Arthur : Import automatisé depuis JSON (OCR M_v4)

2026-09-03T19:36:43Z

Import automatisé depuis JSON (OCR M_v4)

Nouvelle page

== Metadata ==
* '''Display Name''' : 6551-IV-62E
* '''Item Number''' : 655162
* '''Folder / Language''' : English
* '''Language Tag''' : <nowiki>#English</nowiki>
* '''Original PDF''' : <code>Documents-1960-1965/English/Documents 1961 - 1963/IV 6551 62 E/6551-IV-62E.pdf</code>

== Contenu ==

[p.1]

PATENTS WORKING PARTY

LT 234/82

Section 7
6551/IV/62-E

Orig.: French

Brussels, 31 July 1962

CONFIDENTIAL

Proceedings of the 6th meeting
of the Patents Working Party
held at Munich
from 13 to 23 June 1962

6551/IV/62-E
Orig.: French

[p.2]

6551/IV/62-E

- 7 -

Article 9(11)

Article 9 was adopted.

Article 10(12)

Mr. van Benthem pointed out that the insertion of the word "publication" in sub-paragraph (a) was in accordance with a French proposal that had been approved by the Working Party. The other amendments were purely linguistic. Sub-paragraph (b) corresponded exactly to the text of the Council of Europe Draft.

Mr. van Benthem reported that, in the Netherlands, the text of the Strasbourg Draft had been submitted to the interested circles who had asked to have inserted therein a provision such as that in the European Convention. It seemed preferable to leave the question of micro-organisms raised by sub-paragraph (b) to the courts without laying down any express rules.

The Chairman hoped that all the delegations of the Six EEC countries would support

6551/IV/62-E

[p.3]

6551/IV/62-E

- 8 -

the Netherlands proposal in Strasbourg for the incorporation of the European Convention provision in the Council of Europe Draft. He also thought that the question of micro-organisms should be left to the courts since there was a risk of any express rule distorting the sense of the provision by introducing an ''a contrario'' argument.

Replying to Mr. Briganti, Mr. van Benthem stated that inventions with national defence implications were now covered by Article 67 (62).

Article 10 was approved.

==== Article 11(14) ====

The discussion was deferred until the following week pending a proposal to be made by the German delegation.

==== Article 12(15) ====

Mr. van Benthem explained that the Drafting Committee had wondered whether complete protection should not be afforded against unauthorised disclosure. The Netherlands delegation could now accept the current text in view of the fact that priority based on exhibitions would require a check that the subject-matter of the subsequent application was identical with the matter exhibited which would entail considerable problems.

Mr. Sünner and Mr. van Benthem wondered about the significance of the note at the end of Article 12.

The Chairman informed them that it merely meant that the Working Party would have to discuss a new solution for the European Convention if the Council of Europe Draft came to nothing. But he thought that the prospects for the Strasbourg Draft could be viewed with some optimism.

With a view to co-ordinating the six delegations from the EEC countries for the

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.4]

6551/IV/62-E

- 9 -

next meeting of the Council of Europe Committee of Experts, Mr. van Benthem wanted to know the views of the other delegations on a possible proposal for incorporating a stricter rule in the Council of Europe Draft. He pointed out that the Strasbourg Draft left the States free to give their nationals wider protection. In other words, should the minimum protection rule be transformed into that of maximum protection?

Mr. De Muyser and Mr. Degavre were prepared to accept such a proposal in order to guarantee inventors greater legal certainty.

Mr. Pfanner thought that, having regard to its discussions with interested circles, the German delegation would not be able to accept such a proposal in Strasbourg.

The Chairman said that, as set out in the Council of Europe Draft, the proposal gave rise to some legal uncertainty. But that uncertainty existed only for inventors from countries that gave wider protection than the minimum protection under the Draft.

Article 12 was adopted.

Article 13(16)

Discussion was postponed until the French delegation arrived in order to decide whether the word "particularly" should be retained even though the Strasbourg Draft was worded differently.

Article 14(13)

Mr. van Benthem explained that Article 14 followed the principle of the Strasbourg Draft but was more explicit. That was in fact why the Netherlands delegation was proposing that the Strasbourg Draft adopt the wording of the European Convention.

