ADVERTISING FEATURE
• 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;
• Provide easy user access to the firm’s contact management system (InterAction®);
• Provide a solution for financial reporting, payment disbursement and cost recapture that integrated with the firm’s accounting system (Elite®);
• Integrate the docketing system with the firm’s New Case® process within Metastorm®;
• Ensure that the system performed well for the firm’s offices (then 21) across the US through Citrix®; and
• Select a company willing to ‘go the extra mile’ to provide these integrations and to assist us in converting the dockets for lateral hires who would bring dockets with them.
Once these goals were stated, there were two soſtware vendors in final contention. A second formal presentation by each was made to the committee. Tese sessions were day-long intense exchanges of ideas and possible solutions.
Te firm chose Patrix and its product, Patricia®. Mehrdad Assadi, Patrix’s chief technology officer, was named project manager. Assadi and the committee recognised this would be a significant undertaking, so a two-day planning session was held to finalise the project plan and the Data Conversion Manual. Te Patrix team members were key players because of the breadth of integration that was planned and because the firm had nine different dockets to manage. Each integration element was addressed separately at these meetings and stakeholders from the accounting, records management, marketing and IS (for Interwoven, Payne, SQL, rollout and training) were named. A seven-month rollout date was set.
Te Patrix contingent initially spent a week at Duane Morris and met with the department stakeholders, along with the IS committee members. At
that time, the integration with
each of the soſtware applications was detailed. Potential problems and technical issues were discussed along with possible solutions for each. Te game plan was put in place.
Each of these integrations had its own challenges. For Elite® and New Case®, it was necessary to devise a way to:
“IN ORDER TO MAKE THE CONVERSION EFFORTS EFFICIENT AND REDUCE PROJECT DELAY, PATRIX
DEVELOPED A CUSTOM CONVERSION TOOL CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE DIVERSE DATABASES.”
• Let the users make payments to foreign associates through Patricia® and capture those expenditures in the firm’s accounting system;
• Let the users make payments to the patent and trademark offices through Patricia® and capture those expenditures in the firm’s accounting system;
• Provide a utility to synchronise Patricia® records with the accounting records in Elite® via a unique identifier;
• Provide a method to populate both Patricia® and Elite® with client/matter information when a new case or new matter was opened; and
26 World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2013
• Enable disbursement tracking for reconciliation and cost recapture.
For InterWoven®, Payne® and InterAction®, the challenge was to provide an integration that would enable the users, while in Patricia®, to:
• Create a user-specific, office-specific letter from a template (Payne®) that was populated by the user’s selection of contact information from InterAction®;
• Populate it with the pertinent information from the Patricia® database records; and
• Automatically store it retrieval in InterWoven®.
for later search and
Tis was accomplished by making use of application programming interfaces provided by each soſtware vendor, enabling integration objects to be accessed and operated within the Patricia® graphical user interface acting as native Patricia® functions. Once again, this allowed us to provide a solution where users could operate in a unified environment for all daily tasks.
Finally, a conversion utility had to be written to bring the nine datasets into the master Patricia® database. To make
the transition from the
previous IP soſtware to Patricia® successful, the conversion task was identified as the major single milestone. In order to make the conversion efforts efficient and reduce project delay, Patrix developed a custom conversion tool capable of handling the diverse databases.
Te conversion tool had the ability to load all nine datasets into one centralised Patricia® database. Te conversion tool loaded all nine datasets in one task and each data set had its own conversion definition set out in the soſtware. Tis approach allowed the IP group to load the Patricia® database with the old data as they completed data cleaning tasks without unnecessarily straining technical resources.
In the final analysis, this collaboration has resulted in helping Duane Morris meet the needs of its clients more efficiently than ever before.
Te use of Patrix and Patricia® has allowed the firm to offer a centralised and continually evolving IP docketing solution. Te service has received favourable feedback from both attorneys and clients since its inception, and has made the firm more competitive in the legal marketplace and better able to serve and anticipate its clients’ needs in the future.
Lewis F Gould Jr is a partner at Duane Morris LLP. He can be contacted at:
lfgould@duanemorris.com
www.worldipreview.com
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 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168