Technology enablement strikes a chord with hard-pressed IP professionals
The key requirement in an outsourcing relationship is a system where the corporate client, law firm and the outsourcing service provider can meet and collaborate.
October 16, 2013 at 04:00 AM
10 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In the intellectual property field, corporate clients and law firms alike are rethinking how best to orchestrate their patent and trademark prosecution and IP portfolio management.
As hard-pressed IP professionals deal with increasing workloads and pressure on resources, there's a greater realization that in-house IP departments and law firm IP practices cannot handle all the associated tasks involved in today's IP management as efficiently or as cost effectively as they'd like. There is also a realization that the costs of having outside counsel attorneys handling the total administrative work of managing an IP portfolio cannot be justified.
Already, many corporates and law firms have turned to trusted outsourcing service providers to support them with the high volume and high risk administrative work in areas such as docketing. Now, there's a growing trend to look at transferring the support work associated with the prosecution of patents and trademarks in similar fashion. Patent filing packages, IDS [Information Disclosure Statement] and reference management, and coordinating and filing trademark Statements of Use all can be effectively handled by an experienced outside team.
For those who are already using the specialized assistance of an outside prosecution support team or those who are looking at moving to this model, there is a need to ensure easy and clear communication between the parties. A major concern in outsourcing is not just the quality and reliability of the service provider but also the transparency of the process – and the ability to track the work each step of the way.
However, with clarity of the process and workflow, IP professionals can successfully weave a trusted outsourcing party into the lifecycle of IP prosecution as if the outside resource were an extension of their own team. An individual in the law firm or corporate IP department reviews and prepares a filing strategy, passes to someone in an outsourced administrative role who prepares a filing package, adds the patent claims drafted by the attorney and sends it back to the lead attorney for review and approval. Then the outsourced resource files and dockets the application. This, like all prosecution, requires the constant transfer of information and requests for input from the various stakeholders and participants involved in the process.
Many organizations use outsourcing as a cost control tool. But, left unmanaged or loosely managed, the process is unlikely to work to optimum effect, with the result that the anticipated efficiencies and cost savings are not fully realized. The operational infrastructure of an outsourcing relationship will dictate the resulting efficiency and cost benefits; and, in developing that infrastructure, there are a lot of questions to consider. For example:
- How do you effectively and efficiently collaborate with people who could be thousands of miles away and in completely different time zones?
- Who owns what work, what are the agreed-upon roles, and what is the established process?
- How do you manage the process and the service provider on a daily basis?
- How do you monitor the various strands of work and the stage each is at?
- How do you measure the efficiency gains, if any?
- How do you ensure client/attorney confidentiality for sensitive information that could or will be accessed by the outsource provider?
- How do you make changes to the process quickly and efficiently in line with changing circumstances and/or needs?
In the mechanics of outsourcing, communication and sharing of information is absolutely key. For many IP professionals, sending work to an outsourcing partner is quite an emotional decision – one that requires trust that the information will be handled professionally and appropriately. That's where the effective use of technology can really strike a chord. The right technology can bring greater transparency to the relationship, improve collaboration by providing a central space to store and view work, and assist in overcoming time zone differences, bringing together an IP team that might be spread across various locations in North America, Europe, India or elsewhere in Asia.
The typical law firm or corporate counsel IT infrastructure is generally unable to provide all this. Therefore, either the necessary solutions need to be put in place prior to the engagement – or offered by the outsourcing vendor.
So what's needed in an outsourcing relationship from a technology enablement point of view? The key requirement is a single solution, where the corporate client, law firm and the outsourcing service provider can 'meet' and collaborate. You need a system that:
- Can be accessed by everyone who is part of the client's IP eco-system, not just the docketing team, administrative staff and attorneys
- Has the capacity to be able to store documents, correspondence, notes, etc. electronically with a quick and easy retrieval capability
- Drives collaboration and workflow (not just docket reports and task lists), but in a manner that is easy to use and familiar to the IP professional
- Integrates the workflow with the document management solution
- Provides flexible workflow development and deployment
- Offers simple, but granular advanced 'work in progress' reporting
- Ensures the highest levels of security and strict access controls.
It's a long 'wish list', but one that you should follow and check off against any technology solution you are considering as a means to support and enhance an outsourcing relationship.
Outsourcing without technology enablement is like leaving an orchestra to perform without a conductor. All participants need to know their roles, when they need to play their part …. and that needs to be communicated to all members of the team simultaneously.
