This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2026 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 4: Software and Digital Technology Patents
Court of Appeal of Paris, France [2025]: Case No. 23/07392 (on remand after quashing)
Date of judgment: March 26, 2025
Issuing authority: Court of Appeal of Paris
Level of the issuing authority: Appellate Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Administrative)
Subject matter: Patents (inventions)
Plaintiff/Appellant: Thalès
Defendant/Respondent: Director General of the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI)
Keywords: Patentability; Presentation of information; Technical contribution
Basic facts: Thalès applied for a French patent covering a method for displaying waypoints of a flight plan on a cockpit screen, characterized by:
- Waypoints being displayed in a window comprising a scaled timeline; and
- The timeline being longer than the height of the window, so that the window displays only part of the timeline, with the displayed part being decided by the user (e.g. pilot).
Thalès also argued that a person skilled in the art, relying on common general knowledge, would know how to implement the claimed technical function without further indications in the patent application.
INPI rejected the application, considering the claimed subject-matter to be a combination of the presentation of information and a mathematical method.
In the first decision, the Court of Appeal overturned INPI’s rejection on the basis that claimed features constituted technical means distinct from the content of the information itself, assisting the pilot in selecting the most relevant information. The Court of Cassation quashed this decision on the issue of subject-matter eligibility, considering that neither the patentee nor the Court of Appeal had established the existence of a “technical contribution” or explained in what way the claimed means had a technical character distinct from the mere presentation of information. The case was then referred to the Court of Appeal before a differently constituted panel.
Held: The Court of Appeal held that the patent did not describe any “technical contribution” and that reference to the person skilled in the art was irrelevant to the assessment of patentability.
Relevant holdings in relation to Software and Digital Technology Patents: The judgment confirms that the mere use of or reference to technical means is insufficient. The claimed invention must explain how the claimed means constitute a technical solution to a technical problem, distinct from the presentation of information.
Relevant legislation: Article L.611-10 of the Intellectual Property Code (FR625)