U.S. patent number RE45,751 [Application Number 11/106,739] was granted by the patent office on 2015-10-13 for computerized scheduling system and method for comparing two dates and alerting user of impending due date by changing color display of one of the two dates.
This patent grant is currently assigned to Legalstar, Inc.. The grantee listed for this patent is William S. Perrello, Michael J. Simpson, Robert P. Simpson. Invention is credited to William S. Perrello, Michael J. Simpson, Robert P. Simpson.
United States Patent |
RE45,751 |
Simpson , et al. |
October 13, 2015 |
**Please see images for:
( Certificate of Correction ) ** |
Computerized scheduling system and method for comparing two dates
and alerting user of impending due date by changing color display
of one of the two dates
Abstract
.[.A computerized docketing system for legal matters, comprising
a database operatively arranged to store information related to the
legal matters, including actions to be taken with respect to the
legal matters, and due dates associated with the actions to be
taken, an arithmetic logic unit operatively arranged to scan the
database, compare each of the due dates with a reference date, and
classify the due dates according to proximity of each of the due
dates to the reference date, and, means for displaying different
classifications of the due dates in different colors for the
purpose of alerting a user of the system of matters requiring
attention..]. .Iadd.A computerized method and apparatus for
comparing two dates and alerting user of impending due date by
changing color of one of the two dates. The method includes the
steps of storing information related to a first date in a database,
displaying the information related to the first date in a first
color, programming a relationship between the first date and a
second date via a user interface, comparing the first date and
second date to determine if the programmed relationship is
satisfied, and displaying the information related to the first date
in a second color if the programmed relationship is satisfied. The
apparatus includes a general purpose computer specially programmed
to implement the steps of the method. .Iaddend.
Inventors: |
Simpson; Robert P.
(Willimasville, NY), Simpson; Michael J. (Sanborn, NY),
Perrello; William S. (Lancaster, NY) |
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
Simpson; Robert P.
Simpson; Michael J.
Perrello; William S. |
Willimasville
Sanborn
Lancaster |
NY
NY
NY |
US
US
US |
|
|
Assignee: |
Legalstar, Inc. (Williamsville,
NY)
|
Family
ID: |
23197976 |
Appl.
No.: |
11/106,739 |
Filed: |
April 14, 2005 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
Issue Date |
|
Reissue of: |
09309376 |
May 7, 1999 |
6549894 |
Apr 15, 2003 |
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
1/1 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q
10/10 (20130101); G06F 16/21 (20190101); Y10S
707/99934 (20130101); Y10S 707/99945 (20130101); Y10S
707/99931 (20130101); Y10S 707/99932 (20130101); Y10S
707/99933 (20130101); Y10S 707/99935 (20130101) |
Current International
Class: |
G06F
17/30 (20060101) |
Field of
Search: |
;707/1-7,100-102,104.1
;715/734,963 |
References Cited
[Referenced By]
U.S. Patent Documents
Foreign Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WO 91/06054 |
|
May 1991 |
|
WO |
|
PCT/US98/20981 |
|
Oct 1997 |
|
WO |
|
Other References
Woodbridge, Richard C. and Gardon, Paul A., "Selecting an IP Docket
Management System", Intellectual Property Today, p. 25, Omega
Communications, Inc., Jan. 1999. cited by applicant.
|
Primary Examiner: Le; Debbie
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Simpson & Simpson, PLLC
Claims
What we claim is:
1. A computerized docketing system for legal matters, comprising: a
database operatively arranged to store information related to said
legal matters, including actions to be taken with respect to said
legal matters, and due dates associated with said actions to be
taken; .Iadd.a user interface operatively arranged to receive a
time period inputted from a user via said user interface at
runtime, wherein said time period is associated with a color;
.Iaddend. an arithmetic logic unit operatively arranged to scan
said database, compare .Iadd.a difference between .Iaddend.each of
said .Iadd.actions and their respective .Iaddend.due dates
.[.with.]. .Iadd.and .Iaddend.a reference date .Iadd.with said time
period.Iaddend., and classify said .[.due dates.]. .Iadd.actions
.Iaddend.according to proximity of each of said .Iadd.respective
.Iaddend.due dates to said reference date.Iadd., as prescribed by
said time period.Iaddend.; and, means for displaying .[.different
classifications of.]. said .[.due dates.]. .Iadd.actions
.Iaddend.in .[.different colors.]. .Iadd.said color when said
difference is within said time period .Iaddend.for .[.the purpose
of.]. alerting .[.a.]. .Iadd.said .Iaddend.user of said system of
matters requiring attention.
