One of the greatest challenges to the business of an IP practice is the management of the core docketing process.  Since its inception, docketing has been manual, voluminous, complex and complicated.  Docket due dates are highly dependant on one another, and one mistake or offset can affect an entire portfolio.  The exposure and risk of error is tremendous, which is why malpractice insurance also levies a heavy premium on law firm prosecution practices. 

We’ve moved in recent years from paper-based manual docketing to technology-based manual docketing, but little has changed.  Most every IP group today still generates manual docket report (though some are emailed today), and clearance is even more paper-intensive (even though the paper is sometimes scanned).  I think in this world of Web 2.0 and advanced automated technologies, we should really challenge IPM system providers to step up their game. 

The New “Next Generation” IPM technology should be online, interactive docket reporting.  I’m talking about an automated enterprise that truly eschews paper, and allows the exchange of information to streamline and condense.  Here are the hallmarks of what I’d consider truly “next generation”:

Web-based docket reporting: Not just PDF’s available on the web, but true web-based reporting that provides contextually-relevant dockets to attorneys and their staff, and allows complete drill-down capabilities from the report into the IPM system for further review of the due date.  The reports should also be live and real-time.

Mobile docketing:  Web-based isn’t enough in our mobile economy.  A true leap would be the ability to provide just-in-time docket reports to practitioners through iPhone or Blackberry applications. And reporting isn’t enough – practitioners have to be able to review and act on docket items.

Automated clearance:  docket clearance is among the most manual of tasks in IP groups today. It’s generally time consuming, and information is never available in real time. If we can provide live, interactive docket reports, we should also be able to provide live, real-time clearance instructions.

Automated docketing:  the closest we have to this today are single-page docketing worksheets for our most adept data entry clerks.  But why couldn’t we synchronize our docketing packages with online templates, provided in the cloud?  That would be a real Value-added service.  What’s more, where are those PTO synchronization utilities we’ve been hearing about for years?  We just lob balls over the wall between firm and regulatory agency. Automated docketing vis-à-vis downloaded and synchronized docket packages from the PTO would be a true leap forward.

While I’m at it, it’s also about time that the USPTO and other IP regulatory agencies worldwide began to embrace and roll out technology to simplify filings, provide transparency, and streamline the prosecution process. We’ve been talking about it for years; the time has come.

I’ve recently been following several online forum discussions about eBilling and the increased focus on electronic invoicing as a method of cost effectiveness and process efficiency, both direct and indirect.  I find these discussions interesting because of the passion expressed by most posters about a topic I frankly considered passé.  Essentially, the majority of posters on these threads either lament the failure of eBilling (a 12-year experiment with little relative adoption) or herald the intrinsic business value of standardized electronic invoice transmission formats (and in particular the wealth of data they provide).

It seems to me, however, that there’s one point people seem to consistently overlook. eBilling is, at its heart, a mechanism for transmitting bills – a new way of performing an age old function. Sure, the by-product of the process is a wealth of additional data, and you can employ automated auditing to review some components of bills before they reach human eyes, but raw information does not a benchmark make.

The fact is, the failure of eBilling, as many attest, is not in eBilling at all. It’s not the fault of LEDES or UTBMS, or any other coding or transmittal standards. The failure lies in the matter management and other information systems that have not delivered on the supposed promise of “targeted information mining” and “pragmatic benchmarking” that the proliferation of eBilling data was supposed to open the gates to. What’s more, law departments that have spent some time mining their eBilling data have spent a lot of time discovering what they already knew: it’s hard to compare services between and among firms, and the efficiency and effectiveness of those services, because most legal projects are not “apples to apples.” For those that are similar enough to compare, they’re generally commodity services, and the market has figured out ways to address cost parity there.

To be a “next generation” technology, what we should focus on is the potential for eBilling to serve as a powerful conduit between client and provider. In an ever-evolving world of Web2.0 technologies and emerging communities of practice, could eBilling not be a “gateway technology” to more meaningful collaborative relationships between law departments and law firms? I tend to believe that stronger relationships produce greater results.

