L’importance de choisir un bon agent de brevet et surtout d’effectuer une recherche préliminaire de brevetabilité a été mise en évidence dans la cause Davis v. Brouse McDowell de là United States Court of Appeals for the Fedral Circuit, où un Patent attorney américain a omis d’informer sa client de la nouveauté absolue requise dans la plupart des pays avant le dépôt d’une demande de brevet. Il a résulté de cette omission qu’une demande PCT a été déposée plus d’un an après le dépôt d’une demande provisoire.
Le Demandeur a poursuivit l’Attorney en cause pour faute professionnelle pour avoir déposer la demande PCT en retard et pour négligence dans sa préparation de la demande US.
Selon la Court, que des fautes auraient été commises, le Demandeur n’a pu prouver qu’en l’absence des manquements présumés celui-ci aurait obtenu un brevet.
We agree with the district court that Mr. O’Shaughnessy’s [expert] report provides sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mr. Thomson breached a duty he owed to Ms. Davis as her attorney. Mr. Thomson went on vacation, missed filing dates, and, by his own admission, filed an application which he realized contained a poorly drafted specification and claims which he intended to repair at a later time. This is certainly not standard or adequate patent attorney representation, especially if, as Ms. Davis alleges, he did not inform her of his intention to proceed this way.
However, even if Ms. Davis can establish that Mr. Thomson breached a duty to her, she must still also prove causation, i.e., that absent his breach she would have obtained a patent. . . . [However, the] district court observed that Mr. O’Shaughnessy had not performed a prior art search or a “patentability analysis,” nor had he identified particular claims that could be made for Ms. Davis’s inventions. Therefore, the court found that Mr. O’Shaughnessy’s patentability opinion lacked adequate foundation and could not be relied upon by Ms. Davis as evidence of patentability.