2. .[.A.]. .Iadd.The .Iaddend.computerized docketing system for
legal matters as recited in claim 1 wherein said reference date
corresponds to an actual date when said scan is done.
3. .[.A.]. .Iadd.The .Iaddend.computerized docketing system for
legal matters as recited in claim 1 wherein .[.classifications of
due dates.]. .Iadd.actions .Iaddend.within a first predetermined
time period relative to said reference date are displayed in
red.
4. .[.A.]. .Iadd.The .Iaddend.computerized docketing system for
legal matters as recited in claim 1 wherein .[.classifications of
due dates.]. .Iadd.actions .Iaddend.within a second predetermined
time period relative to said reference date are displayed in
yellow.
5. .[.A.]. .Iadd.The .Iaddend.computerized docketing system for
legal matters as recited in claim 1 wherein .[.classifications of
due dates.]. .Iadd.actions .Iaddend.within a third predetermined
time period relative to said reference date are displayed in
green.
6. .[.A.]. .Iadd.The .Iaddend.computerized docketing system for
legal matters as recited in claim 1 wherein said legal matters are
intellectual property legal matters.
7. .[.A.]. .Iadd.The .Iaddend.computerized docketing system for
legal matters as recited in claim 1 wherein said due dates are
statutory bar dates.
8. .[.A.]. .Iadd.The .Iaddend.computerized docketing system for
legal matters as recited in claim 1 wherein said means for
displaying comprises a .Iadd.color .Iaddend.computer monitor.
9. .[.A.]. .Iadd.The .Iaddend.computerized docketing system for
legal matters as recited in claim 8 wherein said means for
displaying comprises a spreadsheet-type display on said monitor,
comprising a plurality of color-coded cells, where each cell is
representative of a due date.
10. .[.A.]. .Iadd.The .Iaddend.computerized docketing system for
legal matters as recited in claim 1 wherein said means for
displaying comprises a color-coded report printed on paper.
11. The computerized docketing system as recited in claim 1 wherein
said arithmetic logic unit is operatively arranged to scan said
database, compare each of said due dates with a reference date, and
classify said due dates according to proximity of each of said due
dates to said reference date upon launch of said system.
12. A computerized docketing method for legal matters, comprising:
storing information related to said legal matters in a database,
said information including actions to be taken with respect to said
legal matters, and due dates associated with said actions to be
taken; .Iadd.receiving a time period inputted from a user via a
user interface at runtime, wherein said time period is associated
with a color; .Iaddend. scanning said database, comparing .Iadd.a
difference between .Iaddend.each of said .Iadd.actions and their
respective .Iaddend.due dates .[.with.]. .Iadd.and .Iaddend.a
reference date .Iadd.with said time period.Iaddend., and
classifying said .[.due dates.]. .Iadd.actions .Iaddend.according
to proximity of each of said due dates to said reference
date.Iadd., as prescribed by said time period.Iaddend.; and,
displaying .[.different classifications of.]. said .[.due dates.].
.Iadd.actions .Iaddend.in .[.different colors.]. .Iadd.said color
when said difference is within said time period, .Iaddend.for
.[.the purpose of.]. alerting .[.a.]. .Iadd.said .Iaddend.user of
said system of matters requiring attention.
.Iadd.13. A computerized method of comparing two dates to alert a
user of a future date or event, said method comprising the steps
of: a) storing information in a database, performed by a computer,
said information being related to a first date; b) displaying said
information in a first color on a calendar on a color computer
monitor; c) inputting a first time period to be associated with a
second color, said inputting performed by said user via a user
interface at runtime; d) calculating a difference between said
first date and a second date, wherein said second date initially
antedates said first date; and, e) displaying said information in
said second color on said calendar on said color computer monitor
when said difference is less than or equal to said first time
period. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.14. The method recited in claim 13 wherein said first date is
fixed in time and said second date changes over time. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.15. The method recited in claim 14 wherein said second date
approaches said first date over time. .Iaddend.
