It would be great to be able to automatically attach the documents from a task to an email template (where the email template includes a code to do so like a form field).

For example, a filing receipt will automatically populate in certain tasks that were triggered by the receiving of the filing receipt from the USPTO. I would like to create an email template (for reporting) that automatically attaches the document from the task to the email and seem to be unable to do so currently.

Currently, to edit the "Who" for bulk edit of Billing Item Templates you have to select from a list of people (from the contact list) rather than also including billing item template specific field information.

As a result, that list that you must select from is not the same list for when editing a template individually and doesn't include: Current User, Task owner, Matter Attorney, Matter Paralegal, Matter Partner, Matter Contributor.

I request that those options be added for bulk edits as well.

The main tasks page allows a user to perform a number of different bulk actions for various tasks.

It would be good to have those options on the matter details page. For example, a number of documents are generated by the USPTO at once which opens up a number of review actions as well as other custom and AppColl default tasks. It would be a time saver to be able to perform bulk actions from the matter details page (to make sure I close/push/etc. all relevant tasks).

Currently, the assignee type is not filled in for the autogenerated form for the 3.73(c) statement.

Usually the word "Corporation" would need to be filled in. Likely, because there is no field in appcoll about the type of entity the client is. It would be helpful if there could be a field for this in the contact entry for a client so this can be autofilled when the 3.73(c) form is generated (for almost every POA we file).

I would love the ability to generate documents from the contacts page. So, if I am generating a document (e.g., an engagement letter, non-engagement letter) with information about the (prospective) client. This would allow me to insert the information without opening a new/dummy/temporary matter for the client.

I agree with this.
For example:
We have been using the task "comments" field for various things including as an explanation field for the task. Right now, we include information as to when a task is opened (and should remain open) and information as to when a task should be closed (and with what state).

It would be great to be able to have a separate field for explanations of the task so the comments field is cleaner and more geared toward the specifics of the particular task.

Additionally, it would be great to be able to have additional fields in a task for use in templates (e.g., invoice info for an invoicing task that can populate billing items, etc.). Right now, if that information is just in the comment field we can't use it for other functions (e.g., the default comment information--see above or status information about the task).

One thing you can do (that we do) is this:

Hi {Matter.Inventor1.First}{+044+032Matter.Inventor2.First}{+044+032Matter.Inventor3.First}{+044+032Matter.Inventor4.First}{+044+032Matter.Inventor5.First}{+044+032Matter.Inventor6.First}{+044+032Matter.Inventor7.First}{+044+032Matter.Inventor8.First}{+044+032Matter.Inventor9.First}{+044+032Matter.Inventor10.First}:

That way you don't get the empty commas.

We do this for email addresses:
{Matter.Inventor1.Email}{+059+032Matter.Inventor2.Email}{+059+032Matter.Inventor3.Email}{+059+032Matter.Inventor4.Email}{+059+032Matter.Inventor5.Email}{+059+032Matter.Inventor6.Email}{+059+032Matter.Inventor7.Email}{+059+032Matter.Inventor8.Email}{+059+032Matter.Inventor9.Email}{+059+032Matter.Inventor10.Email}

Currently, responses to Trademark Office Actions are extendable deadlines. Unlike in patent cases where an extension of time may be requested with a late filed response (or a surcharge paid for maintenance fees), in trademark cases the new 3-month deadlines requires some kind of filing--either a full response or an extension of time request. If neither is filed, the application will abandon. Because of this, while the TM responses are technically extendable, they still require some response and so should be docketed accordingly.

I request the extendable deadlines where some action needs to be taken be listed as hard deadlines. This allows the dates to be highlighted in a striking manner on the docket.

We just created additional tasks with 3-month hard deadlines to file an extension of time as a result, but would prefer the default-rule be a hard deadline when the deadline cannot be missed without an application abandoning.

The default view for "Billing Items" and "Billing Item Templates" is the same. And it would be helpful to have different default (or "current") views for each as I care about different information when I am viewing or editing each type of record. By default views I mean the columns that are shown. Similar to how "Tasks" and "Manage Task Types" have different default views.

Tasks are the heart of the docket system.
I would love to be able to have:

*Custom status identifiers for tasks that keep the task open. So, the status of "Respond to Non-Final Office Action - 3 Month Deadline" might be "Waiting on Client Approval." This can keep the task open but allow us to filter for this status without having to create a number of intermediate task types or trigger additional tasks based on the status change. The filter can allow us to batch follow-up requests to clients and it can allow us to better understand where responses are in the workflow (i.e., does the bulk of the work remain to be done or is this something that is basically done).

*Additional task fields. This could be powerful to allow tasks to pass additional information to a triggered task/billing item rather than having everything be in the comments field.

*Bulk editing of task types. Bulk editing of tasks could allow us to change a default comment on a number of tasks or modify a trigger to a number of tasks. One idea would be able to export and import a task type spreadsheet to modify tasks.

*Add task triggers randomly rather than only at the end. We can only add triggers to the end, so if we want to add a new condition to a task with complex trigger conditions, we may have to delete and then replace all of the conditions after the conditions we hope to add. This can be a big headache.

*"Kanban"-style workflow views. It would be incredibly helpful to be able to setup (or have some pre-existing) visualizations to look at the status of matters within various workflows. Every firm has workflows for tasks such as responding to an office action or preparing an application. As an individual attorney, being able to look globally at where things are in the various workflows can help me visualize and plan whether I can take on more or need to offload additional work, etc. As a manager, such a visualization allows me to take a global perspective and move work around and foresee problems or bottlenecks in our workflow. Having intermediate (open) task statuses (see the first suggestion) can aid in organizing this.