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.5]

6551/IV/62-E

- 10 -

Mr. De Muyser was worried that the mention of "agricultural" would give Article 14 a restrictive connotation.

The Chairman thought that the aim of both the Strasbourg Draft and the Brussels text was to have the criterion of industrial application extended as widely as possible. Nonetheless he would hesitate to suggest adopting the Brussels text in Strasbourg. It might reveal differences between the views of the various countries taking part in the Strasbourg negotiations that were concealed by the rather vague wording of the Strasbourg Draft. The position was different regarding the Brussels Draft which, while conforming with the Strasbourg text, had to be more explicit.

After some discussion, the Working Party decided to retain the current wording since, in practice, the various applications could be covered either by "industrial" or by "agricultural" in the wide sense of the terms.

At the instigation of Mr. Singer, the Drafting Committee was instructed to re-examine the German text of Article 14.

Article 15 (17 + 18)

Article 15 was adopted.

Article 16(19)

Mr. van Benthem pointed out that in paragraph 1, the word "reassign" had been replaced by "transfer" as reassignment was only possible if there had been a previous assignment.

The Chairman observed that the problem was one that concerned Mr. Roscioni who was still absent and he asked a member of the Drafting Committee to explain the matter to Mr. Roscioni. If that meeting produced no results, discussions could be reopened within the Working Party.

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.6]

6551/IV/62-E

- 52 -

=== Article 10(12) ===

Mr. ''Fressonnet'' proposed that a note be inserted in this article that the special question of patents for pharmaceutical products, which also fell under the jurisdiction of Ministers of Health, would be considered later.

Mr. ''van Benthem'' said that such a note would oblige his delegation to ask for another concerning agricultural products.

The ''Chairman'' pointed out that any possible new exceptions to patentability would call the whole Preliminary Draft Convention in question again.

In the light of those factors, Mr. ''Fressonnet'' withdrew his request and agreed to accept an indication in the minutes that the French delegation wanted the question of whether patents for pharmaceutical products should be subject to specific rules to be examined later.

=== Article 11(14) ===

Regarding paragraph 3, Mr. ''Pfanner'' explained to the Working Party the German delegation's new proposal concerning prior national rights (Doc. Bonn, 6 June 1962). He first reminded the Working Party that at its 5th meeting it had adopted the solution appearing in Articles 11(14) and 19(20a) of the Preliminary Draft. Contrary to what had been provided previously, prior national rights did not form part of the state of the art within the meaning of Article 11(14), paragraph 3. Furthermore European patents had no effect in Contracting States in which prior national rights existed.

The drawback of that solution was that it breached the territorial unity of the European patent. The basis for the new German proposal was that at the 5th meeting

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.7]

6551/IV/62-E

- 53 -

the Working Party decided to allow the conversion of the European application or provisional European patent until the latter was confirmed. The effect of the proposal was to provide that prior national rights formed part of the state of the art and thus destroyed novelty. Consequently the provisional European patent would have to be revoked by the Examining Division of the European Patent Office if a prior national right existed in any one Contracting State. In that case the proprietor of the provisional European patent would be able to convert the provisional European patent into national applications in those Contracting States where no prior right existed. Moreover, under the German proposal, Article 19(20a), paragraph 1, was confined to the definitive European patent and revocation proceedings under Article 126(122) were excluded when they were based on the existence of prior national rights if the previous patent application or specification had been published by the competent authority of one of the Contracting States.

Mr. Fressonnet and Mr. van Benthem said that, having regard to those explanations, they preferred the previous solution under which prior national rights did not form part of the state of the art and the European patent had no effect in Contracting States where a prior national right existed.

A long debate followed after which the Chairman stated that the two solutions were feasible. The new German proposal laid down emphasis on the territorial unity of the European patent. The solution advocated by the French and Netherlands delegations, on the other hand, stressed the advantages of a European patent over different national patents. An automatic result of the new German proposal would be the conversion of a number of European patents into national patents.

In conclusion, the Working Party retained the wording of the Preliminary Draft (Doc. 4488).

The article was adopted as it stood and the note was deleted.

== Article 13(16) ==

The Working Party compared the text of Article 13 with that of Article 4 of the Strasbourg Draft. It then decided to delete the word "particularly" from the wording of the Preliminary Draft.