16. .Iadd.The method recited in claim 13 wherein said displayed
calendar is operatively arranged to change from said first color to
said second color when said difference is less than or equal to
said first time period. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.17. A method of comparing two dates, said method comprising
the steps of: a) storing information related to a first date in a
database, performed by a computer; b) displaying said information
related to said first date in a first color on a calendar on a
color computer monitor; c) inputting a first time period to be
associated with a second color, said inputting performed by a user
via a user interface at runtime; d) calculating a difference
between said first date and a second date, wherein said second date
initially antedates said first date; and, e) changing said first
color displayed by said color computer monitor to said second color
when said difference is less than or equal to said first time
period. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.18. A general purpose computer specially programmed to
compare two dates, comprising: a) means for storing information
related to a first date in a database; b) an arithmetic logic unit
operatively arranged to calculate a difference between said first
date and a second date, wherein said second date initially
antedates said first date; c) means for inputting a first time
period to be associated with a second color via a user interface at
runtime; and, d) a color computer monitor operatively arranged to
display said information related to said first date in a first
color on a calendar and then display said information related to
said first date in a second color on said calendar when said
difference is less than or equal to said first time period.
.Iaddend.
.Iadd.19. The computer recited in claim 17 wherein said first date
is fixed in time and said second date changes over time.
.Iaddend.
.Iadd.20. The computer recited in claim 19 wherein said second date
approaches said first date over time. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.21. The computer recited in claim 18 wherein said calendar
comprises a plurality of cells, wherein each said cell is
operatively arranged to change from said first color to said second
color when said difference is less than or equal to said first time
period. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.22. A general purpose computer specially programmed to
compare two dates, comprising: a) means for storing information
related to a first date in a database; b) an arithmetic logic unit
operatively arranged to calculate a difference between said first
date and a second date, wherein said second date initially
antedates said first date; c) means for inputting a first time
period to be associated with said second color via a user interface
at runtime; and, d) a color computer monitor operatively arranged
to display said information related to said first date in a cell of
a calendar on said color computer monitor, wherein said cell has a
background of said first color, and said color computer monitor is
operatively arranged to change said first color of said background
to said second color on said color computer monitor when said
difference is less than or equal to said first time period.
.Iaddend.
.Iadd.23. A computerized scheduling system, comprising: a database
operatively arranged to store information related to a first date;
an arithmetic logic unit operatively arranged to scan said database
and compare said first date with a reference date, wherein said
reference date initially antedates said first date; means for
associating a second color with a first time period via a user
interface at runtime; and, a color computer monitor operatively
arranged to display said information related to said first date in
a first color on a calendar, and said color computer monitor
operatively arranged to change said first color to said second
color when said comparison indicates that said reference date is
within said first time period relative to said first date for the
purpose of alerting a user of the system. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.24. The computerized scheduling system of claim 23 wherein
said calendar comprises a plurality of days represented by cells
arranged to change color as said reference date approaches said
first date. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.25. The computerized scheduling system of claim 23 wherein
said means for displaying said information further comprises a
report in the form of a color-coded calendar printed on paper.
.Iaddend.
.Iadd.26. The computerized scheduling system of claim 23 wherein
said first and second colors are different from each other and
selected from the group consisting of red, yellow, and green.
.Iaddend.
.Iadd.27. A computerized method of comparing two dates to alert a
user of a future date or event, said method comprising the steps
of: a) storing information related to a first date in a database,
performed by a computer; b) displaying said information in a first
color on a calendar on a color computer monitor and said first date
is fixed in time; c) monitoring a second date as said second date
approaches said first date over time, wherein said second date
initially antedates said first date; and, d) changing said first
color on said color computer monitor to a second color on said
color computer monitor when said second date is within a first time
period relative to said first date, said first time period being
programmable by said user at runtime. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.28. The computerized method of comparing two dates as recited
in claim 27 wherein said first color of said cell is in the form of
a border or a background of a cell of said calendar. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.29. A method of alerting a user of a future date, or event
associated therewith, said method comprising the steps of: a)
storing information in a database, performed by a computer, said
information being related to said future date; b) displaying said
information with a first color on a calendar on a color computer
monitor; c) storing a first time period and an associated a second
color, said first time period being programmable by said user at
runtime; d) comparing said future date with a reference date to
determine if said reference date is within said first time period
relative to said future date wherein said reference date initially
antedates said future date; and, e) changing said first color on
said color computer monitor to said second color on said color
computer monitor when said reference date is within said first time
period relative to said future date. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.30. The method recited in claim 29 wherein said associated
second color is programmable by said user at runtime via a user
interface. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.31. The method recited in claim 29 wherein the step of
displaying said information with a first color comprises displaying
said information and said first color in a cell within said
calendar on said display, wherein said first color forms a border
or a background of the cell. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.32. The method recited in claim 29 further comprising the
steps of: f) storing a second time period to be associated with a
third color, said second time period being programmable by said
user at runtime; g) comparing said future date with said reference
date to determine if said reference date is within said second time
period relative to said first date; and, h) changing said second
color to said third color when said reference date is within said
second time period relative to said first date, wherein said second
time period is shorter than said first time period. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.33. The method recited in claim 29 wherein the reference date
equals the date on which the step of comparing said future date
with said reference date is performed, which step is performed at
least daily. .Iaddend.
