Abstract:
A system and method that reduces risks for law firms that are handle docketing and payment of renewals (also known as “annuity” or “maintenance”) fees on intellectual property such as patents and trademarks. The risk-reduction system is able to provide law firms an ability to exit the intellectual property annuities service business while mitigating risk to the firm. The structured program presents law firms with a process for seamlessly transitioning its clients (e.g., the patent-holders) from their firm to a service provider quickly and efficiently. The risk-reduction system has advantages of safely and efficiently assisting law firms with exiting the renewals business, mitigating the firm&#39;s risk, minimal or no disruption in service to the firm&#39;s clients, project planning with benchmarks for deliverables within a timeframe, and high service level service agreements signed directly between the firm&#39;s clients and a service provider.

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
       [0001]    None 
       FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
       [0002]    The present invention relates to a system and method that reduces risks for law firms and corporations that are involved with the tracking and payment of renewal (also known as “annuity” or “maintenance”) fees on intellectual property such as patents and trademarks. 
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0003]    Businesses face a wide variety of risks, many that are due to events beyond their realistic control. Risks can be economic-based, technical-based, natural disasters, man-made disasters, and intrinsic risks to the business itself due to the product or service it provides. Insurance is typically purchased to compensate for some risks, but it cannot compensate for all risks. For example, if a semiconductor manufacturing company is located in northern California, it will plan for technical risks by the adoption of design and manufacturing expertise and qualify assurance practices, warranties from its suppliers, providing high degrees of technical skills by hiring experts in fields of technologies, increased research and development practices that are protected through procurement of intellectual property such as patents, copyrights, and trade secrets. It can hedge against economic risks by gaining contracts for future deliveries, by saving cash or investing, by balancing inventory and assets. It can hedge against natural disasters by locating in a building that has strong structural features to guard against damage by earthquakes. 
         [0004]    Law firms and corporate legal departments are continually exposed to risks. For example, one type of risk a law firm confronts is a conflict-of-interest for representing competing corporations in a similar area of the law. Firms manage that risk by performing conflict-of-interest checks from each lawyer or department. Malpractice by an attorney represents another risk, both in law firms and in corporations. 
         [0005]    Patent rights need to be maintained in all jurisdictions where they are registered. While maintaining renewals for a patent portfolio is essential to keep the rights of limited monopoly afforded by each patent, it can be time consuming and highly administrative, especially in more complex jurisdictions. A law firm or in house law group managing others&#39; IP must assess the profit benefits against the risks associated with renewing a patent portfolio, since lapsing a patent could cause a loss of rights. This loss of rights cannot be recovered, as with a trademark, after certain procedural methods to restore the lapsed patent are exhausted. Loss of patent rights can potentially lead to loss of revenue and reputation, not to mention a possible legal battle. 
         [0006]    Prior methods for performing patent and trademark renewals are to perform them in-house at a corporation, perform them at a law firm for the firm&#39;s clients, or hire an annuities provider that operates under the control of the law firm or corporation. Both methods require expenditure of resources including specialist staff with a continuity back-up plan of trained personnel in case the primary staff are no longer employed or otherwise cannot work. The renewals must be handled accurately and the data held securely on a reliable docketing and notification system. The legal requirements for each jurisdiction must be continually monitored and updated for changes in procedures and fees. Many jurisdictions require a local patent attorney to represent the patent holder in making payments, therefore a world-wide network of patent attorneys and agents in different time zones must be tracked and maintained. 
         [0007]    The M.P.E.P. refers to 35 U.S.C. 41 Patent fees; patent and trademark search systems,” and states
       “The Director shall charge the following fees for maintaining in force all patents based on applications filed on or after Dec. 12, 1980 (1) 3 years and 6 months after grant, $900, (2) 7 years and 6 months after grant, $2,300, (3) 11 years and 6 months after grant, $3,800. Unless payment of the applicable maintenance fee is received in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on or before the date the fee is due or within a grace period of 6 months thereafter, the patent will expire as of the end of such grace period. The Director may require the payment of a surcharge as a condition of accepting within such 6-month grace period the payment of an applicable maintenance fee. No fee may be established for maintaining a design or plant patent in force.       