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.8]

6551/IV/62-E

- 54 -

The article was adopted and referred to the Drafting Committee which was to ensure that the wording of the article was similar to that of Article 4 of the Strasbourg Draft.

6551/IV/62-E

[p.9]

PATENTS WORKING PARTY

LI 234/82

Section 7

6551/IV/62-E

Orig.: French

Brussels, 31 July 1962

CONFIDENTIAL

Proceedings of the 6th meeting

of the Patents Working Party

held at Munich

from 13 to 23 June 1962

6551/IV/62-E

Orig.: French

[p.10]

6551/IV/62-E

- 7 -

== Article 9(11) ==

Article 9 was adopted.

== Article 10(12) ==

Mr. van Benthem pointed out that the insertion of the word 'publication' in sub-paragraph (a) was in accordance with a French proposal that had been approved by the Working Party. The other amendments were purely linguistic. Sub-paragraph (b) corresponded exactly to the text of the Council of Europe Draft.

Mr. van Benthem reported that, in the Netherlands, the text of the Strasbourg Draft had been submitted to the interested circles who had asked to have inserted therein a provision such as that in the European Convention. It seemed preferable to leave the question of micro-organisms raised by sub-paragraph (b) to the courts without laying down any express rules.

The Chairman hoped that all the delegations of the Six EEC countries would support

6551/IV/62-F

[p.11]

- 8 -

6551/IV/62-E

the Netherlands proposal in Strasbourg for the incorporation of the European Convention provision in the Council of Europe Draft. He also thought that the question of micro-organisms should be left to the courts since there was a risk of any express rule distorting the sense of the provision by introducing an ''a contrario'' argument.

Replying to Mr. Briganti, Mr. van Benthem stated that inventions with national defence implications were now covered by Article 67 (62).

Article 10 was approved.

==== Article 11(14) ====

The discussion was deferred until the following week pending a proposal to be made by the German delegation.

==== Article 12(15) ====

Mr. van Benthem explained that the Drafting Committee had wondered whether complete protection should not be afforded against unauthorised disclosure. The Netherlands delegation could now accept the current text in view of the fact that priority based on exhibitions would require a check that the subject-matter of the subsequent application was identical with the matter exhibited which would entail considerable problems.

Mr. Sünner and Mr. van Benthem wondered about the significance of the note at the end of Article 12.

The Chairman informed them that it merely meant that the Working Party would have to discuss a new solution for the European Convention if the Council of Europe Draft came to nothing. But he thought that the prospects for the Strasbourg Draft could be viewed with some optimism.

With a view to co-ordinating the six delegations from the EEC countries for the

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.12]

6551/IV/62-E

- 9 -

next meeting of the Council of Europe Committee of Experts, Mr. van Benthem wanted to know the views of the other delegations on a possible proposal for incorporating a stricter rule in the Council of Europe Draft. He pointed out that the Strasbourg Draft left the States free to give their nationals wider protection. In other words, should the minimum protection rule be transformed into that of maximum protection?

Mr. De Muyser and Mr. Degavre were prepared to accept such a proposal in order to guarantee inventors greater legal certainty.

Mr. Pfanner thought that, having regard to its discussions with interested circles, the German delegation would not be able to accept such a proposal in Strasbourg.

The Chairman said that, as set out in the Council of Europe Draft, the proposal gave rise to some legal uncertainty. But that uncertainty existed only for inventors from countries that gave wider protection than the minimum protection under the Draft.

Article 12 was adopted.

== Article 13(16) ==

Discussion was postponed until the French delegation arrived in order to decide whether the word 'particularly' should be retained even though the Strasbourg Draft was worded differently.

== Article 14(13) ==

Mr. van Benthem explained that Article 14 followed the principle of the Strasbourg Draft but was more explicit. That was in fact why the Netherlands delegation was proposing that the Strasbourg Draft adopt the wording of the European Convention.

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.13]

6551/IV/62-E

- 10 -

Mr. De Muyser was worried that the mention of 'agricultural' would give Article 14 a restrictive connotation.

