Saisie‑contrefaçon : Délai Pour Assigner En France (20 Jours Ouvrables / 31 Jours Civils)

After executing a saisie‑contrefaçon in France, the single most critical deadline a rights‑holder faces is the délai pour assigner, the statutory window within which infringement proceedings must be filed on the merits. Under Article L. 332‑2 of the Code de la propriété intellectuelle (CPI), the claimant must initiate the action au fond within twenty working days, or thirty‑one calendar days if that period is longer, counted from the date the seizure is carried out. Missing this deadline exposes the entire saisie to annulment and can trigger liability for abuse of process.

This guide walks IP lawyers in France and international in‑house counsel through the statutory framework, step‑by‑step bailiff execution, evidence‑preservation best practices, UPC interplay and the principal routes available to defendants who wish to challenge the seizure.

Quick Answer, What Is the Délai pour Assigner After a Saisie‑Contrefaçon?

The statutory rule is straightforward. Article L.332‑2 CPI requires the party that obtained the saisie‑contrefaçon to bring its infringement action, by serving an assignation on the alleged infringer, within twenty (20) working days of the date the seizure was executed, or within thirty‑one (31) calendar days if that calendar period is longer than the twenty working‑day count. The longer of the two periods applies. Day 0 is the date on which the bailiff (huissier de justice) actually carries out the seizure operations on the premises.

This dual‑deadline mechanism ensures that the right‑holder has adequate time regardless of whether the seizure falls near a cluster of public holidays. In practice, for most seizures carried out on a normal working week, the thirty‑one calendar‑day limit will usually be the operative deadline, because twenty working days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and French public holidays, typically span more than thirty‑one calendar days only in rare holiday‑heavy periods such as late December or early May.

Worked Examples: How to Count the Deadline

Example 1, seizure on a Monday. Suppose the bailiff executes the saisie on Monday 6 January 2026. Counting twenty working days (excluding weekends and the jour férié of 1 January already past) brings the deadline to approximately Friday 31 January 2026. The thirty‑one calendar‑day count runs to Thursday 6 February 2026. Because the calendar deadline falls later, the rights‑holder has until 6 February 2026 to serve the assignation.

Example 2, seizure on a Friday before a holiday cluster. The bailiff executes the saisie on Friday 1 May 2026 (itself a public holiday scenario for illustration, assume it was authorised by the judge on an urgent basis). With the 1 May and 8 May public holidays reducing working days, twenty working days would extend to roughly early June. Thirty‑one calendar days run to 1 June 2026. Here the twenty working‑day count may push past the calendar deadline, so the working‑day deadline governs. The lesson: always compute both deadlines in parallel and diarise the later date.

Legal Basis: CPI Articles, Implementing Regulations and Case Law

Understanding the saisie contrefaçon délai pour assigner requires close attention to the statutory text, the regulatory detail governing execution and the judicial glosses the Cour de cassation has added over the years.

What the Law Says, Article L.332‑2 CPI

Article L.332‑2 CPI, as codified in the chapter on protective measures in intellectual‑property matters, provides that where a saisie‑contrefaçon has been carried out, the claimant must, on pain of the seizure being deemed null and void (nulle de plein droit), bring an action on the merits within the prescribed period. The implementing regulations, Articles R.332‑1 through R.332‑4 CPI, spell out the mechanics of the ex parte application, the scope of the bailiff’s mandate and the formalities for the procès‑verbal de saisie. Together, these provisions form the complete procedural framework for the saisie‑contrefaçon procédure under French law.

Key Case Law and Court Interpretations

The Cour de cassation has clarified several points that are essential for practitioners:

• Starting point of the deadline. The clock begins on the day of actual execution of the seizure operations, not on the date of the court order authorising them. If a multi‑day saisie is authorised but execution takes place over two consecutive days, practitioner commentary indicates the safest approach is to count from the first day of operations.
• Automatic nullity. Failure to serve the assignation within the statutory period renders the saisie null de plein droit, no judicial declaration is needed. The defendant may invoke nullity at any stage and is entitled to seek damages for the prejudice caused by an abusive seizure.
• Strict interpretation. French courts have consistently applied the deadline strictly. Extensions are not available, and the fact that settlement negotiations were ongoing does not suspend the time limit.

Step‑by‑Step Saisie‑Contrefaçon Procédure: Timeline from Ex Parte Order to Assignation

The saisie‑contrefaçon procédure follows a well‑established sequence. The table below maps each key action to its responsible party and timing, followed by a detailed breakdown.

Pre‑Seizure Checklist for Claimants

Before the bailiff sets foot on the premises, the claimant and counsel should have the following in place:

• Court order scope. Verify the ordonnance clearly defines the premises, types of evidence to be seized and the IP rights at issue.
• Expert appointment. If technical evidence (source code, manufacturing processes) is expected, ensure a court expert (expert judiciaire) is appointed or at least available.
• Bailiff briefing. Provide the huissier with a detailed brief covering the products or processes suspected of infringement, the claims of the patent or elements of the registered trademark, and any known layout of the premises.
• Translation readiness. For cross‑border matters, prepare certified translation resources so that seized documents can be used in UPC or foreign proceedings.
• Deadline diary. Compute both the 20 working‑day and 31 calendar‑day deadlines in advance, diarise the earlier cut‑off, and alert litigation counsel responsible for drafting the assignation.