[An IPM Treatise]

Those of us in IP circles have for a long time been keenly attuned to the commoditization IP prosecution.  In fact, as innovation springs in higher volumes and faster cycles, it is imperative for IP practices to be ever more efficient and vigilant about their work.  IP has always been a very manual and rules-intensive area of law, and in fact, the practice of IP prosecution has changed little over the past 30 years.  While technologies have existed to support IP practices for many years, they have primarily been focused on replicating paper and manual processes. 
 
Many new IP Management systems have come on the market in the last 3 to 5 years that offer, among other things, workflow-enabled process templates designed to help practitioners and practice support staff better leverage their information systems and do more with less.  These “Next Generation” IP Management systems are ostensibly designed to help practices codify and formalize policy and procedure. In reality, though, they rarely deliver on the benefits and efficiencies they advertise, because they frankly lack meaningful guidance during the implementation process.
 
I think that workflow is the cornerstone of any process improvement initiative.   Workflow should be an IP Practice’s foundational competency, designed to be leveraged for tactical, day-to-day operations that help build the foundation for strategic business improvements.   So how do IP practices practically and pragmatically implement real “game changing” workflows?  Following is my list of the Five Most Important IPM Automated Workflow Initiatives:
 
1.       New Mail Notification.  New mail represents the primary input of work for any IP practice.  In the progressive practice, all new mail should be scanned (if it does not originate electronically) and routed to the responsible practitioner or parties.   Automating the new mail workflow allows you to leverage and build the electronic file wrapper, automate routing and distribution, make policy-driven work assignments, and audit your processes.  Imagine the physical man-hours you can save with such a process!
 
2.       Docket Reporting.  Docket reports are the lifeblood of IP prosecution. They represent a practice’s body of work product, task management, accountability, and risk management policy.   Docket reporting workflow should include the automated generation and delivery of regular (often daily) docket reports to responsible parties.  New reporting technologies, most notably SQL Reporting Services, make the formatting of new, HTML-based reports simple and quick to develop and deploy.  The reports should be easy to read, be contained in the body of an email, hyperlink-enabled to open the matter in the IPM, and Blackberry/iPhone compatible.  There’s no reason every attorney shouldn’t be able to get exactly what they want to see, and that you can’t deliver it quickly and automated, so that you don’t even have to think about it.
 
3.       Docket Clearance.  There is probably no bigger “bang for your buck” in IP Prosecution than in implementing an automated docket clearance workflow.  This workflow involves the greatest leverage of your IP Management system as information portal, and really allows you to capture the practitioner’s desktop. The process should be built to allow lawyer’s to review their docket, or “My Matters”, online and in real time. Lawyer’s would then use controls in the IPM system to indicate docket clearance instruction for each due action, including notes and attached copy of the work product (filing, response, transmittal, etc.).  The responded action would roll off the practitioner’s docket, and onto the docket departments’ (or in some cases, to a Partner for review), who would then clear the dates based on the instructions and provided documentation.  In most IP practice’s today, there is no greater manual or time and resource consuming process than docket clearance.
 
4.       Docket Abandon.  The abandonment of a file is more complex than many realize.  For law firm IP Practices, abandonment not only represents a critical point of exposure, but also requires the coordination of several groups within and without the IP practice, per se.  For example, abandonment requires carefully detailed instructions (you don’t want to abandon a Germany  application when you meant Georgia), carefully documented verifications from the client, and coordination with your Records, Conflicts, and Accounting systems and departments.  Use automated docket abandon workflows to codify  and standardize firm policy and procedure, and leverage the workflow to route forms, data and decision points to the appropriate stakeholders (and systems) at the prescribed time.  This doesn’t leave corporate IP practices off the hook – abandonments can have serious repercussions on patent families and portfolios if done haphazardly.
 
5.       File Transfers.  IP file transfers are fraught with risk.  They present the “perfect storm” for exposure:  they’re typically high in volume, they must be completed urgently with little lead time, and they generally include current and imminent due dates.  What’s more, they present numerous moving targets:  coordination has to occur between receiving and sending firms, but also between and among a sometimes large network of foreign agents and associates, multiple incongruent client instructions, and physical and electronic data that have to be both inventoried and reconciled.  Is there a better scenario for formalized workflow?  Automated workflow can add some really neat competencies to the process.  Routing matters and related components and documents not only helps to manage the propagation of relevant systems, but creates a complete audit trail.  If a stone is left un-turned, or a party won’t respond, you’ll know in real time, and can respond to bottlenecks or obstacles pro-actively.  We all know how small omissions in file intake can affect an entire portfolio.
 