The right technology helps ensure that everyone is in tune with each other and that the outsourcing relationship is more harmonious and, ultimately, more successful.
In the intellectual property field, corporate clients and law firms alike are rethinking how best to orchestrate their patent and trademark prosecution and IP portfolio management.
As hard-pressed IP professionals deal with increasing workloads and pressure on resources, there's a greater realization that in-house IP departments and law firm IP practices cannot handle all the associated tasks involved in today's IP management as efficiently or as cost effectively as they'd like. There is also a realization that the costs of having outside counsel attorneys handling the total administrative work of managing an IP portfolio cannot be justified.
Already, many corporates and law firms have turned to trusted outsourcing service providers to support them with the high volume and high risk administrative work in areas such as docketing. Now, there's a growing trend to look at transferring the support work associated with the prosecution of patents and trademarks in similar fashion. Patent filing packages, IDS [Information Disclosure Statement] and reference management, and coordinating and filing trademark Statements of Use all can be effectively handled by an experienced outside team.
For those who are already using the specialized assistance of an outside prosecution support team or those who are looking at moving to this model, there is a need to ensure easy and clear communication between the parties. A major concern in outsourcing is not just the quality and reliability of the service provider but also the transparency of the process – and the ability to track the work each step of the way.
However, with clarity of the process and workflow, IP professionals can successfully weave a trusted outsourcing party into the lifecycle of IP prosecution as if the outside resource were an extension of their own team. An individual in the law firm or corporate IP department reviews and prepares a filing strategy, passes to someone in an outsourced administrative role who prepares a filing package, adds the patent claims drafted by the attorney and sends it back to the lead attorney for review and approval. Then the outsourced resource files and dockets the application. This, like all prosecution, requires the constant transfer of information and requests for input from the various stakeholders and participants involved in the process.
Many organizations use outsourcing as a cost control tool. But, left unmanaged or loosely managed, the process is unlikely to work to optimum effect, with the result that the anticipated efficiencies and cost savings are not fully realized. The operational infrastructure of an outsourcing relationship will dictate the resulting efficiency and cost benefits; and, in developing that infrastructure, there are a lot of questions to consider. For example:
- How do you effectively and efficiently collaborate with people who could be thousands of miles away and in completely different time zones?
- Who owns what work, what are the agreed-upon roles, and what is the established process?
- How do you manage the process and the service provider on a daily basis?
- How do you monitor the various strands of work and the stage each is at?
- How do you measure the efficiency gains, if any?
- How do you ensure client/attorney confidentiality for sensitive information that could or will be accessed by the outsource provider?
- How do you make changes to the process quickly and efficiently in line with changing circumstances and/or needs?
In the mechanics of outsourcing, communication and sharing of information is absolutely key. For many IP professionals, sending work to an outsourcing partner is quite an emotional decision – one that requires trust that the information will be handled professionally and appropriately. That's where the effective use of technology can really strike a chord. The right technology can bring greater transparency to the relationship, improve collaboration by providing a central space to store and view work, and assist in overcoming time zone differences, bringing together an IP team that might be spread across various locations in North America, Europe, India or elsewhere in Asia.
The typical law firm or corporate counsel IT infrastructure is generally unable to provide all this. Therefore, either the necessary solutions need to be put in place prior to the engagement – or offered by the outsourcing vendor.
So what's needed in an outsourcing relationship from a technology enablement point of view? The key requirement is a single solution, where the corporate client, law firm and the outsourcing service provider can 'meet' and collaborate. You need a system that:
- Can be accessed by everyone who is part of the client's IP eco-system, not just the docketing team, administrative staff and attorneys
- Has the capacity to be able to store documents, correspondence, notes, etc. electronically with a quick and easy retrieval capability
- Drives collaboration and workflow (not just docket reports and task lists), but in a manner that is easy to use and familiar to the IP professional
- Integrates the workflow with the document management solution
- Provides flexible workflow development and deployment
- Offers simple, but granular advanced 'work in progress' reporting
- Ensures the highest levels of security and strict access controls.
It's a long 'wish list', but one that you should follow and check off against any technology solution you are considering as a means to support and enhance an outsourcing relationship.
Outsourcing without technology enablement is like leaving an orchestra to perform without a conductor. All participants need to know their roles, when they need to play their part …. and that needs to be communicated to all members of the team simultaneously.
The right technology helps ensure that everyone is in tune with each other and that the outsourcing relationship is more harmonious and, ultimately, more successful.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250