Hi George,

Thank you for the suggestion. We have recorded this with engineering and will let you know when this has been completed.

Hi Richard,

Thank you for the suggestion. We will have recorded this with engineering and will let you know when this has been implemented.

Hi George. Thank you for the suggestion. We will have recorded this with engineering and will let you know when this has been implemented.

Thank you for the suggestion. We will take this under consideration.

Hi Mark,

Thank you for the suggestion. We have recorded this as a new feature request. We will let you know when this will be implemented.

Hi Mark,

Thank you for the suggestion. We have recorded this as a new feature request. We will let you know when this will be implemented.

Hi Christian,

Currently, the solutions you mentioned are the only ways of doing so. However, we are working on a solution. We will certainly make this known once it's done.

@AppCollS2261 That's great--I would, however, make sure that:

a) The update only happens to tasks that have the same role as the task owner (for example, if you change the attorney for several matters, you'd only want to update the tasks for those matters that had the previous attorney as the owner--you wouldn't want to make the new attorney, for example, the owner of tasks owned by the paralegals for the matter).

b) The update only happens to "open" tasks--the "owner" of closed tasks is a historical record of which person handled that closed task. It shouldn't be changed (or, at the least, make it an option that you have to opt into in order to bulk-update the owner of closed-out tasks).

Looking forward to this.

Best,
Christian

Hi CHristian,

This is a good idea. We will look into this the next time we revise the UI.

Hi Christian,

This has been added to our development schedule. We will let you know when this has been done.

@KimG5166 Does the "Same as above" residency checkbox solve your issue for inventors? It should allow you to put in a secondary residency address. fa0fabb3-7d76-4233-a4d5-4f49da803261-image.png

@ChristianS9906 That takes care of one part. The UI is always a large part of any project. We also have to notify account admins when sync changes have been made so that they can review the changes. Other side effects that I haven't predicted have to be considered as well.

@AnnM9156 That is correct--it is just a field that records data regarding the application. You can, however, customize triggering for tasks based on the value in that field. I took a look at our docket, and our 3-month non-final OA response deadline has two flavors--one that is called "Respond to Non-Final Office Action - 3-month deadline" and the other that is called "Respond to Non-Final Office Action - 3-month deadline (Track One)." The "track one" version triggers when a non-final OA is received in a case that has Track One status specified, and the non-track one version triggers when a non-final OA is received in a case that does not have Track One status specified. Our 4-month OA deadline triggers when either of the 3-month deadlines closes as "missed."

Pretty much what I was looking for. Not sure why I hadn't noticed this before.

@jonah-soundhound-com Yup, that would do the trick--strange that I didn't find that suggestion when I looked for custom tasks as a search topic. I upvoted it.

I created a report of all my matters. I sorted it by Application Number then by Examiner Name so that Examiner Name is that main sorting criteria. For any given examiner name, the application numbers were in order. I saved it as a new test report. I opened some other report and then opened my test report. The matters were sorted by examiner name, but for any given examiner name, the application numbers were in no predictable order.

If there is an existing way to save a report with a multi-level sort as Kim requests, I would love to know.

A simple "Matters" button in a Contact view that shows all matters with which the contact is associated in any way would work great for me.

👍 Long been on my wish list, too.