.Iadd.34. A computerized method of comparing two dates to alert a
user of a future event, said method comprising the steps of: a)
storing information in a database, performed by a computer, said
information being related to a future event, said future event
scheduled to occur on a first date; b) inputting a time period,
said inputting performed by said user via a user interface at
runtime; c) calculating a difference between said first date and a
second date, wherein said second date initially antedates said
first date; and, d) displaying said information on a calendar on a
color computer monitor, wherein said information is associated with
a first color when said difference is greater than said time
period, and said information is associated with a second color when
said difference is less than or equal to said time period.
.Iaddend.
Description
This patent contains a microfiche appendix containing 7 microfiche
having 594 frames. The microfiche is intended to be a part of the
written description pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
In 1997, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
received 237,045 patent applications and 224,355 trademark
applications. In the same year, the USPTO issued 122,977 patents
and registered 112,509 trademarks. Also in 1997, the United States
Copyright Office registered more than 600,000 copyrights. In
general, the number of patent and trademark application filings has
increased over time, and this trend is likely to continue. Although
many copyright applications for registration are filed pro se, most
patent and trademark applications are prepared, filed and
prosecuted by attorneys, patent attorneys and patent agents.
Of the approximately 1,000,000 lawyers now practicing in the United
States, fewer than 23,000 were registered to practice patent law
before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (as of May,
1999). With technology advancing at a rapid pace, and so few
attorneys available to prepare and prosecute the ever-increasing
number of patent applications to protect the technology, it is no
surprise that most patent and trademark attorneys (and patent
agents), and their associated law firms and companies, are often
responsible for handling a large number of cases.
In practicing intellectual property law, practitioners are
confronted, in each case, with meeting a bewildering number of due
dates, many of which are critical. These myriad due dates are
prescribed by Title 15 of the United States Code (for trademark
matters), Title 17 of the United States Code (for copyright
matters), and Title 35 of the United States Code (for patent
matters). Additional deadlines are imposed by the Code of Federal
Regulations (e.g., Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations
which applies to patent and trademark matters), the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and various published Court rules. Yet other
deadlines are imposed by clients or by corporate business
objectives.
Each patent or trademark application handled by an attorney
requires the docketing and meeting of a plurality of deadlines. For
example, a typical utility patent application may impose a dozen or
more time deadlines on a practitioner over the course of its
prosecution. While some due dates may merely be reminders to take
some action, others are critical deadlines (i.e, prescribed by
statute) and failure to timely act prior to these so-called
"statutory bar dates" may result in the loss of valuable
intellectual property rights or in a legal malpractice claim
against the practitioner. As noted by one practitioner, "According
to Anthony Greene of Herbert L. Jamison & Co., LLC., West
Orange, N.J., the failure to properly docket the multiplicity of
patent and trademark due dates in even a modest IP practice is one
of the major sources of IP malpractice claims. It has been widely
speculated that this area of malpractice will grow as larger
general practice firms, without previous experience in patents and
trademarks, enter the IP field." Richard C. Woodbridge and Paul A.
Gardon, "Selecting an IP Docket Management System", Intellectual
Property Today, p. 25, Omega Communications, Inc., January
1999.