Workflow initiatives in IP practices should pursue two primary objectives:  codify and formalize policy and procedure, and make processes more efficient and effective.  There’s not really any magic in this pursuit either:  your implementation of IP Management technologies should be squarely focused on improving what you do today.  Implementing my list of Top Five Workflows will allow you to realize returns, in real dollars saved and risk mitigated, significantly beyond your technology investments.

I’ve been thinking about my last post on integrations, and thought it might be useful to delve a little further.  So:

Initiative # 6.5:  More Integrations!

I don’t think there’s any argument on the usefulness of thoughtful data ownership models, or of establishing enterprise systems of authority. But what kinds of integrations?  Following is my list of the Top 5 Data Integration Spec’s for IP Management systems:

(Please note, some items here are generalized; firm processes and system can vary greatly, and will affect the implementation methodology of the following integrations.)

1.       Client creation

a.       System of Authority: Accounting System

b.      Data Ownership:  All clients should be opened first in the accounting system.  Client numbers are assigned in the accounting system. Client billing contact and client address entered and maintained in the accounting system.

c.       Methodology:  When a new client is opened (on insert), copy client name, number and  contact information to IPM system’s Clients or Parties tables, with Party Type = Client (variations depending on system). In this manner, clients may only assigned to matters in the IPM if they are opened first in the Accounting System.

2.       Matter creation – for FIRST IP Matter in a Family

a.       System of Authority: Accounting System

b.      Data Ownership:  All matters should be opened first in the accounting system.  First matter number is assigned in the accounting system.

c.       Methodology:  When a new matter (the first in a matter family) is opened (on insert), copy matter name, number, filing type, country  and responsible attorney to IPM system’s Matter tables (variations depending on system). In this manner, matters may only be opened in the IPM if they are opened first in the Accounting System and ensures they have gone through the conflicts process.

3.       Matter creation – for subsequent IP Matters in a Family

a.       System of Authority: IP Management System

b.      Data Ownership:  All matters opened subsequent to the first matter in a family must be opened in the IPM system.  This is because the IPM system’s workflow is critical to the propagation of matter family, related matter and priority information. 

c.       Methodology:  When new matters are created by the IPM system (on insert), copy matter name, number, filing type, country and responsible attorney to Accounting System’s Matter tables (variations depending on system). Matter numbers must be synchronized with the Accounting system – either by the IPM owning the numbering or by polling the accounting system for the next available numbers (variations depending on matter numbering schema).

4.       Timekeepers/Attorneys

a.       System of Authority: Accounting System

b.      Data Ownership:  Timekeeper/attorney assignments are critical to the Time and Billing function and should be assigned and maintained in the Accounting system, . 

c.       Methodology:  Originating and Billing Attorneys are typically assigned for all new Clients; no need to propagate these to the IPM system.  Billing, Responsible and Working (Handling) Attorneys are typically assigned for all new Matters; these should be copied to the IPM system on the first Matter opened (see #2 above).  The Accounting System integration (which owns these data elements) should synchronize attorney assignments on all IPM matters on a regular basis (nightly).

5.       Matter Bibliographic Information

a.       System of Authority: IP Management System

b.      Data Ownership:  Matter bibliographic information is established and maintained in the IP Management System. It should be copied to the Accounting System for informational and billing purposes. Typical data elements include:  title, client ref no,  serial number, patent number, IP Status and Inventor.

c.       Methodology:  Daily synchronization. Each field, based on date modified = today, should be copied to the Accounting System’s matter information tables (typically UDF’s for IP-specific information) on a nightly basis.

Of course, variations abound in these integrations, depending on firm-specific processes, systems and configurations.  However, the above five integrations, in whatever form they are implemented, are critical components of responsible and efficient data management processes.

