Hi Christian,

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

@jonah-soundhound-com I use Patent Center. I haven't used EFS-Web for months. The missing fonts issue I mentioned above relates to Patent Center. I did not try uploading the IDS via EFS-Web. I agree, it does not make sense to spend engineering effort to help with problems in a system that is planned for deprecation. However, Patent Center is not planned for deprecation.

@SadiqA2304 I thought of that but was concerned that it might muck with triggering conditions if the task name was later changed to remove the "under development" text.

It would also mean that normal users would still see it and the under development tasks would still clutter up the interface.

Hi George,

This is a great idea. We will explore this idea. Keep the suggestions coming.

The transient task solution wouldn't really do much--just email the recipients once when the note is updated. Fast forward a month later, and nobody will remember that they received that email, and might miss whatever is important.

Your pop-up slap-to-the-face approach would be much more effective at getting a user's attention.

@GreggH8509 Great, thank you--would be very helpful!

Hi George,

If you are looking for automated email templates with this feature, there is a workaround that you can use to get to a similar end result. Create a transient task for each desired "flavor" of email that you want to send out and use whatever triggers you want to control under what conditions each transient task fires. Each transient task can have its own notifications set up, so you could have two different transient tasks that trigger when a Pay Issue Fee task dockets--one for small entity and one for large entity (bonus--you can include language in the small entity version reminding the client to inform you if they are no longer small entity).

But that only works if you are automatically sending these emails out, so maybe not a good fit for what you are wanting to do.

Hi Ann,

Thank you for your feedback. We have added this to our list of future projects. We will let you know when this has been added. Thanks.

@GeorgeJ4336
This happens for us frequently as well. Our work around is to forward the email to the appropriate AppColl email address (ex. xxxxm123@intake.appcoll.com). I generally just put "for the file" in the email message, but this way it is saved to the matter, the documents are saved separately AND the message appears in the conversation tab.

If you select an assignee for a contact (in the contact details page) and the assignee has an address, it will automatically copy over to the contact's address. Please note, this will not overwrite any existing contact address information. It will only populate the assign address if the contact address is blank.

We have spoken with engineering to link the assignee address to the contact address, such that changing the assignee address will automatically update the contact address.

We will update this post when this has been completed.

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