#IPLaw #FRLaw – Advantages and disadvantages of the provisions of the PACTE draft law (FR)

For the record, the French government has made draft law to boost the French economy through business development. This is the PACTE (Action Plan for Growth and Transformation of Enterprises) draft law. The law was adopted at first reading by the National Assembly on October 9, 2018. We will do another a post to inform of the effective entry into force of the law.

Part of the law includes significant changes in French patent law, with a view to promoting its attractiveness.

For this part, the provisions of the draft law have advantages in the sense of attractiveness sought, but also disadvantages that may have a counterproductive effect.

The biggest positive effect would be an announcement effect, namely that companies hearing government’s efforts are more inclined to invest, expand their businesses and expand their portfoliosof IP rights; combined with effective improvement related to the other provisions of the law.

We will review these patent provisions in a synthetic way, with for each one, the current situation, the advantages and disadvantages:

1 °) The provisional patent application

This is the point that is most commented by people not aware of the legal issues of patent law. The relevant provisions have been removed from the draft PACTE Law to be introduced by regulation.

The aim is to bring it closer to the American system where applicants have the opportunity to file an application that does not necessarily fulfill the formal requirements, at reduced cost, without the filing being analyzed by the Patent Office (in our case the INPI). The applicant then has the opportunity to re-file the subject-matter of the provisional application one year later at the most, in due form.

The advantage could be a first quick filing to have an application date at a lower costs.

In the current system, as already discussed in a previous post, it is already possible to file a patent application without paying the official fees, to have a filing date and benefit from the effects of a provisional application.

Unfortunately, substantive issues usually arise. The costs of preparation and filing by an expert are intended to cover several subject-matters functionning in the same way as the preferred embodiment of the applicant, allowing to have a wide scope of protection, more difficult to circumvent.
If an applicant files a provisional (or definitive) patent application without the assistance of an expert, the description will likely be limited in terms of coverage, and it will be difficult or impossible to increase the scope of the patent application, as well as having a first filing date.

Therefore, whether for a provisional definitive or final application, the assistance of an expert is highly recommended for the drafting of the patent application.

A provisional application will therefore set specific rules, but the “provisional” effect can already be used today.

The implementation by regulatory means would be provided in 6 months according to a statement of Mr. Bruno LEMAIRE in September 2018.

2 °) Strengthening the quality of patents (examination of inventive step)

One of the important measures of the draft PACTE law is the possibility for the INPI to reject patent applications for non-invention (in particular for lack of technical effects) or for lack of inventive step (Article 42bis).
In the current situation, the INPI can reject a patent application only for manifest lack of novelty, as regards the conditions of patentability. Inventive step and the non-invention aspect are examined before the courts in case of litigation.

The advantage of this provision would be the issuance of patents that further satisfy the requirements of patentability. It would result mechanically that fewer patents would be issued by the INPI which benefits third parties and not applicants. This measure will probably lead to a decrease in the number of French filings, and deflate patent portfolios.

A common practice of having patents or parts thereof serving for a business purpose will be greatly limited. These patents still make it possible to be viewed by the customers as a company in a constant search for innovation even if there is not a breakthrough innovation every time. This currently benefits all types of applicants (SMEs and large groups).

This provision will result in an increase in INPI’s staff, an increase of analysis time and an increase of the time to issue the French patent. An increase of the INPI official fees is therefore to be expected. Similarly, the experts will have to spend more time on the files taking into account these changes of law, which will result in an increase of the consulting costs (in the current state, the expert checks that certain elements are indeed new and preferably inventive and confirms this to the client, without necessarily having to demonstrate inventiveness in detail to the INPI).

The entry into force is planned within two years after the promulgation of the PACTE law.

3 °) Opposition proceedings before the INPI

The opposition procedure will allow any third party with an interest in acting to question the validity of the patents issued by the INPI. If the mechanism used at the EPO is used, there will be some exchange of written arguments and then some oral proceedings.

In the current state, third parties only have the opportunity to file observations with relevant documents without being party to the proceedings and without any obligation to identify themselves or to prove an interest in acting . The third-party observations are possible 2 months after the publication of the patent application. Beyond that, you have to go to court.

