Key Details:

​• Background: Fisher Broyles relied on CPA Global for patent docketing services, but a critical date – namely the priority date, that is the date when the first patent application was filed, was entered incorrectly by CPA (March 15, 2014 instead of March 15, 2013), causing FisherBroyles to miss the deadline for international patent filings.

​

• Court Decision: The court ruled in favour of CPA Global, emphasizing that CPA had contractual disclaimers that limited their liability and did not intend for third parties like Robinson to rely on their data.

• Ongoing Impact: The decision underscores the limitations on vendor liability in the absence of direct contractual relationships with the injured party.

Lessons for Legal and IP Professionals:

​1. Contractual Clarity: Ensure clear terms in contracts with docketing services to specify responsibility and liability limits. Disclaimers about third-party reliance can be crucial.

2. Verification of Data: Despite outsourcing docketing tasks, the ultimate responsibility for verifying critical legal and patent filing deadlines remains with the hiring law firm.

3. Client Communication: Maintain transparent communication with clients about who is responsible for what, especially when third-party services are involved.

4. Redundancy in Docketing: Implementing checks and balances in docketing processes can prevent costly oversights.

This case serves as a powerful reminder of the complexities involved in managing intellectual property rights and the critical nature of each step in the patent filing process.

For those of us in the legal and IP fields, it is a call to scrutinize and reinforce our operational and contractual practices.