Typical actions, which may be docketed and performed by a
practitioner in evaluating an invention for patentability,
preparing, filing and prosecuting a utility patent application, or
in tracking actions anticipated to be taken by the Patent Office,
are as follows: Conduct novelty search on invention Prepare
patentability opinion File patent application before one year
statutory bar (sale, public use or publication) Receive
acknowledgment postcard from USPTO Receive official filing receipt
and foreign filing license Send Rule 56 Duty of Disclosure letter
to inventor(s) File Information Disclosure Statement Respond to
First Office Action Send foreign filing letter to client Foreign
file before deadline to receive priority filing date Respond to
Second Office Action File Notice of Appeal File Appeal Brief File
formal drawings Pay Issue Fee Pay Maintenance Fee(s)
A similar number of actions are tracked and docketed for trademark
matters, and a lesser number of actions (i.e., renewals) are
tracked for copyrights. Similar actions are also tracked for
foreign matters (patent and trademark applications filed in foreign
countries), and in inter partes proceedings (e.g., trademark
oppositions and cancellation proceedings). It is clear, then, that
even a relatively small law firm or company handling a portfolio of
just a few hundred cases can easily be confronted with tracking and
docketing tens of thousands of due dates for actions to be taken,
either by the practitioner or the Patent Office. Large firms or
companies may be faced with docketing more than a hundred thousand
dues dates and actions.
In earlier times, patent and trademark attorneys relied on manual
docketing systems which involved complicated manual ledger and/or
tickler systems for tracking actions to be taken and deadlines to
be met. These systems required constant attention and vigilance,
highly trained docketing clerks and administrators, and direct
supervision by attorneys. Often, the systems included redundancy to
ensure that dates were not missed, which redundancy provided added
protection at the expense of efficiency. Obviously, any manual
system cannot be operated flawlessly. All humans make mistakes.
Moreover, the opportunity for error increases as the number of
files being maintained increases. Despite well-documented
procedures, cross-checking and vigilance, all manual systems are
susceptible to failure. They are especially problematic when
employees leave, and new employees are forced to learn the
system.
An obvious approach to solving the docketing problem is to use a
computer to track pertinent dates and actions. Several companies
now offer intellectual property (IP) docketing software products.
These include Computer Packages, Inc. of Rockville, Md.; Flextrac
Systems, Inc. of Denver, Colo.; Intellectual Property Network of
Chicago, Ill.; MAG Systems of Pacifica, Calif.; Master Data Center
of Southfield, Mich.; OP Solutions, Inc. of New York, N.Y.;
Jamieson & Associates, Inc. of Arlington, Va.; Patrix AB of
Goteborg, Sweden; Olcott International & Co. of Weehawken,
N.J.; and LegalStar, Inc. of Williamsville, N.Y. (the assignee of
this patent). Others have patented docketing software packages
(see, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 5,329,447 (Leedom, Jr.) "High Integrity
Computer Implemented Docketing System"; U.S. Pat. No. 5,175,681
(Iwai et al.), "Computerized System for Managing Preparation and
Prosecution of Applications in Various Countries for Protection of
Industrial Property Rights").
All commercially available IP docketing software products enable
users to keep track of actions and due dates associated therewith.
Some automatically calculate certain due dates for actions to be
taken or annuities, maintenance fees, taxes, or other fees to be
paid. Some also are preprogrammed with the laws and rules of
multiple countries. All commercially available products provide
"docket reports" detailing (usually in chronological order) actions
required to be taken by a responsible attorney. Often, these
reports are compiled and printed on a periodic basis (e.g., weekly)
and distributed to responsible attorneys. In a well-designed
system, a docket administrator or managing attorney will also
receive a "master" docket report, to monitor all critical due
dates.
Although all commercially available computer software docketing
programs track actions, due dates and provide reports, they all
(except LegalStar's product) suffer one serious disadvantage--they
rely on responsible attorneys to read the reports and take
appropriate action. If an attorney is away from the office, he or
she may not receive a report or take appropriate action. The
reports are also sometimes ineffective at communicating critical
dates, since statutory bar dates are often commingled with
non-critical due dates and reminder dates.
What is needed, then, is a docketing computer program for
intellectual property legal matters that automatically scans all
critical due dates in a database, compares these dates with some
reference date (e.g., the date the scan is done) and displays a
graphical, color-coded alert to warn of impending critical due
dates.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention comprises a computerized docketing system for
legal matters, comprising a database operatively arranged to store
information related to the legal matters, including actions to be
taken with respect to the legal matters, and due dates associated
with the actions to be taken, an arithmetic logic unit operatively
arranged to scan the database, compare each of the due dates with a
reference date, and classify the due dates according to proximity
of each of the due dates to the reference date, and, means for
displaying different classifications of the due dates in different
colors for the purpose of alerting a user of the system of matters
requiring attention.
A primary object of the invention is to provide a computerized
docketing system for legal matters that alerts users to critical
deadlines with a color-coded graphical display.