The advantage would therefore be greater legal certainty for third parties, and standardization with other countries (namely the EPO, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Norway , Finland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Japan and the United States).

This proposal seems to go in the right direction, but will necessarily, in the same way as above, impose associated procedural and advisory costs.

4 °) The promotion of the utility certificate

The utility certificate is a title similar to a patent but of reduced duration, and issued without examination of the INPI. The law aims at increasing its duration from 6 to 10 years (as in Germany), and to implement the possibility of converting an application for a utility certificate into a patent application.

Only in case of litigation, a search will be required. With the PACTE law, it can be envisaged that research will also be required with the said transformation.

The improved utility certificate will come closer to the current potentially non-inventive patent with a shorter lifetime, and without a search report by the EPO (making it possible to anticipate the outcome of a European filing on the same invention).

The measures are mainly administrative and should not lead to substantial increases in costs.

5 °) A great absentee of the proposals remains the designation FR-PCT

To date, the international applications to be validated in France are necessarily made through the EPO, and the European patent is then validated in France.

It would have been interesting for foreign applicants wishing to be protected only in some European countries to have the possibility of directly designating France. A direct designation is already possible in Germany and the United Kingdom namely, and this would be in preparation in Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands namely.

In conclusion, the government attempts through this means to stimulate the development of companies and the protection of their industrial property to reach the levels of other countries, including Germany. The most important lever would have been to change the minds of entrepreneurs namely by training the companies on the interests of the protection of intellectual property. Indeed, German entrepreneurs have quickly have the reflex to file a patent application while French entrepreneurs are more inclined to test the product on the market which is generally detrimental to the validity of a patent filed thereafter.


#IPLaw #USLaw – Judgment erasing damages due by APPE Inc. to the WARF (University of Wiscousing) (US)

For the background of the case, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) sued Apple in january 2014, before the Wiscounsin District Court.

The WARF argued that Apple was infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,781,752, essentially concerning instructions executions in a predictive way by processors. The WARF argued that the A7, A8 and A8X integrated circuit chips infringed the patent in issue by their processors comprising a “Load-Store Dependency Predictor” (LSD).

As usual in these procedures, Apple has made a counterclaim for non-infringement and invalidity judgments of the patent in suit. In particular, U.S. Patent No. 5,619,662 was raised as a prior art anticipating predictive technology.

The District Court ruled in favor of the WARF regarding the novelty and the jury found the non-invalidity (ie: the validity of the patent), and the infringement of the patent. In addition, the jury has awarded the WARF, damages of more than 234 million dollars. Apple’s requests were rejected.

Apple appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Federal Circuit.

The Court of Appeal redid an analysis of the wording of the claims, in particular the use of the terms “particular” and “prediction”, the opinions of the experts of the parties and the arguments of the parties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of the patent (in favor of the WARF), but also ruled in favor of APPLE because it overturned the decision on counterfeiting, awarding damages of over $ 234 million to the WARF.

This is a victory for Apple concerning the alleged infringement.

The patents in question (that of the WARF and the prior art) are protected only in the US, which shows that particular attention is required when entering the American market.


#IPLaw – Clauses of Twitter general conditions deemed illegal or abusive (FR)

The validation of the general conditions is often done automatically. Thank God, associations of consumers and especially judges ensure the lawfulness and abusiveness of certain clauses not negotiated by “co-contractors”.

The French association Union Fédérale des Consommateurs – QUE CHOISIR (en abrégé UFC – QUE CHOISIR, et ci après UFC) has sued TWITTER (Company TWITTER Inc. (US) and Company TWITTER INTERNATIONAL COMPANY (IE)), before the Court of Grande Instance (TGI) of Paris on March 24, 2014 for many grievances regarding consumers in France, for the purpose of declaring an abusive or illegal nature of 269 clauses of the General Terms of Use and other Disclaimer (GCU) of the TWITTER platform.

the UFC asked, among other things:

  • € 1,000,000 for compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the collective interest of consumers;
  • € 1,000,000 in compensation for the material damage suffered by the collective interest of consumers;
  • € 55,000 under Article 700 CPC (court costs incurred by the party claiming reimbursement).

The decision of the TGI of 7 August 2018 is 236 pages long, and includes several legal points. Those who caught our attention are:

1 °) The 2014 and 2015 versions provided for a presumption of user liability for the published content, exempting TWITTER from its liability.

