IP SOFTWARE
Duane Morris LLP was one of the first of the US-based IP practices to really understand what Patricia®
could
do for them in a financial, business and IP management sense. IP group chair Lewis F. Gould Jr and practice support director Laura Bandrowsky describe their evaluation, procurement and implementation process.
Duane Morris recognised a need to provide a better IP-docketing system. Te new docketing system needed to be user-friendly and give users the ability to create reports quickly and efficiently. It also needed to provide a flexible solution for incorporating the dockets of lateral hires during the firm’s growth cycle and to integrate the firm’s nine separate IP-docketing databases into a master database. Finally, it was vital that it work well within the firm’s existing infrastructure.
Together, we named a new docketing system committee, which consisted of five IP partners, two IP docket clerks and five information services (IS) representatives. With the stated goals in place and the committee named, the soſtware selection process began. With input from the IP partners and aſter a month-long search, the firm’s IS representatives identified five potentially suitable IP docketing systems.
Formal presentations to the committee were arranged. Tese were of tremendous benefit to the committee. Te partners learned how the latest technologies could help them manage their practice better, provide better cost controls and streamline their workflows. At the same time, the IS professionals learned the daily tasks of the IP group and were able to clarify what soſtware functionality might be appropriate. Te requirements grew from the original five to the following:
• Implement a comprehensive, flexible and scalable IP docketing system with a standardised database engine that included a built-in workflow
• Provide letter creation capability using the firm’s document management system (InterWoven®) and its letter macros (Payne®) to quickly create, store and retrieve letters
www.worldipreview.com
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2010
67
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112