyers, whose opinion is systematically sought on the appropriateness and timing of such a measure, thus allowing for debate. The Court of Cassation is also developing these instruments. According to recent feedback, the most opportune time to reach an agreement after an injunction is one month before the hearing on the merits of the case, or during the pre-trial proceedings at a time chosen by mutual agreement between the parties. Injunctions at the beginning of the proceedings or after the closing order are generally less effective. The chamber’s procedural protocol, which was concluded with associations of lawyers specializing in IP, describes best practices in that regard.²⁰⁷

Mediators are selected by the involved parties or, if necessary or at their request, by the judge. They must have no conflict of interests with the parties or the latter’s lawyers, be qualified mediators, have no criminal convictions and be of sound character.²⁰⁸ The Paris Court of Appeal is responsible for verifying those three conditions and maintaining a list of mediators within its jurisdiction who are readily available.²⁰⁹ Since 2023, the Third Chamber of the Paris Judicial Court has maintained an internal list, accessible to all mediators who specialize in IP. The list currently comprises approximately 50 such mediators and five mediation centers.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center has been formally recognized by the judges of the Third Chamber of the Paris Judicial Court as a venue for mediation and judicial mediation in cases involving injunctions. The Center is particularly appropriate to handle disputes that have significant international dimensions or where the mediators are required to speak languages other than French, English or German.

The enforceability of agreements reached through amicable settlement is guaranteed by French and EU law. Neither France nor the EU are signatories to the Singapore Convention on Mediation.²¹⁰

Under French law, an agreement is not automatically enforceable upon signature; an additional document on enforcement must be attached to it. For an agreement to be considered valid, it must adhere to public policy and include reciprocal concessions,²¹¹ as outlined in civil law under the term “settlement agreement.” With the exception of small claims worth less than 10,000 euros, legal representation is mandatory. The settlement effectively prevents any legal action related to the dispute, which, in practice, amounts to a dismissal.

Once the parties have drafted the agreement, the most common way to make it enforceable is to have it signed before a notary, which costs a few hundred euros. The notary's primary responsibility is to verify the identity of the parties involved, ascertain their legal capacity to enter into a contract, and confirm that all parties have consented to the terms of the agreement. The notarized document is considered an authentic instrument under Article 58 of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of December 12, 2012 (Brussels Ia Regulation),²¹² making it enforceable throughout the EU.

If the agreement is the result of legal action, it may be presented to the judge for approval, provided that it complies with public policy.²¹³ The agreement is then certified as enforceable by the clerk of the court. The judge confirms the authenticity of the signature on the agreement.²¹⁴ The approval procedure is an ex officio measure granted upon request, which may be a non-adversarial procedure. The decision is made promptly, typically within 48 to 72 hours. In the event that the judge refuses, a rationale must be provided for the decision. That decision may be appealed before the court of appeal.²¹⁵ If the judge accepts it, the decision is final. In the event that one party requests approval of the agreement while the other party does not, the non-approving party may seek to have it revoked in order to reopen the adversarial proceedings.²¹⁶ A recent procedural reform has streamlined the certification process for agreements signed by the parties. Now, if their respective lawyers countersign the agreement,²¹⁷ it can be directly certified as enforceable by the court clerk. The decision is then enforceable throughout the EU.²¹⁸

When the agreement is decided before the judge at a hearing, the parties may also submit it for approval. Once all parties, the judge, and the clerk have signed the agreement, the clerk will issue the enforcement order.²¹⁹ This tool is primarily designed for agreements that are reached during procedural hearings or after amicable settlement hearings.²²⁰ In practice, the lawyers withdraw to formalize the terms and return before the judge for signature, which has the advantage of producing a decision within 24 hours.

When an agreement is concluded abroad, it is enforceable if it falls under the law of an EU member country, pursuant to Article 59 of the aforementioned Brussels Ia Regulation or Article 6 of Directive 2008/52/EC of May 21, 2008,²²¹ if it is the result of mediation.²²² If the agreement originates from another country, it is not enforceable in France. Therefore, it must be subject to an enforcement proceeding. This is an adversarial procedure involving the parties to the agreement.²²³ The following elements are then verified: the jurisdiction of the foreign court that issued the decision, the conformity of the decision with international public policy, and the absence of fraud.²²⁴

13.3.6.2.6 Hearing for oral arguments

As the procedure is written, it is not possible to modify or add to the claims and arguments during the hearing for oral arguments. The sole purpose of the hearing is to allow the parties to explain their pre-existing written arguments.

The reason for the hearing is thus to allow lawyers to present their arguments orally to the judges and to respond to any questions the judges may have and to the observations of the opposing party. During the hearing, lawyers can clarify the key points of the dispute for the panel of judges. In standard court proceedings, the hearing is typically held before the court in its panel capacity, unless the case has been assigned to a single judge. However, Article 805 of the CCP allows the pre-trial judge or the reporting judge to preside alone over the hearing to hear the arguments, provided that the lawyers do not object.

The purpose of the hearing is not to reproduce the entire written submissions, but rather to highlight the important points and those that encapsulate the nature of the disagreement between the parties, and to summarize the arguments.

In the absence of technical judges in France, the hearing must explain the technological background to the court.

The participants in this public hearing are the judges, including the presiding judge, who acts as the “police” of the hearing; the lawyers, who are the only ones authorized to speak; and, where applicable, industrial property attorneys and clients, who may be present but do not speak. The court clerk is also present to ensure that the proceedings are conducted properly and keeps notes in which any incidents are recorded. In certain cases, particularly when the proceedings concern trade secrets, all or part of the hearing takes place in chambers, away from the public and, where applicable, unauthorized persons (representatives and/or counsel who are not part of any confidentiality club set up to protect said secrets).

In accordance with Article 804 of the CCP, the hearing commences with a report by the judge. That report includes a summary of the subject matter of the dispute and the parties’ arguments, the questions of fact and law, and any other information relevant to the proceedings. The same article prohibits the reporting judge from offering personal views, thereby excluding any “preliminary opinion.”

The presiding judge then allocates time for the lawyers to present their cases, ensuring that each has an opportunity to speak.

The organization of the hearing and the allocation of speaking time between the lawyers and, where applicable, by topic (validity, infringement, damage, related unfair competition) may be agreed in advance between the parties and the pre-trial judge. This is particularly important to promote clarity in the proceedings. During or at the conclusion of the pleadings, judges often pose questions to obtain clarification or to better understand certain technical or legal aspects of the case.

Lawyers frequently use a collection of documents called a “judges’ folder” to focus their arguments in court. That file, which includes the specific documents on which the pleadings will focus, is provided in advance to the court and the opposing party. They may also project images or videos and show and handle copies of the products in question to facilitate the court’s understanding.

The total duration of the hearings depends on the complexity of the case and the number of parties involved. Generally, it is between one and three hours per patent, but in some cases, it may extend to one or even two full days.

Once the proceedings are closed, the case is taken under advisement, and the court indicates the date on which it will render its decision. The time between the hearing and the judgment is determined by the workload of the chamber and the complexity of the case, with an average duration of approximately two months.