A secondary object of the invention is to provide a computerized
docketing system for legal matters that uses the color green to
indicate legal matters under control; the color yellow to indicate
legal matters requiring attention in the near term; and the color
red to indicate legal matters requiring urgent attention.
These and other objects, features and advantages of the present
invention will become readily apparent to those having ordinary
skill in the art upon a reading of the specification and claims in
view of the appended drawings, screen captures and code.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
The file of this patent contains at least one drawing executed in
color. Copies of this patent with color drawing(s) will be provided
by the Patent and Trademark Office upon request and payment of the
necessary fee.
FIG. 1 is a screen capture of the main menu of the invention;
FIG. 2 is a screen capture of the user verification screen of the
invention;
FIG. 3 is a screen capture of the color-coded graphical display of
critical due dates of the invention;
FIG. 4 is a screen capture of a representative "File" screen of the
invention;
FIG. 5A is a screen capture of a representative "Action" screen of
the invention, showing the matter in a "green" state;
FIG. 5B is a screen capture of a representative "Action" screen of
the invention, showing the matter in a "yellow" state;
FIG. 5C is a screen capture of a representative "Action" screen of
the invention, showing the matter in a "red" state;
FIG. 6 is a screen capture of the "Report" screen of the
invention;
FIG. 7 is a screen capture of a representative "Master Docket"
report generated by the invention;
FIG. 8 is a screen capture of the "Lists" screen of the invention,
further showing the "Actions" table of the invention;
FIG. 9 is a screen capture of the "Utilities" screen of the
invention;
FIGS. 10A, 10B and 10C are segments of a block diagram illustrating
the major objects of the invention;
.Iadd.FIG. 11 is a screen capture of a representative "Change SBD
Settings" utility as shown in FIG. 9; .Iaddend.
.Iadd.FIG. 12A is a screen capture of a representative calendar
report, showing a color-coded bordered cell indicating an event is
within a "yellow" time range; .Iaddend.
.Iadd.FIG. 12B is a screen capture of the representative calendar
report shown in FIG. 12A, showing the color-coded bordered cell
indicating the event is within a "red" time range; .Iaddend.
.Iadd.FIG. 13A is a screen capture of a representative calendar
report, showing a color-coded background of a cell indicating an
event is within a "yellow" time range; and, .Iaddend.
.Iadd.FIG. 13B is a screen capture of the representative calendar
report shown in FIG. 13A, showing the color-coded background of the
cell indicating the event is within a "red" time range.
.Iaddend.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
The present invention is intended to function as an invaluable aid
to intellectual property law practitioners in tracking actions and
docketing due dates associated with the practice of law. Although
all docketing and calendaring computer programs track actions and
due dates, and print various reports, the prior art programs rely
on the user to read the reports and note critical deadlines. As a
result, due dates are most often missed, not because of a computer
error, but because a practitioner was inattentive, or was using an
outdated docket report. The present invention uniquely uses a color
coded graphical display which is continuously updated to alert
practitioners to pending and imminent deadlines.
To facilitate a better understanding of the invention, it is
helpful to know the following definitions used in the description
of the invention: Practitioner: refers to a patent agent, or an
attorney who practices patent, trademark, or copyright law; Matter:
refers to a file or case handled by an intellectual property
practitioner; Action: refers to an action required to be taken in a
matter, or an action expected to be taken by a government agency
(e.g., by the United States Patent and Trademark Office); Due date:
refers to a date by which some action must be taken; Statutory bar
date: refers to a critical due date, usually prescribed by statute;
failure to meet a statutory bar date in an action can result in
forfeiture of valuable intellectual property rights, loss of a
client for a practitioner, and possible disciplinary action against
the practitioner; Docketing: the act of recording, tracking,
displaying and reporting due dates and statutory bar dates
associated with actions.
Our description begins with an overview of the program, known
commercially as IP LegalDock.TM., and developed and distributed by
LegalStar, Inc. of Williamsville, N.Y., the assignee of this
patent.
Main Menu (FIG. 1)
Upon launch of the program, the user (e.g., a docketing
administrator in a law firm) first views the main menu screen shown
as a screen capture in FIG. 1. From the main menu, the
administrator can select from a number of docketing modules,
depending upon the type of matters and actions to be docketed. For
example, the administrator can select one of the following modules:
IP LegalDock Trademark (Ex parte) (for docketing trademark
applications, renewals, etc.); IP LegalDock Trademark (Inter
partes) (for docketing inter partes trademark matters such as
trademark oppositions and cancellation proceedings); IP LegalDock
Patent (for docketing patent related matters, such as patent
applications); IP LegalDock Litigation (for docketing litigation
matters); IP LegalDock General (for docketing general matters); IP
LegalDock Copyright (for docketing copyright registrations and
renewals); IP LegalForm.RTM. (a link to an electronic intellectual
property law forms program).