 
         [0009]    The risks faced by law departments themselves revolves around understanding and docketing patent maintenance fee payments. Docketing is the recording of critical information and events surrounding case management and prosecution of intellectual property rights. As attorney firms and companies have to keep track of deadlines and facts for thousands of patent and trademark filings worldwide, it is vital that the recording is timely and accurate, rendering it an essential part of any IP practice. The significantly higher liability of maintaining patents verses registered trademarks is because of the way rights are obtained for each type of property. Trademark rights are gained from their use, not from mere registration. Therefore a lapsed registration could be re-filed as a new application that claims use of the mark back to the original lapsed registration&#39;s claim of use. Patent rights, however, are gained through the grant of the patent, not through use of the invention. After a patent lapses due to failure to pay maintenance fees, it will enter into the public domain after which it cannot be re-instated. 
         [0010]    Logistical problems with maintaining a trademark portfolio include a specialist staff trained in the area of trademark law, the ability to pay renewal fees in all currencies around the world, manage agent relationships in each country, and monitor each national law and procedure for paying. The administrative burden of trademark formalities can tax an already busy IP department. 
         [0011]    Due to litigiousness of patent-holders and up to billion-dollar worth of the monopoly afforded products by patents, managing risk of maintaining patents is more important today than previously. Lawsuits caused by annuities management malpractice are on the rise, which is leading to an increasing number of firms wishing to remove themselves from the annuities business. One insurance carrier estimates that five percent of IP related claims are caused by annuities malpractice. 
         [0012]    For a law firm, there are many challenges in transitioning out of the annuities business for its clients. Risks include annuities lapse risk, data integrity risk, and project planning and implementation risk. 
         [0013]    To reduce the above-identified risks, what is needed is a risk-reduction system implemented through a service provider that can transition law firms out of the patent annuities service business successfully while mitigating risk to the law firm. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0014]    The preferred and alternative embodiments of the present invention provide a method and system to implement risk management of docketing and paying patent maintenance fees to a nation&#39;s or region&#39;s patent office. 
         [0015]    The risk-reduction system is able to provide law firms an ability to exit the intellectual property annuities service business while mitigating risk to the firm. The structured program presents law firms with a process for seamlessly transitioning its clients (e.g., the patent-holders) from their firm to a service provider quickly and efficiently. The risk-reduction system has advantages of safely and efficiently assisting law firms with exiting the renewals business, mitigating the firm&#39;s risk, minimal or no disruption in service to the firm&#39;s clients, project planning with benchmarks for deliverables within a timeframe, and high service level service agreements signed directly between the firm&#39;s clients and a service provider. 
         [0016]    Renewals risk is mitigated by the system through a direct relationship between the service provider and the law firm. Data risk is mitigated through either a direct relationship between the service provider and the law firm to verify integrity of the law firm&#39;s annuities data. Project risk is mitigated through a project plan designed and implemented by the service provider and tracked by the software agent for benchmarks and timelines of deliverables. 
         [0017]    A method and computerized system for reducing risk actually assumed by at least one of the parties is described, wherein at least one of the parties pays a patent maintenance fee for at least one of the other parties. If a payment of a maintenance fee that is due fails to occur, then at least one of the parties assumes the risk. A computer network can be made accessible with a network access device via a communications network for each of the parties involved in a renewals transaction. Executable software can be stored on a service provider&#39;s server, law firm server, and client computers that can be made executable on demand via the network access device. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0018]    For a better understanding of the nature of the present invention, its features and advantages, the subsequent detailed description is presented in connection with accompanying drawings in which: 
           [0019]      FIG. 1  is a system of renewals in the prior art; 
           [0020]      FIG. 2  is a network system capable of implementing the exemplary embodiments; 
           [0021]      FIG. 3  is a high-level flowchart of a method of the exemplary embodiments; 
           [0022]      FIG. 4  is a flowchart of preferred and alternative embodiments; 
           [0023]      FIG. 5  is a matrix diagram of features of the preferred and alternative embodiments; 
           [0024]      FIG. 6  is a flowchart of data verification of the preferred embodiment; 
           [0025]      FIG. 7  is a flowchart of data verification decisions of the preferred embodiment; 