The Chairman thought that the aim of both the Strasbourg Draft and the Brussels text was to have the criterion of industrial application extended as widely as possible. Nonetheless he would hesitate to suggest adopting the Brussels text in Strasbourg. It might reveal differences between the views of the various countries taking part in the Strasbourg negotiations that were concealed by the rather vague wording of the Strasbourg Draft. The position was different regarding the Brussels Draft which, while conforming with the Strasbourg text, had to be more explicit.

● After some discussion, the Working Party decided to retain the current wording since, in practice, the various applications could be covered either by 'industrial' or by 'agricultural' in the wide sense of the terms.

At the instigation of Mr. Singer, the Drafting Committee was instructed to re-examine the German text of Article 14.

==== Article 15 (17 + 18) ====

Article 15 was adopted.

==== Article 16(19) ====

● Mr. van Benthem pointed out that in paragraph 1, the word 'reassign' had been replaced by 'transfer' as reassignment was only possible if there had been a previous assignment.

The Chairman observed that the problem was one that concerned Mr. Roscioni who was still absent and he asked a member of the Drafting Committee to explain the matter to Mr. Roscioni. If that meeting produced no results, discussions could be reopened within the Working Party.

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.14]

6551/IV/62-E

- 52 -

=== Article 10(12) ===

Mr. ''Fressonnet'' proposed that a note be inserted in this article that the special question of patents for pharmaceutical products, which also fell under the jurisdiction of Ministers of Health, would be considered later.

Mr. ''van Benthem'' said that such a note would oblige his delegation to ask for another concerning agricultural products.

The ''Chairman'' pointed out that any possible new exceptions to patentability would call the whole Preliminary Draft Convention in question again.

In the light of those factors, Mr. ''Fressonnet'' withdrew his request and agreed to accept an indication in the minutes that the French delegation wanted the question of whether patents for pharmaceutical products should be subject to specific rules to be examined later.

=== Article 11(14) ===

Regarding paragraph 3, Mr. ''Pfanner'' explained to the Working Party the German delegation's new proposal concerning prior national rights (Doc. Bonn, 6 June 1962). He first reminded the Working Party that at its 5th meeting it had adopted the solution appearing in Articles 11(14) and 19(20a) of the Preliminary Draft. Contrary to what had been provided previously, prior national rights did not form part of the state of the art within the meaning of Article 11(14), paragraph 3. Furthermore European patents had no effect in Contracting States in which prior national rights existed.

The drawback of that solution was that it breached the territorial unity of the European patent. The basis for the new German proposal was that at the 5th meeting

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.15]

6551/IV/62-E

- 53 -

the Working Party decided to allow the conversion of the European application or provisional European patent until the latter was confirmed. The effect of the proposal was to provide that prior national rights formed part of the state of the art and thus destroyed novelty. Consequently the provisional European patent would have to be revoked by the Examining Division of the European Patent Office if a prior national right existed in any one Contracting State. In that case the proprietor of the provisional European patent would be able to convert the provisional European patent into national applications in those Contracting States where no prior right existed. Moreover, under the German proposal, Article 19(20a), paragraph 1, was confined to the definitive European patent and revocation proceedings under Article 126(122) were excluded when they were based on the existence of prior national rights if the previous patent application or specification had been published by the competent authority of one of the Contracting States.

Mr. Fressonnet and Mr. van Benthem said that, having regard to those explanations, they preferred the previous solution under which prior national rights did not form part of the state of the art and the European patent had no effect in Contracting States where a prior national right existed.

A long debate followed after which the Chairman stated that the two solutions were feasible. The new German proposal laid down emphasis on the territorial unity of the European patent. The solution advocated by the French and Netherlands delegations, on the other hand, stressed the advantages of a European patent over different national patents. An automatic result of the new German proposal would be the conversion of a number of European patents into national patents.

In conclusion, the Working Party retained the wording of the Preliminary Draft (Doc. 4488).

The article was adopted as it stood and the note was deleted.

== Article 13(16) ==

The Working Party compared the text of Article 13 with that of Article 4 of the Strasbourg Draft. It then decided to delete the word "particularly" from the wording of the Preliminary Draft.

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.16]

6551/IV/62-E

- 54 -

The article was adopted and referred to the Drafting Committee which was to ensure that the wording of the article was similar to that of Article 4 of the Strasbourg Draft.

6551/IV/62-E

[p.17]

PATENTS WORKING PARTY

24p.