The TGI considers that “(…) the clause, which provides that the liability will be borne solely by the person who provided the content by fully exonerating the host, is unlawful as contrary to Article 6.I.2 of the law for confidence in the digital economy and abusive within the meaning of Article R. 132-1 6 °) become Article R. 212-1 6 °) of the code of consumption, the clause having the effect of abolishing or reducing the right to compensation for damage suffered by the consumer in the event of the breach by the professional of one of his obligations.“.

This clause has later been adapted to be limited to what is allowed by the country of residence of the user.

2) The 2014 and 2015 versions provided for a license for TWITTER of the content published by the user on the platform, including the right for TWITTER to sublicense.

The TGI considers that “Under the terms of Articles L. 131-2 and L. 131-3 of the same Code, the contracts by which copyright is transmitted must be established in writing, the transmission being subject to the condition that each of the rights transferred is mentioned separately in the deed of assignment and the area of ​​exploitation of the rights assigned is limited in scope and purpose, location and duration.
Article L. 133-2, which became Article L. 211-1 of the Consumer Code, provides that the terms of the contracts offered by the professionals to consumers must be presented and drafted in a clear and comprehensible manner.“.

The clause is considered illegal.

Surprisingly, this clause still seems to hold in the current GCU.

3 °) The GCUs provide for TWITTER, the possibility of unilaterally modifying the GCUs in a discretionary way, (…) without notice
nor justification.

The TGI considers that “by conferring on the company TWITTER the right to unilaterally modify the” TWITTER Rules “, to which the user must submit, without prior information of the user, the clause criticized is unlawful under Articles L. 111-1 and L. 111-2, Article R. 111-2 I and III, now Article R. 111-2 7 °) of the Consumer Code, Articles L. 121-17, L 121-19-2 and R. 111-2 become Articles L. 221-5, L. 221-6, L. 221-7 of the Consumer Code and abusive within the meaning of Article R. 132-2 6 °) become Article R. 212-2 6 °) of the Consumer Code, in that its purpose or effect is to reserve to the professional the right to unilaterally modify the clauses of the contract.“.

The clause is considered illegal.

The GCUs generate today, in most cases, an action of user acceptance, perhaps also as a consequence of the RGPD.

4) Certain clauses limit TWITTER’s responsibility for data security, in that TWITTER “strives to secure such data”.

The TGI considers that “Under Article 34 of the Data Protection Act on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, the controller is required to take all necessary precautions, the nature of the data and the risks presented by the processing, to preserve the security of the data and, in particular, to prevent them from being distorted, damaged, or that unauthorized third parties have access to it, the data controller to guarantee a level of security adapted to the risk of the treatment.“.

The clause is considered illegal.

The court finds grossomodo in favor of the UFC, deciding that some of the clauses in question are deemed unwritten and some are unlawful. The court awards € 30,000 for non-pecuniary damage and rejects material damage for lack of justification.

To follow closely …


#IPBday – The setbacks of the mobile phone between the first patent and the placing on the market.

The pioneer patent on mobile phone technologies is that of Mr. Martin COOPER (MOTOROLA) filed on October 17, 1973 in the USA and issued September 16, 1975.

The patent had been extended interaallia to Germany and the United Kingdom, but surprisingly does not seem to have been extended to France. Would France have been a less interesting market than Denmark or Spain at that time?

The inventor Martin COOPER was the first to make a mobile phone call on April 3, 1973 in New York at 6th Avenue, which today seems like a trivial thing. (The experts would immediately ask the question of disclosure before filing that is legally problematic, but this is not the subject). For the anecdote, he called his competitor Joel Engel of BELL LABS, to show him who was the most advanced.

MOTOROLA (COOPER’s employer and patentee) is known for having a multitude of pioneering patents that have been at the basis of the evolution of mobile communications technologies. Many subsequent patents were dependent on Motorolla patents.

Hoowever, the technology took a long time to be available on the market, and more time to be in mass production.
In the US, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulated frequency usage in 1983. On September 21, 1983, the FCC approved the first commercially available Motorola DynaTAC 8000X. It weighed 800 g and measured 33 cm long. His price was about $ 4,000 and his memory was limited to 30 phone numbers. Its communication autonomy was less than an hour and its loading time was 10 hours.
Ten more years were needed to arrive at a mass production of the phone.