Tasks are the heart of the docket system.
I would love to be able to have:

*Custom status identifiers for tasks that keep the task open. So, the status of "Respond to Non-Final Office Action - 3 Month Deadline" might be "Waiting on Client Approval." This can keep the task open but allow us to filter for this status without having to create a number of intermediate task types or trigger additional tasks based on the status change. The filter can allow us to batch follow-up requests to clients and it can allow us to better understand where responses are in the workflow (i.e., does the bulk of the work remain to be done or is this something that is basically done).

*Additional task fields. This could be powerful to allow tasks to pass additional information to a triggered task/billing item rather than having everything be in the comments field.

*Bulk editing of task types. Bulk editing of tasks could allow us to change a default comment on a number of tasks or modify a trigger to a number of tasks. One idea would be able to export and import a task type spreadsheet to modify tasks.

*Add task triggers randomly rather than only at the end. We can only add triggers to the end, so if we want to add a new condition to a task with complex trigger conditions, we may have to delete and then replace all of the conditions after the conditions we hope to add. This can be a big headache.

*"Kanban"-style workflow views. It would be incredibly helpful to be able to setup (or have some pre-existing) visualizations to look at the status of matters within various workflows. Every firm has workflows for tasks such as responding to an office action or preparing an application. As an individual attorney, being able to look globally at where things are in the various workflows can help me visualize and plan whether I can take on more or need to offload additional work, etc. As a manager, such a visualization allows me to take a global perspective and move work around and foresee problems or bottlenecks in our workflow. Having intermediate (open) task statuses (see the first suggestion) can aid in organizing this.

Currently, responses to Trademark Office Actions are extendable deadlines. Unlike in patent cases where an extension of time may be requested with a late filed response (or a surcharge paid for maintenance fees), in trademark cases the new 3-month deadlines requires some kind of filing--either a full response or an extension of time request. If neither is filed, the application will abandon. Because of this, while the TM responses are technically extendable, they still require some response and so should be docketed accordingly.

I request the extendable deadlines where some action needs to be taken be listed as hard deadlines. This allows the dates to be highlighted in a striking manner on the docket.

We just created additional tasks with 3-month hard deadlines to file an extension of time as a result, but would prefer the default-rule be a hard deadline when the deadline cannot be missed without an application abandoning.

It would be helpful to add periodic tasks with due dates based on the calendar (i.e., the first day of the next quarter, 1 month 14 days into the next quarter) rather than be based on a date associated with a case.

For example, if I want to a task periodically (e.g., yearly on October 15; or quarterly on the first of March, June, September, and December; weekly), I want Appcoll to generate the next doc
rate the date based on the closed-on date of the triggering task/creation date of the current task (i.e., date + 1 year/12 months, date + 3 months, etc.) or based on the triggering task reference date (which is copied to the new task and cause next year's task to generate with the wrong due date) but based on the next absolute date.

You are able to create monthly tasks on a particular day by using the "On last day of month" checkbox as a work around.

@gregg_appcoll This is great. I added the email to the default comment to those tasks and it works great.

Currently, when an email is received at an intake email address, a task may be generated based on sender email or subject of the email.

I request form-feed variable access to those fields so the subject/emails may be added to the default comment to more easily link the task to the email received.

For example, when an email from an FA comes in, we have a task generate to review the FA communication. If two or more emails are sent however, it becomes more difficult to disambiguate which review task was generated by which email and thus if one was cleared and another wasn't it is ambiguous.

We do this for generic reporting tasks. When various matters complete they trigger a reporting task. We add the triggering task's type to the default comment to make it clear what needs to be reported.

@GeorgeJ4336 To piggyback on this:

(1) there could also be a button similar to downloading NPLs for a generated IDS but for downloading associated billing item attachments for invoices.

(2) when a billing item is automatically generated from a task, the billing template can include an option to bring over associated files. For example, when we receive an invoie from a foreign associate, we create a task to pay it. We don't currently--but could--upload the invoice and associate it with that task. Then when a billing item is automatically created when the pay invoice task is completed, the invoice can be associated automatically with the billing item.

Currently, a task has a set of default set of states including completion states. Additionally, custom completion states can be created both globally (in the Account Settings) and task specific (in the New/Update task type page).

My request is to allow for custom non-completion states (both global and task specific). Basically, the custom non-completion states would act the same as "open," like the custom completion states act the same as "completed."

This would allow for (1) task generation based on a changed state, e.g., generate a "review" task for another user when a draft is complete, (2) allow reports to be generated based on the state, e.g., all the drafts currently with a client, (3) more easily see the state of a task with multiple parts.

This would save a lot of complexity of breaking tasks into many individual parts that would daisy chain closing/new task creation. It would also limit some of the task "clutter" in the task list.

It would also be useful to have the Examiner as a contact entry because then information such as Examiner Phone Number and email address could be used.

The email address could be used to generate template emails as well.

@support_appcoll Sure. In my docket, LOST.001.WP1 has two official reference numbers:

WIPO Reference Number: 1679834501
USPTO Reference Number A0132225

Currently, the assignee type is not filled in for the autogenerated form for the 3.73(c) statement.

Usually the word "Corporation" would need to be filled in. Likely, because there is no field in appcoll about the type of entity the client is. It would be helpful if there could be a field for this in the contact entry for a client so this can be autofilled when the 3.73(c) form is generated (for almost every POA we file).