LI 234/82

Section 7

6551/IV/62-E

Orig.: French

Brussels, 31 July 1962

CONFIDENTIAL

Proceedings of the 6th meeting
of the Patents Working Party
held at Munich
from 13 to 23 June 1962---

6551/IV/62-E

Orig.: French

[p.18]

6551/IV/62-E

- 7 -

Article 9(11)

Article 9 was adopted.

Article 10(12)

Mr. van Benthem pointed out that the insertion of the word "publication" in sub-paragraph (a) was in accordance with a French proposal that had been approved by the Working Party. The other amendments were purely linguistic. Sub-paragraph (b) corresponded exactly to the text of the Council of Europe Draft.

Mr. van Benthem reported that, in the Netherlands, the text of the Strasbourg Draft had been submitted to the interested circles who had asked to have inserted therein a provision such as that in the European Convention. It seemed preferable to leave the question of micro-organisms raised by sub-paragraph (b) to the courts without laying down any express rules.

The Chairman hoped that all the delegations of the Six EEC countries would support

6551/IV/62-E

[p.19]

6551/IV/62-E

- 8 -

the Netherlands proposal in Strasbourg for the incorporation of the European Convention provision in the Council of Europe Draft. He also thought that the question of micro-organisms should be left to the courts since there was a risk of any express rule distorting the sense of the provision by introducing an ''a contrario'' argument.

Replying to Mr. Briganti, Mr. van Benthem stated that inventions with national defence implications were now covered by Article 67 (62).

Article 10 was approved.

==== Article 11(14) ====

The discussion was deferred until the following week pending a proposal to be made by the German delegation.

==== Article 12(15) ====

Mr. van Benthem explained that the Drafting Committee had wondered whether complete protection should not be afforded against unauthorised disclosure. The Netherlands delegation could now accept the current text in view of the fact that priority based on exhibitions would require a check that the subject-matter of the subsequent application was identical with the matter exhibited which would entail considerable problems.

Mr. Sünner and Mr. van Benthem wondered about the significance of the note at the end of Article 12.

The Chairman informed them that it merely meant that the Working Party would have to discuss a new solution for the European Convention if the Council of Europe Draft came to nothing. But he thought that the prospects for the Strasbourg Draft could be viewed with some optimism.

With a view to co-ordinating the six delegations from the EEC countries for the

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.20]

6551/IV/62-E

- 9 -

next meeting of the Council of Europe Committee of Experts, Mr. van Benthem wanted to know the views of the other delegations on a possible proposal for incorporating a stricter rule in the Council of Europe Draft. He pointed out that the Strasbourg Draft left the States free to give their nationals wider protection. In other words, should the minimum protection rule be transformed into that of maximum protection?

Mr. De Muyser and Mr. Degavre were prepared to accept such a proposal in order to guarantee inventors greater legal certainty.

Mr. Pfanner thought that, having regard to its discussions with interested circles, the German delegation would not be able to accept such a proposal in Strasbourg.

The Chairman said that, as set out in the Council of Europe Draft, the proposal gave rise to some legal uncertainty. But that uncertainty existed only for inventors from countries that gave wider protection than the minimum protection under the Draft.

Article 12 was adopted.

== Article 13(16) ==

Discussion was postponed until the French delegation arrived in order to decide whether the word 'particularly' should be retained even though the Strasbourg Draft was worded differently.

== Article 14(13) ==

Mr. van Benthem explained that Article 14 followed the principle of the Strasbourg Draft but was more explicit. That was in fact why the Netherlands delegation was proposing that the Strasbourg Draft adopt the wording of the European Convention.

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.21]

6551/IV/62-E

- 10 -

Mr. De Muyser was worried that the mention of 'agricultural' would give Article 14 a restrictive connotation.

The Chairman thought that the aim of both the Strasbourg Draft and the Brussels text was to have the criterion of industrial application extended as widely as possible. Nonetheless he would hesitate to suggest adopting the Brussels text in Strasbourg. It might reveal differences between the views of the various countries taking part in the Strasbourg negotiations that were concealed by the rather vague wording of the Strasbourg Draft. The position was different regarding the Brussels Draft which, while conforming with the Strasbourg text, had to be more explicit.