           [0026]      FIG. 8  is a system diagram of the preferred embodiment illustrating removed responsibility of a law firm for managing renewals; 
           [0027]      FIG. 9  is system diagram of an alternative embodiment illustrating partial responsibility of a law firm for managing renewals; and 
           [0028]      FIG. 10  is system diagram of an alternative embodiment illustrating full responsibility of a law firm for managing renewals. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
       [0029]    Referring to  FIG. 1 , a traditional system of managing intellectual property (e.g., patent and trademark) renewals that involve a law firm  10  instructing a service provider (SP)  14  for servicing the actual payment of renewals fees is illustrated. Law Firm  12  and SP  14  can either share a single database  16  containing pending cases and granted case or alternatively maintain separate databases. SP  14  issues one or more renewals reminder notices  18  to Law Firm  12  in advance of a renewal date. Law Firm  12  transmits a renewals notice to its own group of clients  22  who are the owners of pending and granted patent and trademark cases. The types of clients  22  include law firms, individual lawyers, a corporation, an individual inventor, a university, a partnership or intellectual property venture, each of which have a need or obligation to pay renewal (a.k.a. annuity or maintenance) fees on patents and trademarks owned by them or under their control. Clients  22  transmit pay instructions  20  back to Law Firm  12  which are then transmitted  18  on to SP  14 . SP  14  transmits pay instructions  24  to one or more Agents  24 , which are typically law firms having attorneys registered to practice before patent and trademark offices (PTO)  28 . Agents  26  perform the actual payment of the case renewal to a PTO  28  and transmit an Invoice  24  which is paid by the SP  14 . SP  14  transmits its own invoice  18  which is paid by Law Firm  12  which sends its own invoice  20  back to its clients  22  that pay the Law Firm&#39;s fees and services in addition to the SP  14  and Agent  26  fees within the invoice  20 . 
         [0030]    An embodiment of a computer network system  30  capable of implementing the preferred and alternative embodiments is illustrated in  FIG. 2 . All users and devices connect to broadband network  32 , which can also include a packet-switched network such as the public Internet, managed network lines, and/or private wide area networks (WANs) as part of broadband network  32 . Each server and end-user client computer on system  30  can connect to the broadband network  32  through a high speed network connection such as Ethernet LAN via a digital subscriber line (DSL), cable modem, or T1/T5 line. Law Firm server  36  connects to Law Firm&#39;s renewals database  34  holding its clients&#39; case databases and is used by Law Firm  12  for activities related to its renewals system and services. 
         [0031]    Clients  22  use end-user client computers  38  to connect with law firm server  36  via network  32 . Each client user  38  may retain its own database containing its own intellectual property renewal case records. Service provider  14  uses Service Provider server  40  to access server  36 , agent computer  42  and patent and trademark office servers  44  via network  32 . SP server  40  contains it own intellectual property renewals database, which can contain similar client  22  renewals records as LF database  34  and PTO servers  44 . The number of client computers  38 , law firm databases  34 , agent end-user computers  42 , and PTO servers  44  connected to network  32  is up to the largest that will be supported by network system  30 . 
         [0032]    Referring now to  FIG. 3 , a flowchart of high-level steps of the exemplary embodiments is illustrated. The process begins by the Law Firm  12 , together with the Service Provider  14  determining a solution strategy  46  that will allow the Firm to exit the renewals business and lower, or completely remove, risk associated with managing client renewals. The process involves two phases. In step  48  for Phase I, reminders instructions and invoices  18 ,  20  shifts to the SP  14  instead of Firm  12 . In step  50 , Phase II provides methods for the SP  14  to take over management of the renewals and the Firm  12  chooses an exemplary system that results from the transfer of data and renewals responsibility from the Firm to the SP  14 . In step  52 , the Firm  12  and SP  14  implement a system for transfer of responsibility. 
         [0033]      FIG. 4  illustrates the preferred embodiment of a process for Phases I and  11  of transferring responsibility of management of renewals. The matrix in  FIG. 5  provides a summary of intersecting responsibilities and milestones between Firm  12 , SP  14 , and Client  22  during steps of the process in  FIG. 4 . During the entire process, client  22  always retains responsibility for its own intellectual property cases, since it is the owner of the case. Firm  12  retains responsibility of the data  16  for pending and granted cases up until a system implementation in steps  80  through  86 . During the transition  48  and exit phases  50 , there are certain risk factors that must be addressed. For example, understanding the origin and condition of the data that will generate renewal fee deadlines as part of the initial data transfer. Once the transition period is complete, a process will have to be implemented for the transfer of future cases to the service provider  14 . 