Process improvement initiatives don’t have to cost money!  Remember, technology isn’t a panacea; it’s a useful tool for making your work easier and more efficient.  Ideally, it should be able to do routine tasks for you, so that you can concentrate on the bigger things.  In the spirit of “using what you got”, my continuing series on DYI improvements:

Initiative # 6:  Integrations!

Integrations are thoughtful intersections of workflow and automation.  Fundamentally, technical integrations should be built to share information and propagate data within the framework of a well-thought-out data ownership model.  By this, I mean that you should review all of your enterprise systems, and designate systems of authority for key data elements. 

For example, law firms typically use their Accounting/Time and Billing system as the owner of data relative to client names and numbers and matter names and numbers.  The HR system might own timekeeper information.  And, of course, the IP system will own all Matter docket information (among others). 

So why integrate? For one, there’s a lot of merit to the data entry model that says “enter data once, and never enter it again.” It’s a very efficient model, to be sure.  But it’s also a compelling risk mitigation model. Entering data once and propagating it to all systems that need to use it ensures parity across systems.  Multiple entries open the possibility, and probability, of multiple errors.

Finally, data integration and information synchronization are a “boots on the ground” way of creating workflows and policy enforcements.  I often recommend to my clients that they create and manage Client and Matter information in one system – typically the Accounting System (although, I am a strong proponent of the Case-centric information universe; more on that later).  By building integrations that synchronize client and matter names and numbers with ancillary systems , you can control when and if those systems get access to that information.  So, by proxy, no work can be done for a client or a matter until that client or matter is pushed into the business application. 

Conclusion:  Use data ownership models to enforce policy.

Anyone who’s worked with me at any point over the last 5 years knows how seriously I take workflow.  As a concept, it is in fact the foundational component of my IPM Value Pyramid.  If you accept the notion, as I’ve stated many times, that the best means to achieve the ephemeral “Knowledge Management” is to focus on the low hanging fruit – simple and direct process improvements designed to address the everyday work of practitioners – then you understand how important and transformational a tool workflow, as both a concept and system, can be to an organization.  

More than anything else, workflow is method by which an organization can formalize and codify its policies and procedures in the systems that it implements to support its practices.  But in practice, workflow seems to be manifest as large-footprint technologies that are out of the reach of all but the largest firms, because its costs are so astronomical. (more…)

Initiative # 5:  Automated Docket Clearance – my proposition

My vision for automated docket clearance would go something like the following. Please note, all current “next-gen” IP Management systems (the thin-client, web-based collaborative models) are built to manage the following process; they’re just not deployed with any imagination:

1.       Lawyers would log in to their “My Matters” screen in the morning and review their due dates for the day (or week or month – we should all be clearing dates well in advance, right?) (more…)

Continuing my series on “quick and dirty” process improvement initiatives that don’t cost anything to implement:

Initiative # 5:  Automated Docket Clearance

Well, I might be stretching the definition of “quick and dirty” here, but I really think that one of the most transformational changes an IP practice can make is to leverage their IP Management system to implement a workflow for the automation of the docket clearance process.  (more…)

Continuing my series on “quick and dirty” process improvement initiatives that don’t cost anything to implement:

Initiative # 4:  Review your docket progressions

In my many years of working with IP docket groups, both in-house and in law firms, I’ve observed that there are as many approaches to managing docket progressions as there are IP practices.  Some have little structure and docket most actions as “ad-hoc”, while other engineer every possible interaction with the docket system to anticipate every plausible scenario.  Of course, you can likely predict that my suggestion would be to find a balance that’s middle-of-the-road.  What I can say is that most every IP practice can benefit from a review of their docketing procedures.  (more…)

Continuing my series on “quick and dirty” process improvement initiatives that don’t cost anything to implement:

Initiative # 3:  Automated Correspondence

You might note by the fact that this is my third installment document assembly-based improvements that I think this is a major functional cornerstone for any process improvement initiative.  And again, if you’ve mostly kept up with technology over the past 5 or so years, you’re likely to realize that most of your enterprises systems already installed provide this functionality built-in.  So, in addition to creating documents to leverage your existing information systems, why not automate their use as much as possible? (more…)