@ChristianS2558 Thank you! I'll give this a try. The auto-trigggering option is what I'm looking for!

@support-appcoll-com Will they be able to line item edit information for their own purposes?

When Private Pair goes down, matter updates and document scraping from the PTO cannot be completed. However, this does not mean the updates and scrapes won't happen. AppColl continuously tries to update from Pair until it is back up and running.

Can I stop auto-generation of the review tasks, or are they needed to auto-generate other tasks?

@MelissaT3398 Currently we don't have a way to show a created date field that allows for showing a table of contacts and their dates. The only way to do with would be through the transaction history. Search for "added contact" and the name and look at the transaction date.

the other thing you could do is to expose the actualcost column in the main matter view, find the matter and click the actualcost field...that will show all billing items for that matter

https://support.appcoll.com/import-prior-art-references-from-a-spreadsheet

https://support.appcoll.com/prior-art

Also see this Forum thread for information about invoice fields.

@BrandonK6644 I agree. Other docket management systems (ex., Clio, I believe) have nice implementations of this. You click on a document in the docket management system web page, and the document downloads to your computer (ex., to the Downloads folder), and your preferred application automatically launches to open the document. When you close the document, the document is automatically uploaded back to the the docket management system. It is all transparent.

In some implementations, a program runs in the background to make this magic happen. The docket management system communicates with the background program telling it what the user clicked on, and the background program launches the application program, pointing the application to the downloaded file. The background program monitors the downloaded file, and after the application closes the file, the background program automatically sends the edited file back to the docket management system.

Thanks. I've done that.

@jonah-soundhound-com I agree, although what I'd really prefer is for the truncation to be eliminated.

Even better if I could upload a pdf file that is the AIA-82B form for the client and have AppColl generate the AIA-82A with the fillable fields with the signed 82B form (probably a scan - not a fillable pdf) appended to it ready to file after I signed it. It would need to be done on a client-by-client basis with a different 82B page for each client.

Turns out the expression also requires curly brackets...

AND while the expression 'x<#{General.Now(-500d)}# using the 'PriorityDate' field in the matter is true.

31775d21-f2cb-4fa4-82a8-f79fa511c2f1-image.png

I would like to see this as well.

@RichardS3059 Fair enough that AppColl won't be able to accurately calculate every expiration date. But it could still calculate a default date that will be correct for most patents. Even a human can't calculate the expiration date at issue accurately if the patent later becomes eligible for PTE.

I think that I have to take back my thank you.

I recently setup and automatic report for my finance department to use to report the patent portfolio to investors. The Asian characters were question marks. He specifically requested that I find a way to send a spreadsheet report with the patent titles using Asian characters.

@TPLA3794 I did create a few custom tasks. Because my practice is small (I'm semi-retired), I only created tasks that met my immediate needs rather than attempt to be fully general. But I'd be happy to share them with you, of course with the understanding that I take no responsibility for how you use them or for any errors that might be in them.

Drop me an email at richard@schafer-ip.com and I'll try to figure out a good way to share them.

@ChristianS2558 thank you so much for taking the time to write that all out. That is really helpful and I'll give it a go!

@jonah-soundhound-com
37 CFR 1.78 requires that "[t]he reference also must identify the relationship of the applications, namely, whether the later-filed application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application." Not the same weight as 35 USC 120, of course, but still something I think should be complied with.

I suspect that you may be correct that it might not actually impact the priority claim's validity if one did not, but I would not want to test it--at the very least, there could be an argument that a patentee committed inequitable conduct by, for example, labeling a CIP priority claim as a normal "continuation" priority claim. This might cause an Examiner to mistakenly assume that the subject matter in the application is identical to that in the parent, and thus incorrectly apply the parent's priority date to all claim elements when some of those claim elements were not in the priority application and not entitled to that earlier date....