Bailiff Procedure and What to Expect During Execution

On the day of execution, the huissier arrives at the specified premises, typically a factory, warehouse, retail outlet or office, accompanied by the claimant’s counsel and, where authorised, a technical expert. The bailiff identifies themselves, presents the court order and proceeds to inspect, photograph, inventory and, where permitted, take physical samples of the allegedly infringing goods or documents. All items seized or copied must be logged in a procès‑verbal (official report) that is signed on‑site. The procès‑verbal forms the evidentiary backbone of the subsequent infringement action and must be meticulous: any ambiguity can be exploited by the defendant in a later challenge.

Appointment and Role of the Court Expert

In technically complex cases, particularly saisie‑contrefaçon brevet (patent seizures) involving software, chemical formulations or mechanical processes, the court may appoint an independent expert to assist the bailiff. The expert’s role is to identify relevant technical evidence, advise on what should be copied or preserved and later produce a report. This expertise judiciaire adds credibility and is especially valuable when the charge de la preuve contrefaçon (burden of proof) is contested at trial. The expert operates under the court order’s scope and must not exceed its terms.

Evidence Standards, Chain‑of‑Custody and Preparing Proof for Court and UPC

A saisie‑contrefaçon is only as strong as the evidence it produces. French courts, and, increasingly, the Unified Patent Court, demand rigorous chain‑of‑custody documentation before admitting seized evidence.

Technical Evidence: Software, Source Code and Digital Data

When the alleged infringement involves software or digital products, the seizure must capture evidence in forensically sound ways. Best practices recommended by specialist practitioners include:

• Bit‑for‑bit copies. Use write‑blockers and create forensic images of hard drives or servers, with hash‑value verification (MD5/SHA‑256) logged in the procès‑verbal.
• Metadata preservation. File creation dates, modification histories and version‑control logs are often as important as the content itself.
• Sealed storage. Physical media should be placed in tamper‑evident bags, signed by the bailiff and stored securely until trial.
• Expert narration. The court expert should describe, in real time, every step taken during digital acquisition so the procès‑verbal reads as a complete audit trail.

Practical Chain‑of‑Custody Checklist

Whether the case ultimately proceeds before the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris or before a UPC division, the following chain‑of‑custody practices strengthen admissibility:

1. Each seized item is assigned a unique reference number at the moment of seizure.
2. Photographs with timestamps accompany every physical sample.
3. Transfer receipts are signed each time evidence changes hands, bailiff to expert, expert to counsel, counsel to court registry.
4. A master evidence log (spreadsheet or database) is maintained and produced upon request.
5. Where confidentiality restrictions apply, a confidentiality club protocol is agreed before any party accesses the evidence.

Patent vs Trademark Saisie‑Contrefaçon, Differences in Practice

While the statutory framework for the saisie contrefaçon délai pour assigner is the same regardless of the intellectual‑property right at issue, the practical execution differs significantly between patent and trademark cases.

When to Use a Saisie for Patent vs Trademark Cases

A saisie‑contrefaçon brevet (patent seizure) typically targets manufacturing facilities or R&D labs where the allegedly infringing process or product is made. Technical experts are almost always required, and the evidence tends to be complex, engineering drawings, source code, process parameters. By contrast, a saisie‑contrefaçon marque (trademark seizure) usually focuses on retail or warehouse premises, targeting counterfeit packaging, labelling and product inventories. The evidence is often more visual and volumetric, large quantities of physical goods. Trademark seizures may also involve coordination with customs authorities and INPI records to establish the validity and scope of the mark. In both cases, the délai pour assigner runs identically from Day 0, but the preparatory work and expert involvement differ considerably.

Interplay with the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Cross‑Border Evidence

Since the UPC became operational, the relationship between French saisie‑contrefaçon proceedings and UPC evidence‑preservation measures has become a critical strategic question for patent holders. Article 60(8) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (AUPC) provides that where measures to preserve evidence are ordered without the defendant having been heard, the applicant must initiate proceedings on the merits within thirty‑one calendar days, aligning with the calendar‑day element of the French CPI deadline but operating within the UPC’s own procedural framework.

When UPC Procedures Affect Your Strategy

Industry observers expect the following practical implications for rights‑holders weighing French national seizure against UPC preservation orders:

• Parallel proceedings risk. If a French saisie has been executed in respect of a European patent that falls within UPC jurisdiction, the defendant may argue that the UPC should have exclusive competence. Careful jurisdictional analysis before filing the ex parte request is essential.
• Evidence portability. Early UPC practice suggests that evidence gathered via a properly conducted French saisie‑contrefaçon, complete with a detailed procès‑verbal and unbroken chain of custody, can be submitted to UPC divisions, though the court retains discretion over admissibility.
• Documentation standards. To maximise the likelihood of UPC recognition, claimants should ensure that all documents are accompanied by certified translations, that the bailiff’s report describes each step in a manner consistent with AUPC Rules of Procedure requirements and that confidentiality measures match UPC standards.