From the main menu, the administrator can also access the StarBar,
discussed infra, and the System Setup module for setting up various
system parameters (e.g., security settings, law firm name, user
names, etc.).
Assuming a user selected the IP LegalDock Ex Parte option, the next
screen that would appear is the User Verification Screen, shown in
FIG. 2.
User Verification Screen (FIG. 2)
For security purposes, only authorized users are allowed to access
the docketing program. The System Setup screen (not shown) is used
to set user security levels. For example, some users are given full
read/write ability, whereas others are given read only ability. In
a typical installation, a docketing administrator would be given
full read/write authority, while responsible attorneys would be
given read only authority. Thus, a docketing administrator could
modify due dates and docket actions, but an attorney could only
browse docket actions screens without being able to change any due
dates, etc. The user verification screen shown in FIG. 2 is used to
verify that a person attempting to use the program is authorized to
do so.
Color-Coded Graphical Display of Critical Due Dates (StarBar) (FIG.
3)
FIG. 3 is a screen capture of the color-coded graphical display of
critical due dates screen. In the commercial embodiment of this
invention, this screen is known as the "StarBar". As mentioned
previously, all docketing computer programs print docket reports,
which are usually distributed to responsible attorneys on a
periodic basis. Unfortunately, these reports are only current as of
the time they are printed. It is possible that a law firm will
assume responsibility for a new case, in between docket report
printings, and that the new case will have a critical due date
prior to the date of printing of the next docket report. Printed
docket reports are very useful, but they require the responsible
attorney to pay constant attention to them. Sometimes an attorney
will refer to the docket report, notice a matter having a critical
due date, work on that matter, and not notice that one or more
other matters further down the report are also in need of
attention.
The StarBar of the present invention uniquely solves these
problems. The StarBar is in the form of a spreadsheet. Each cell in
the spreadsheet represents an action docketed by the program. In a
preferred embodiment, a red-yellow-green color scheme is used for
the cells, although other colors could obviously also be used. The
color green is used to indicate the absence of a critical due date
in the near future. The color yellow is used to indicate an
imminent critical due date. The color red is used to indicate an
urgent critical due date. The time periods for "imminent" and
"urgent" status may be programmed by the docketing administrator,
and may vary from law firm to law firm. For example, some
practitioners might want to trigger yellow alarms when a critical
due date is within three weeks of the current date, and red alarms
when a critical due date is within one week of the current date.
More conservative practitioners might use longer time periods.
The StarBar may be accessed either from the Main Menu or from the
File or Action screens. Each time the StarBar is accessed, the
program scans all critical due dates in the database and compares
each of these due dates with a reference date. In a preferred
embodiment, the reference date is set to be the date the scan is
performed, but the reference date can be any date. If a critical
due date is found to be within the "yellow" or "red" alert time
range, a cell in the StarBar changes color from green to yellow or
red, respectively. The matter number associated with the action
triggering the alarm appears in the cell (in a preferred
embodiment, the due date also appears in the cell). The user can
then click on the cell and the program automatically displays the
action screen for the matter triggering the alarm. As an added
conveniences, the LegalStar logo on the action screen also turns
color (red or yellow), as does the cell in the action screen
containing the critical due date triggering the alarm. To remove
the alarm, and change the StarBar triggering cell back to green,
the docketing administrator must enter a removal date in the column
and row associated with the critical due date. In a preferred
embodiment, the cells in the StarBar are arranged in descending
critical due date order from top to bottom and from left to right,
although any order (including random) can be used. As an added
precaution, the StarBar screen is always launched when one leaves
the Main Menu and attempts to view an Action or File screen. Thus,
docketing administrators and attorneys are forced to notice
critical due dates whenever using the program.