The size, weight and performance of the phone have of course evolved considerably since then.

In the same way, you may have a breakthrough innovation that will change the paradigms so much that we will wonder later how could we do without this invention. It is crutial not to make a destructive disclosure of novelty and to protect your innovation in order to reap the fruits thereof.


#ITLaw – The Right to software Interoperability

The wealth of questions relating to industrial property is greater than we imagine.

Despite the importance of legal protection of program creators, it is critical that right holders of computer programs do not create excessive partitioning that generates abuse of rights.

As in all aspects of IP, the cursor is to be placed in the right place between protection of intellectual property, and defense of the interests of the public.

It is on this basis that the legislators have progressively implemented what was subsequently called the right to interoperability, or the possibility for a file or program not to be exploitable exclusively by the means provided solely by the program provider. In legal terms enshrined in the applicable European law, the aim is to enable a computer program to communicate and function with other elements of a computer system and with users, namely to enable both a hardware and software interconnection to be able to implement information exchanges.

The problem is not common with conventional word processor computer programs. In general, “creator” files can be read and/or modified using third-party software.

But what happens when programs and files are siled by the creators, and software licenses are above the budget of a company?

European law provides in substance for allowing third parties to perform reverse engineering operations within certain limits, in order to implement interoperability. National legislations must not impede the application of these provisions.

Under French law, the legislator goes further because an Authority has been established to ensure compliance with the provisions on interoperability. Operators are able to request information to achieve interoperability as provided by law.

The case arose for the Association VideoLan (VLC), which refered to the Authority to be able to play a Blue-Ray (with specific encryption) on VLC software. The case is not a satisfactory source of instruction on binding measures to enforce the interoperability provisions as such, as the Authority concludes that the VideoLan association should have contacted the Blue-Ray Consortium to have the necessary technical information, before referring to the Authority.

The Authority specifies that the decompilation and reverse-engineering provisions must not be used to offer a software that may be substitute the creator’s software. As a result, only data allowing interoperability can be requested, in order to balance interoperability with the protection of intellectual property rights.

Our team is at your disposal for more details on the sources and applicability of these provisions.


#TMLaw – The setbacks of the application for registration of the figurative mark “MESSI” at the EUIPO

The multi-balloon d’or Lionel Messi has filed several European trademarks with varying degrees of success.

One of them encountered an obstacle that proved to be major, whereas, from our point of view, ways to overcome these obstacles could have been used.
The trademark application in question is the European application 010181154 filed on 08.08.2011, not yet registered. It is a sign with a stylized “M” with a MESSI notation in a specific caligraphy where the E is in another color and another calygraphy.

This filing was made without knowing of an earlier word mark, “MASSI”, which its holder Mr. Jaime Masferrer Coma raised in the context of an opposition to the registration of the “MESSI” mark, in November 2011 in essence on the basis of an argument of risk of confusion between the two signs for sporting goods.

In 2013, the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) decided to reject the registration of the mark  “MESSI” mark.

Lionel MESSI then filed an appeal.

In April 2014, EUIPO rejected MESSI’s appeal, arguing in essence that there would be visual and auditory similarity between the two signs.

Lionel MESSI filed an appeal before the European Union Court (EUT) to seek the annulment of the EUIPO decision.

On April 26, the EUT decided in favor of Lionel MESSI. The EUT considered in essence that Lionel MESSI’s reputation is such that a consumer would necessarily associate the MESSI mark with the footballer, and concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion.

So it was a victory for Lionel MESSI, but the owner of the “MASSI” mark has filed an appeale.

To follow up closely …

This dispute illustrates, on the one hand, the importance of constituting IP rights as soon as possible, especially when international fame is not indisputable, and to avoid years of procedure and high costs. On the other hand, it appears that it is also essential to carry out availability searches including signs similar to the one whose protection is sought, and not to be limited to an identical search.