For patent holders with a pan‑European enforcement strategy, the interaction between the French saisie‑contrefaçon procédure and UPC preservation measures should be mapped out before either procedure is initiated. Specialist IP litigation counsel can advise on the optimal sequencing.

Defence and Challenge Routes, Référé‑Rétractation and Full‑Trial Strategies

Defendants who are subjected to a saisie‑contrefaçon are not without recourse. French law provides several mechanisms to contest, limit or annul the seizure, and selecting the right route at the right time is a matter of tactical judgment.

How to File a Référé‑Rétractation: Practical Steps

The référé‑rétractation is the primary immediate remedy. It is an application made to the judge who issued the original ex parte order, asking that the order be retracted, wholly or in part. The defendant must demonstrate that the order should not have been granted, for instance because the claimant failed to disclose material facts, because the seizure exceeds the scope of the order or because the underlying IP right is manifestly invalid. The application is made by assignation en référé served on the claimant. There is no fixed statutory deadline for filing, but urgency is expected, delays may be held against the defendant as an indication that the seizure caused no real prejudice.

Remedies for Overbroad or Abusive Saisies

Beyond the référé‑rétractation, defendants may pursue additional remedies:

• Nullity for missed deadline. If the claimant fails to serve the assignation within the saisie contrefaçon délai pour assigner, the seizure is null de plein droit. The defendant need only invoke this nullity before the court.
• Proportionality objections. French courts have increasingly scrutinised whether the scope of the seizure was proportionate to the alleged infringement. A saisie that sweeps up confidential business documents unrelated to the IP dispute may be partially annulled.
• Confidentiality and sealing orders. Defendants can apply for seized documents containing trade secrets to be placed under seal, accessible only to a designated expert or within a confidentiality club, pending the court’s ruling on relevance.
• Damages for abusive seizure. Where a saisie is retracted or annulled, the defendant may claim damages under general tort principles (Article 1240 of the Civil Code) for losses suffered during the seizure, business disruption, reputational harm and legal costs.

Practical Checklist: Immediate Steps After a Saisie‑Contrefaçon

The following checklist consolidates the key actions for a rights‑holder who has just executed a saisie‑contrefaçon. Use it alongside legal counsel to ensure no deadline is missed and no evidence is compromised.

1. Compute the deadline. Calculate both the 20 working‑day and 31 calendar‑day limits from Day 0. Diarise the later date and set a reminder at least five days before expiry.
2. Secure the procès‑verbal. Obtain the signed original from the bailiff immediately. Review it for completeness, every seized item should be listed, described and photographed.
3. Brief litigation counsel. If different counsel will handle the action au fond, transmit the procès‑verbal, the court order and all supporting evidence within forty‑eight hours of the seizure.
4. Prepare the assignation. Draft the writ of summons (assignation) early. Do not wait until the final days of the deadline, court registry closures and service logistics can cause last‑minute failures.
5. Maintain chain of custody. Ensure all physical samples and digital media remain sealed and logged. Any break in the chain undermines the evidence at trial.

A downloadable one‑page PDF version of this checklist, including a date‑computation worksheet, is available for rights‑holders and practitioners seeking a ready‑reference tool.

Conclusion and Recommended Next Steps

The saisie contrefaçon délai pour assigner is one of the most consequential deadlines in French IP litigation. Twenty working days, or thirty‑one calendar days if longer, leaves no room for delay. Rights‑holders who have invested in obtaining and executing a saisie must treat the deadline as absolute: compute it on Day 0, brief litigation counsel immediately and serve the assignation well before expiry. Defendants, equally, should act swiftly, whether by filing a référé‑rétractation, seeking confidentiality protections or monitoring whether the claimant meets the deadline. For rights‑holders and defendants alike, engaging experienced IP litigation specialists at the earliest stage is the most effective way to protect your position.

Sources

1. Légifrance, Code de la propriété intellectuelle (L.332‑2 & R.332‑1–R.332‑4)
2. Légifrance, Consolidated CPI (2025‑03‑01 snapshot)
3. Lavoix, UPC Recognition of French Saisie‑Contrefaçon (2025)
4. Dhenne Avocats, UPC Seizure Series (Part I: The Texts)
5. DS Avocats, Procedural Requirements for Saisie‑Contrefaçon
6. Bomel Avocat, Délai pour Assigner: Cour de Cassation Clarifications
7. Marks & Clerk, Good Practices in French Saisie‑Contrefaçon Procedures
8. Bristows UPC, The Role of the Saisie in the UPC
9. IAM Media, France: Building an IP Infringement Case
10. FABRICC (Univ Poitiers), La Saisie‑Contrefaçon (Teaching Note)