         [0034]    In step  54 , a contract is between SP  14  and Law Firm  12 . In the contract, terms can be provided for a partial or full indemnity of Law Firm  12  against any mistakes or oversights committed by SP  14  during the entire transition process and after the final management system is operational. For example, a risk of missing a reminding instruction for a renewal from SP  14  to client  22  can be taken on by the SP  14  through an indemnification of such risk during the contracting process  54 . At this stage, key milestone  90  includes the Firm  12  providing SP  14  a list of renewals cases and its clients  22 . 
         [0035]    In step  56 , a letter is sent from Firm  12  to each of its clients  22  notifying the client of the Firm&#39;s intention to exit the renewals business and turn responsibility over to SP  14 , and querying the clients  22  of whether they desire transfer of their data to SP&#39;s responsibility. At step  58  the Firm&#39;s renewals data  16  is loaded for SP&#39;s management depending upon the yes or no responses to letter  56 . At this stage, matrix in  FIG. 5  illustrates that SP  14  has shared responsibility for live and granted case data along with Firm  12 . The Firm  12  determines whether  60  it desires a first data verification of its renewals data by SP  14 . If yes, then data verification is performed  62  according to the preferred process in  FIGS. 6 and 7 . At the time of transfer from law firm  12  to service provider  14 , verifying critical patent data fields such as filing and grant dates, application and patent numbers, helps mitigate against an incorrect case and risk of lapsing due to data errors. 
         [0036]    Referring to  FIG. 6 , data verification  62  begins with the DV Decision Tree  92  illustrated in  FIG. 7 . In step  94 , the Firm  12  transfers data  16  to SP  14  for loading into SP&#39;s database  42 . SP  14  verifies a number of fields in each record to ensure accuracy. Fields include an application number  96 , a grant number  98 , a publication number  100 , a PCT number  102 , a priority number  104 , a proprietor or assignee  106 , a title of the case  108 , and a renewal date  110 . If any field does not verify, in step  112  the SP  14  may contact the client  22  of a discrepancy or missing data and perform a search  114  for the case data on an official patent office server  44 . If a record match is found  116  and the match is correct  118  and date is correct  120 , then a verification check is performed  122  against original renewals case data held by client  22 . 
         [0037]    Further data that SP may verify includes a combination of the following data fields against public records with support from an agent  26  network:
       Priority Number;   Priority Date;   Patent Co-operation Treaty Number;   Patent Co-operation Treaty Date;   Parent Application Number;   Parent Application;   Application Number;   Application Date;   Publication Number;   Publication Date   Grant Number;   Grant Date;   Proprietor;   Next Renewal Date;   Current Case Status;   Number of Claims (Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea only)   Number of Years (Spanish and Swiss supplementary protection certificates only)   Number of Designs (Austria, Benelux, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, South Korea, Malaysia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden and Morocco only).
 
In addition, for data verification  62 , clients  22  provide SP  14  with the following data:
   Patent Number;   Priority Number;   PCT Filing Number;   Parent Application Number;   Application Number;   Publication Number;   Grant Number Proprietor; and   The number of cases involved.       
 
         [0064]    If the searched data  114  is found matching to the input data  94  and client data in step  122 , then the data is recorded  128 . If a discrepancy exists, the data is recorded  126  and a mark is made of the discrepancy. After these steps are performed, the check list of steps  96  to  110  may be referred to again for additional interpretation of data discrepancies or verification. The final step  132  yields error-free data. 
         [0065]    Referring again to  FIG. 6 , the DV process returns to step  134  for further verification through a quality tree. In step  136 , any double entries in database  16  is cross-checked and the two sets of discrepancies are compared  138 . If the data for the double entry is matching  140 , a final format of the data is prepared  146 . If the data is not matching  140 , then discrepancies may be initially checked  142  against a PTO database  44 , an error report prepared  144 , and the data record returned to the DV decision tree  92  for re-processing. Once all data is confirmed, then a random check of data samples is performed  148 , after which data is submitted in final form  150  that should be error free. 