Expertise in these questions can help avoid litigation …

In fact, an earlier filing would not have had a major impact in the case of MESSI because the “MASSI” mark was filed on 27/11/1996, while Lionel MESSI was still only 9 years old …


#IPBday – The seat belt is 60 years old …

On August 29, 1958 Mr. Nils BOHLIN (or rather his employer VOLVO) filed a Swedish patent application for a so-called 3 ponits safety belt. Today the safety seatbelt is so commonplace that one has the impression that it has always existed, while despite its simplicity a posteriori, it is undeniably an invention that has given a considerable advance. By 1961, more than three quarters of new cars were equipped with seatbelts. The same belt is found in cars manufactured every day.

It may also be the case for some of the solutions you have imagined, but which would difficult to market without a patent.

Nils BOHLIN was already inventor nominated in more than fifteen patent applications at the time of the patent application on the safety seat belt. He was previously an avionics engineer for the company SAAB (SVENSKA AEROPLAN AKTIEBOLAGET), applicant of the aforementioned patent applications. After working on ejector seats and their belts, Nils BOHLIN would have been hired by VOLVO to work on car seatbelts, which turned out to be a great success. Nils BOHLIN wanted to provide a belt that would “hold the upper and lower body in a physiologically favourable manner and is easy to connect and disconnect”.

The seat belt, however, took a long time to be accepted.

BOHLIN had to demonstrate the effectiveness of his seatbelt in a study of 28,000 accidents in Sweden. He presented a paper at the 11th Stapp Car Crash Convention. The unattached occupants sustained fatal injuries throughout the speed scale, while none of the occupants with a seat belt were fatally injured at a speed below 60 mph. In addition, no occupants fastened to the belt were fatally injured when the cockpit remained intact.

This study resulted in the US Department of Transportation requiring three-point seat belts being mandatory in American cars. And it was not until 1976 that the use of the seatbelt was made mandatory in Germany.

This is how a little idea turns the world around…


#IPStats – Statistics of international filings, especially of trademarks

In contrast to patent filings and trademark values, European countries, including France and the United Kingdom, maintain commendable place in the rankings of the number of filings of trademarks.

The statisting of filings of international trademark applications from the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO), ranks France as 4th (with 4,261 international filings, and a raise of 3.3%) and the United Kingdom as 5th (with 3,292 filings , and a raise of 9.3%).

At the top of the ranking are the USA (with 7,884 filings, and a raise of 2%) followed by Germany (with 7,316 filings, and a decrease of 3%), and China (with 5,230 filings, and a raise of 36.3%). %).

Japan and Korea, ranked ahead of France and the United Kingdom in the number of patent filings (PCTs), are ranked behind these countries in trademark filings, which shows that business development is not only about developing patent portfolios, but also marketing campaigns associated with the development of the intellectual property portfolio in a broad sense, including trademarks and designs.

The first applicant is L’OREAL (FR) with 198 filings, followed by the following companies:

– RICHTER GEDEON NYRT (HU – 117 filings),
– ADP GAUSELMANN GMBH (DE – 104 filings),
– NOVARTIS AG (CH – 96 filings),
– APPLE INC. (US – 74 filings),
– BRILLUX GMBH & CO. KG (DE – 73 filings),
– AUCMA COMPANY LIMITED (CN – 62 filings).

In conclusion, European multinationals seem to be the ones that best protect their intellectual property in all fields internationally.


#PatLaw – The non-patentability of subject matters considered contrary to public order or morality.

The question of the non-patentability of inventions said to be contrary to public order or morality, differs according to local legislation and “good” morals.

A decision by the Indian Office rejected a patent application for a vibratory sex stimulator (WE VIBE brand of STANDARD INNOVATION Corp. (CA)). The decision is dated April 17, 2017, and can be reviewed at the link below.
The first objection comes directly into the heart of the matter and has a wording that surprises:
The examiner considered in essence that the exploitation of the claimed object is contrary to public order and morality, and falls under the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Indian Patent Law, and is not acceptable.
The examiner further argues that importing and selling sex toys is considered “obscene” and therefore illegal in India.
Most surprisingly, these arguments are supported by Indian law. The examiner cites section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, and refers in addition to section 377. If the first concerns obscene objects whose definition interpreted by the examiner as including sex toys, seems debatable, the second refers to a prohibition of sexual intercourse that is unnatural biologically.