It should be appreciated that the present invention, in a preferred
embodiment, uses a spreadsheet-like display of the color-coded
classification of due dates. However, the invention as claimed can
obviously take the form of other embodiments. For example, it is
envisioned that the computer program can provide a color-coded
calendar report as output. This report would be in the form of a
conventional calendar having bordered squares as representative of
days in a month. The borders of the squares, or the background of
the squares can be color-coded to indicate criticality of due dates
for particular days. Alternatively, the printing of words on docket
reports can be color-coded. For example, statutory bar dates could
be printed in red if the due date is within a predetermined time of
a reference date. They could be printed in yellow if they fall
within a second predetermined time. The display means of the
claims, then, are intended to comprise conventional color-computer
monitor displays, but also printed color displays (e.g., on paper)
as well.
Upon leaving the StarBar screen, a user would next logically enter
the File Screen, shown in FIG. 4, to begin docketing a matter.
File Screen (FIG. 4)
The file screen is used to enter and track information and data
related to a matter to be docketed. In the representative ex parte
trademark screen shown in FIG. 2, the user enters various
information such as client name and address, trademark, description
of goods, class, country of filing, priority dates, date of first
use, etc. The docket administrator can also specify the type of
application being filed (e.g., intent-to-use, principal register,
etc.) Once this general file information has been entered, the
docketing administrator would logically access the Action screen by
clicking on the tab at the bottom of the screen.
Action Screen (FIG. 5)
The action screen is used to enter and track actions to be
docketed. The actions can be either actions required to be taken by
a practitioner or expected to be taken by a government agency
(e.g., the PTO). As seen in FIG. 5, the action screen calculates
and tracks reminder dates, due dates, and statutory bar dates
(StarBar dates, SBDs). The program contains a number of predefined
actions for each country, and users can also enter their own
customized actions as well. Certain due dates are automatically
calculated in each country (such as trademark registration renewal
dates, for example). When an action is completed, a removal date is
entered in the Removal Date column in the row associated with the
action completed. As mentioned previously, the LegalStar logo in
the upper right of the screen is also color-coded. The star logo is
either green, yellow or red, depending on the status of the SBD
dates for that particular matter. Also as described previously,
although the cells on the action screen are normally configured as
black text upon a white background, the background of the cells in
the StarBar Date turns yellow or red when a critical date is within
a preset trigger time period.
Periodically, a docket administrator would typically use the
program to print one or more different types of docket reports.
This is done by accessing the Reports screen shown in FIG. 6 and
accessed by clicking on the tab at the bottom of the screen.
Reports Screen (FIG. 6)
As seen in FIG. 6, a user can print a number of preprogrammed
reports or customize a report. For example, one can print a master
docket report containing a list of all actions to be taken for all
matters within a law firm. Alternatively, one can print a report
containing actions required to be taken by a particular
practitioner. One can also print out a portfolio report listing all
intellectual property owned by a client or company. As an added
convenience in helping practitioners to meet their deadlines, most
preprogrammed reports print statutory bar dates in bold typeface,
normal due dates in italics, and reminder due dates in regular
(normal) typeface as shown in FIG. 7.
Lists Screen (FIG. 8)
The program stores various information about foreign law firms,
assignees, clients, country information, and actions preprogrammed
in various countries. Various "lists" of this information can be
accessed by clicking on the "Lists" tab at the bottom of any
screen. In FIG. 7, for example, a partial list of actions
preprogrammed for the United States is displayed.
Utilities (FIG. 9)
FIG. 9 illustrates a screen capture of the Data Utilities and
System Utilities functions of the program. The Data Utilities
function enables a user to import or export program data, move or
repair data files, or update certain country rules and laws. The
System Utilities function is used to set up certain system
parameters, such as user security access levels, general firm
information, statutory bar date and automatic alert settings, and
printer settings. In this utility, for example, one could change
the first predetermined time period for a "red" alert, and the
second predetermined time period for a "yellow" alert.
FIGS. 10A, 10B and 10C (Block Diagram)
FIGS. 10A, 10B and 10C comprise a block diagram, indicating the
general structure and flow of the main objects of the invention.
One having ordinary skill in the art can easily make and use the
invention in view of this block diagram in combination with the
attached 580 pages of source code. In a preferred embodiment, the
arithmetic logic unit comprises source code written in the Visual
Basic programming language, and the database was established using
the commercially available Microsoft.RTM. Access product.
Thus it is seen that the objects of the invention are efficiently
obtained. While the present invention has been disclosed in terms
of the preferred embodiment in order to facilitate understanding of
the invention, it should be appreciated that the invention can be
embodied in various forms without departing from the principle or
scope of the invention set forth in the appended claims.
* * * * *