INPI Registration in the Patent Register: Mere Formality, Not a Ground for Third-Party Appeal

Albertville, a Tuesday morning. Mr. Dupont, owner of a small pharmaceutical laboratory, receives a letter from the INPI (National Institute of Industrial Property) informing him that a patent he thought was linked to a competing company has changed its name. "It's just a formality," he is told. But for him, it's a blow: this patent could block the development of his new product. He wants to challenge it. But can he? The French Supreme Court answered in the negative in a decision of 17 June 2008 (No. 07-11.115).

This decision, rendered in a case concerning the Regional Centre for Blood Transfusion of Lille and the company Octapharma, resolves a technical but crucial question: is an entry in the national patent register a "decision" that can be challenged by a third party? The answer is no. And that changes everything for patent owners, but also for their competitors and partners.

Whether you are an inventor in Aix-les-Bains, an entrepreneur in Chambéry, or simply curious, understanding this distinction will save you time and money in appeals doomed to failure. Let's dive into the story.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Imagine: the Regional Centre for Blood Transfusion of Lille (CRTS Lille) holds several patents and supplementary protection certificates. These titles were filed in the name of CRTS Lille. But one day, CRTS changes its name or address – something that often happens to public institutions or companies undergoing restructuring. In accordance with Article R. 613-57 of the Intellectual Property Code (which requires the holder to declare any change of name or address to the INPI), the INPI records this modification in the national patent register.

Problem: a third party, the AETS (Association for the Study of Blood Transfusion), considers that this change of name is contestable. According to it, CRTS Lille should not have been recognised as the patent holder. It therefore appeals against the registration itself, arguing that the INPI should have verified the merits of the change before recording it.

The Paris Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 17 January 2007, declared this appeal inadmissible. Why? Because the registration by the INPI of a change of name or address is not a "decision" within the meaning of Article L. 411-4 of the Intellectual Property Code (which provides for appeals against decisions of the INPI Director). In other words, the INPI merely records a fact – the change – and does not rule on the merits. The AETS appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Reasoning of the Court — Explained

The French Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's judgment. Its reasoning is simple: Article L. 411-4 of the Intellectual Property Code (which allows an appeal against decisions of the INPI Director) applies only to acts that modify the rights of the parties. However, the registration of a change of name or address is a mere information and publicity measure. It is neither intended nor has the effect of resolving a dispute over the ownership of the patent. Therefore, it is not a "decision" in the legal sense.

In plain terms, the INPI acts here as a registrar: it records what is declared to it, without verifying whether the declaration is true or contested. It is a formality, not a judgment. The Court also recalls that the registration does not cause prejudice (direct and certain harm) to third parties, because it merely reflects a declared situation. If a third party contests the substance – for example, who is the true patent holder – they must bring an action before the judicial court (the court competent for intellectual property disputes) and not challenge the registration itself.

Be careful, however: this solution is logical but harsh for third parties who discover a change of ownership late. The French Supreme Court could have considered that the registration, even if formal, has a legal effect (it makes the change enforceable against third parties). But it chose to prioritise legal certainty: the INPI should not become a judge of disputes. In my practice, I have come across cases where competitors tried to block a registration to gain time. This decision closes that door for them.

What This Changes for You — Practically

For a patent owner: you can declare a change of name or address without fear that a third party will block the registration by an appeal. This simplifies the management of your titles. Example: if your company moves from Aix-les-Bains to Chambéry, the INPI will record your new address without asking questions, even if a competitor contests your identity. But beware: if the declaration is fraudulent, you risk criminal sanctions for forgery and use of forgery – the INPI is not fooled, but it is not the one to decide.

For a third party (competitor, neighbour, associate): you cannot challenge the registration itself. If you believe that the name change conceals a patent usurpation, you must bring an ownership claim before the judicial court (cost: €5,000 to €15,000 depending on complexity). In the meantime, the registration remains valid. What few people know: you can ask the INPI to note a contestation in the margin of the register (Article R. 613-59 of the Intellectual Property Code), but this does not prevent the registration.

For a patent buyer: always check the history of entries in the register. A simple change of address registration may hide an underlying dispute. Concrete example: in Aix-les-Bains, a laboratory bought a patent without verifying that the seller had recently changed its name – it ended up with a contested title. My advice: request a copy of the register and have it checked by a lawyer.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Declare any change as soon as possible: Article R. 613-57 requires you to notify the INPI of any change of name or address within three months. A delay can lead to the patent being cancelled (Article R. 613-58). Do not take this risk.
• Keep supporting documents: keep documents proving the change (Kbis extract, updated articles of association, etc.). In case of a dispute, you will be able to demonstrate the regularity of your declaration.
• Do not confuse registration and decision: if you are a third party and contest the substance, do not challenge the registration – go directly to the judicial court against the holder. The time limit to act is 5 years from the publication of the patent (Article L. 613-27 of the Intellectual Property Code).
• Consult a lawyer before bringing an appeal: as this decision shows, a misdirected appeal is inadmissible. A 30-minute consultation with a specialist can save you unnecessary costs.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision is part of a consistent line of case law. The French Supreme Court has already ruled that entries in the Trade and Companies Register (RCS) are not appealable decisions as such (Com., 12 February 2008, No. 06-21.432). Similarly, for the trademark register, the registration of a transfer is not a decision (Com., 9 July 2003, No. 01-10.349). The logic is the same: the INPI (or the registry) is merely a depositary, not a judge.

A recent development: since the PACTE law of 2019, the INPI may reject a manifestly unfounded registration request (Article R. 613-57-1). But this is still not a decision subject to appeal – it is a simple formal check. In practice, appeals against registrations remain rare and almost always inadmissible. The trend is therefore clear: prioritise the fluidity of the register rather than formal challenges.

Checklist Before Acting

If you are a patent holder and need to declare a change:

• ☐ Gather supporting documents for the change (Kbis, articles of association, etc.)
• ☐ Fill in the INPI form (cerfa No. 15631*01)
• ☐ Submit it online or by post within 3 months
• ☐ Check that the registration has been published in the BOPI (Official Bulletin of Industrial Property)

If you are a third party challenging a change:

• ☐ Identify the substance of the dispute: is it a fraudulent change?
• ☐ Do not challenge the registration – bring an action before the judicial court
• ☐ Ask the INPI to note a contestation (Article R. 613-59)
• ☐ Consult a lawyer to assess your chances (estimated cost: €200-300 for an initial analysis)

Are you in a similar situation? A 30-minute initial consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings – and often much more. Book an appointment →