Solving an IP Practice Business Need with Patricia

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 software selection process began. With input from the IP partners and after a month-long search, the firm's IS representatives identified five potentially suitable IP docketing systems.

Formal presentations to the committee were arranged with the five, which were of tremendous benefit to the committee and a learning process for both the partners and the IS professionals. The partners learned how the latest technologies could help them manage their practice better, provide better cost controls and to streamline their workflow. At the same time, the IS professionals learned the daily tasks of the IP group and were able to clarify what software functionality might be appropriate. By the end of the summer, the requirements grew from the original five to the following well-defined ones:

• Implement a comprehensive flexible and scalable IP docketing system with a standardized 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 then-21 offices across the United States through Citrix'; and
• Select a company willing to “go the extra mile” to provide these integrations and to assist us on a going forward basis in converting the dockets for lateral hires who would bring their dockets with them.

Once these goals were stated, there were two software vendors in final contention. A second formal presentation by each was made to the committee. These sessions were a day-long intense exchange of ideas and possible solutions.