After some discussion, the Working Party decided to retain the current wording since, in practice, the various applications could be covered either by 'industrial' or by 'agricultural' in the wide sense of the terms.

At the instigation of Mr. Singer, the Drafting Committee was instructed to re-examine the German text of Article 14.

==== Article 15 (17 + 18) ====

Article 15 was adopted.

==== Article 16(19) ====

Mr. van Benthem pointed out that in paragraph 1, the word 'reassign' had been replaced by 'transfer' as reassignment was only possible if there had been a previous assignment.

The Chairman observed that the problem was one that concerned Mr. Roscioni who was still absent and he asked a member of the Drafting Committee to explain the matter to Mr. Roscioni. If that meeting produced no results, discussions could be reopened within the Working Party.

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.22]

6551/IV/62-E

- 52 -

=== Article 10(12) ===

Mr. ''Fressonnet'' proposed that a note be inserted in this article that the special question of patents for pharmaceutical products, which also fell under the jurisdiction of Ministers of Health, would be considered later.

Mr. ''van Benthem'' said that such a note would oblige his delegation to ask for another concerning agricultural products.

The ''Chairman'' pointed out that any possible new exceptions to patentability would call the whole Preliminary Draft Convention in question again.

In the light of those factors, Mr. ''Fressonnet'' withdrew his request and agreed to accept an indication in the minutes that the French delegation wanted the question of whether patents for pharmaceutical products should be subject to specific rules to be examined later.

=== Article 11(14) ===

Regarding paragraph 3, Mr. ''Pfanner'' explained to the Working Party the German delegation's new proposal concerning prior national rights (Doc. Bonn, 6 June 1962). He first reminded the Working Party that at its 5th meeting it had adopted the solution appearing in Articles 11(14) and 19(20a) of the Preliminary Draft. Contrary to what had been provided previously, prior national rights did not form part of the state of the art within the meaning of Article 11(14), paragraph 3. Furthermore European patents had no effect in Contracting States in which prior national rights existed.

The drawback of that solution was that it breached the territorial unity of the European patent. The basis for the new German proposal was that at the 5th meeting

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.23]

6551/IV/62-E

- 53 -

the Working Party decided to allow the conversion of the European application or provisional European patent until the latter was confirmed. The effect of the proposal was to provide that prior national rights formed part of the state of the art and thus destroyed novelty. Consequently the provisional European patent would have to be revoked by the Examining Division of the European Patent Office if a prior national right existed in any one Contracting State. In that case the proprietor of the provisional European patent would be able to convert the provisional European patent into national applications in those Contracting States where no prior right existed. Moreover, under the German proposal, Article 19(20a), paragraph 1, was confined to the definitive European patent and revocation proceedings under Article 126(122) were excluded when they were based on the existence of prior national rights if the previous patent application or specification had been published by the competent authority of one of the Contracting States.

Mr. Fressonnet and Mr. van Benthem said that, having regard to those explanations, they preferred the previous solution under which prior national rights did not form part of the state of the art and the European patent had no effect in Contracting States where a prior national right existed.

A long debate followed after which the Chairman stated that the two solutions were feasible. The new German proposal laid down emphasis on the territorial unity of the European patent. The solution advocated by the French and Netherlands delegations, on the other hand, stressed the advantages of a European patent over different national patents. An automatic result of the new German proposal would be the conversion of a number of European patents into national patents.

In conclusion, the Working Party retained the wording of the Preliminary Draft (Doc. 4488).

The article was adopted as it stood and the note was deleted.

== Article 13(16) ==

The Working Party compared the text of Article 13 with that of Article 4 of the Strasbourg Draft. It then decided to delete the word "particularly" from the wording of the Preliminary Draft.

6551/IV/62-E

.../...

[p.24]

6551/IV/62-E

- 54 -

The article was adopted and referred to the Drafting Committee which was to ensure that the wording of the article was similar to that of Article 4 of the Strasbourg Draft.

6551/IV/62-E

[[Catégorie:Documents-1960-1965]]
[[Catégorie:English]]
[[Catégorie:Article 655162]]

Documents-1960-1965 : art. 655162 /en - Historique des versions

Arthur : Import automatisé depuis JSON (OCR M_v4)

Arthur : Import automatisé depuis JSON (OCR M_v4)