These objections seem insurmountable. The Applicant has obviously not made any counter-arguments.

Objections of this kind would surely have occurred also in countries where legislation is based on religious texts.

For the protection of this type of invention in “sensitive” countries, particular attention must be paid to provide, in the application, ways to overcome this type of objection where possible.

Unlike these countries, the protection of this type of invention at the European Patent Office does not raise this type of problem. Provisions of contravention of public order and morality exist (Article 53a EPC, GII4.1) but the corresponding objections are not conventionally raised for sextoys-type inventions. These objections are almost never raised in other cases.

The Guidelines for the EPO Examination provide in essence that if the invention in question would appear to the public [in all the EPO Contracting States] so repugnant that it would be inconceivable to patent it. The rejected applicant in India (STANDARD INNOVATION Corp.) has several European patents granted.

The EPO Directives mention, for example, a printer-type case with a good resolution enabling to make counterfeit banknotes. In this case, an objection may be raised, and will be surmountable by removing references to making counterfeit banknotes.


#IPstats – Stats of the WIPO PCT review 2018

The World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) has published its annual PCT review in August 2018.

For the record, the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) is the international convention that regulates the filing of international patent applications (so-called PCT filings).

You can find the review on the following link:

The PCT statistics do not go in the same direction as the rankings of brand values. The ranking tops are Asian then US.

The overall figures for 2018 have not recorded a big improvement.

The number of national phases fell to 615,400 (-1.4%).

The number of new PCT filings reached 243,500 (+ 4.5%).

As for the number of applicants, it reached 52,355 (+ 3%).

The top 10 places are occupied by well known companies:
– 3 Chinese companies (HUAWEI-1ère, ZTE-2e, BOE-7e):
– 2 US companies (INTEL-3e, QUALCOMM -5e);
– 2 Japanese companies (MITSUBISHI-4e, SONY-9e);
– 2 Korean companies (LG-6e, SAMSUNG -9e); and
– 1 Swedish company (ERICSSON-10e).

Classification (number of applications in 2017):

Remarkably, among the GAFAs, there is no record of APPLE and FACEBOOK, which shows that the patent strategy, while important, is not enough in itself to the development of the company. A brand strategy, a communication and marketing strategy are other important tools to implement to increase turnover and market share.

The ranking nevertheless shows an indicator of the most innovative companies.

The first European company is BOSCH (14th), the first French (the only one of the top 50) is MICHELIN (44th). No UK company is in the top 50.

Outstanding highlights: the number of PCT filings broke records in 2017 with said 4.5% increase. As a reminder, apart from a 4.8% drop in 2009, the number of PCT filings is growing every year by around 2 to 5% since 2003, with peaks exceeding 11% in 2005 and 2011.

The number of States Parties to the PCT has increased to 152, with after Djibouti, Cambodia and Kuwait in 2016, the ratification of Jordan in 2017. PCT applications have been filed in 126 countries.

Asia takes the largest share of PCT filings (49.1% in 2017 compared to 27.6% in 2007) with China as a locomotive (50,674 filings).

CEA (FR) stands out as the leading applicant in the government / PRO sector.

Congratulations to Freddy GUEMENI and IMPERIAL INNOVATIONS (UK), who are among the top 50 university applicants with 53 filings (3rd European after OXFORD UNIV INNOVATIONS (75 filings), DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET (54 filings).

As far as the technical fields are concerned, the largest numbers of filings concerns:
1 °) computer technology (19,122 filings, 8.6% of the filings);
2 °) digital communication (18,122 filings, 8.2% of the filings);
3 °) appliances, energy and electrical machinery (15,223 filings, 6.8% of the filings);
4 °) medical technologies (15,024 filings, 6.7% of the filings);
5 °) instrumentation measures (10,082 filings, 4.5% of the filings);
6 °) transport (9,753 filings, 4.4% of the filings);
7 °) pharmacy (8,750 filings, 3.9% of the filings);
8 °) audiovisual technologies (7,520 filings, 3.9% of the filings);
9 °) optics (10,082 filings, 3.2% of the filings); and
10 °) biotechnologies (6,545 filings, 2.9% of the filings).

The report shows that progress continues to move forward, even though Europe is lagging behind the US and Asia.