Parke-Davis v. Mathieu
Parke-Davis v. Mathieu, an appellate-level court case, dealt with whether a patent agents oversight in the procurement of a patent, resulting in an invalid patent, constituted malpractice. The plaintiff in the case is Parke-Davis, a pharmaceutical company, and the defendant is Francois Mathieu, a patent attorney.
The facts of the case were as follows: Parke-Davis employed Mathieu to secure a patent for a drug it had developed. Mathieu, who was responsible for the accuracy of the patent documents, encountered a problem with the patent documents and consulted another patent attorney, who advised him to go ahead and submit the documents even though they were not technically accurate. The patent was thus granted, but was quickly challenged by a third party and declared invalid. Parke-Davis then sued Mathieu for malpractice, claiming that he had been negligent in preparing the documents.
Mathieu argued that he had reasonably relied on the advice of the other patent attorney and that, in any case, the particular facts of this case did not rise to the level of malpractice, because the error he made in drafting the documents was minor and would not have had any significant impact on the validity of the patent. He further argued that Parke-Davis was guilty of contributory negligence, as it had assumed that all patent documents were correct and had failed to take proper steps to ensure the accuracy of the documents.
The court, in ruling on the case, held that Mathieu was guilty of malpractice. While it acknowledged that Mathieu had reasonably relied on the advice of another patent attorney, it noted that Mathieu had nonetheless failed to take proper steps to ensure the accuracy of the patent documents and had thus been negligent. Furthermore, it noted that Parke-Davis had not been guilty of contributory negligence, as it had taken the necessary steps to ensure the accuracy of the patent documents and was therefore not responsible for the erroneous drafting of the documents.
In conclusion, the court found that Mathieu had been negligent in his duty as a patent attorney and ordered him to pay damages to Parke-Davis for the cost of securing a new patent. The court also ordered that any fees for defending the patent should also be paid by Mathieu. In addition, the court imposed sanctions on Mathieu for bringing a frivolous legal action, as he had failed to produce any evidence to support his claims. The courts ruling serves as an important precedent for patent attorneys and their clients; it demonstrates that patent attorneys cannot simply rely on the advice of other attorneys without taking proper steps to verify the accuracy of the information they are providing. As such, it is important for patent attorneys to be aware of the potential consequences of their actions and take the necessary steps to ensure accuracy and protect their clients interests.