         [0066]    Referring again to the process in  FIG. 4 , the next step  64 , whether or not data is verified  60 , is to determine and begin a start pay date. The start pay date is the date on which SP  14  will begin to manage and pay renewals instead of Firm  12  and is the date when Firm  12  ceases to pay any renewal fees. In step  68 , Firm  12  sends a letter notification to clients  22  with an explanation and request for queries concerning the new system for renewals. In step  70 , the client  22  responds yes or no to whether it desires SP  14  to handle its renewals or whether it has chosen a different service provider or will handle renewals itself. If no response is received from a client  22 , then an official notice is transmitted to that client stating its renewals will no longer be managed or paid by either Firm  12  or SP  14 . 
         [0067]    The next step  70  creates a report summarizing each client response from step  70 . Here, Firm  12  decides  74  whether to perform a second data verification  76 . Firm  12  can choose to have only on the cases from clients  22  that accept SP&#39;s management of its renewals based on the responses from step  70  or can perform the second verification on the entire renewals data set that was reviewed in step  62 . Data verification  76  is handled the using the same preferred process in  FIGS. 6 and 7  as discussed previously herein. 
         [0068]    Phase II of the process begins at step  78 , where the client  22  and Firm  14  contract with SP  14  for the type of renewals system to be implemented. In the preferred embodiment of step  78 , Firm  12  decides whether it desires no responsibility for managing renewals. A no responsibility choice results in step  80  of removed responsibility for renewals, where the firm mitigates risk or is completely absolved of risk related to renewals management.  FIG. 8  illustrates the preferred system for removed responsibility. Firm  12  retains no responsibility  152  for granted and pending renewals data  16  owned by client  22 . SP  14  interacts directly with clients  22  for reminders, instructions, invoicing, and payments  20  of renewals instead of Firm  12 . SP  14  interacts directly with agents  26  and PTOs  28  for reminders, instructions, invoicing and payments of renewals  24 . 
         [0069]    Step  82  is a decision whether Firm  12  desires to retain partial responsibility for client renewals resulting in step  84  and illustrated by the alternative embodiment for a renewals management system in  FIG. 9 . In the alternative embodiment, Firm retains responsibility  156  of renewals for pending client cases  15  but transfers responsibility for renewals of granted cases  17  to SP  14 . For granted cases  17 , SP  14  interacts directly with clients  22  for reminders, instructions, invoicing, and payments  20  of renewals instead of Firm  12 . SP  14  interacts directly with agents  26  and PTOs  28  for reminders, instructions, invoicing and payments of renewals  24 . For pending cases  15 , Firm  12  instructs SP  14  to interact with clients  22  for reminders, instructions, invoicing, and payments  20  of renewals and instructs SP  14  to act directly with agents  26  and PTOs  28  for reminders, instructions, invoicing and payments of renewals  24 . 
         [0070]    Referring again to  FIG. 4 , Firm  12  may decide in step  86  to retain full responsibility for managing renewals of both pending and granted cases for its clients. An additional alternative embodiment for a system of managing renewals under full Firm  12  responsibility is illustrated in  FIG. 10 . In this system, for pending and granted cases  16 , Firm  12  instructs SP  14  to interact with clients  22  for reminders, instructions, invoicing, and payments  20  of renewals and instructs SP  14  to interact directly with agents  26  and PTOs  28  for reminders, instructions, invoicing and payments of renewals  24 . This results in retention of high risk to Firm  12  for management responsibility, yet mitigates some risk by utilizing expertise of SP  14  and data verification  62 ,  76  of renewals data. 
         [0071]    The present invention has the advantages of mitigating risk to a Firm for handling renewals for its clients. Through implementation of the preferred embodiment for a renewals management system, data risk is transferred to clients  22  and SP  14  by establishing a direct relationship between client  22  and SP  14  for data management, and by the verification of case data by SP  14 . Project risk is transferred away from Firm  12  to SP  14  by the management of both Phase I and II of the preferred processes. Indemnification of Firm  12  by SP  14  results in a full transfer of risk of renewals away from the Firm that is absorbed by SP  14 . 
         [0072]    Because many varying and different embodiments may be made within the scope of the inventive concept herein taught, and because many modifications may be made in the embodiments herein detailed in accordance with the descriptive requirements of the law, it is to be understood that the details herein are to be interpreted as illustrative and not in a limiting sense.