Home > Page 75
Published on:

By

Data on high costs to obtain patents of small, high-technology companies

A recent article by Gillian Hadfield cited an in-depth empirical study of patent activity by small technology companies. The excellent study compiled data and explanations about patent costs for those companies. “The average out-of-pocket cost for a respondent firm to acquire its most recent patent was over $38,000. This figure is significantly higher than the averages for patent prosecution reported in the literature, which vary from a low of $10,000 to a high of $30,000.”

The study, published in the Berkeley Tech. L.J., Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 255-327 (2009) by four authors cites the “literature” as AM. INTELLECTUAL PROP. LAW ASS’N, REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC SURVEY 2007 78–81 (2007) (reporting average attorneys’ fees for prosecuting an original patent application, filing one amendment, and issuing an allowed application as between $10,000 and $20,000, depending on the complexity of the technology); Mark A. Lemley, Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 NW. U. L. REV. 1495, 1498 (2001) (estimating the cost of prosecuting a patent to issuance as between $10,000 and $30,000).

Continue reading
Published on:

By

Many in-house lawyers are frequent travelers. They fly for client meetings, for huddles with outside counsel, for team gatherings and conferences, CLE sessions.

The degradation to their health that results starts with weight gain and includes higher blood pressure, worse cholesterol, more stress, and poorer sleep patterns. All these maladies are described in the Wall St. J., Aug. 16, 2011 at D2. This blog too has diagnosed the toll of travel (See my post of May 27, 2007: with scattered lawyers, frequent flights; March 1, 2009: dispersed law department requires more travel for leaders; April 27, 2009: video conferencing saves travel wear and tear; July 16, 2009: frequent travel demands stamina; July 17, 2009: circuit-riding visits to remote offices; and Dec. 9, 2009: punishing peripatetic lawyers.).

By
Posted in: Talent
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

A Washington, DC virtual firm called Clearspire has 20 or so lawyers and an unorthodox business model. The Economist, Aug. 13, 2011 at 64, says that its lawyers offer cost estimates for each phase of their work. If the lawyer exceeds the estimate, too bad for the Clearspire lawyer. “But if a lawyer finishes his work faster than promised, he gets a third of the savings. The client also gets a third, as does Clearspire.”

If I understand this correctly, only of the client negotiates a competitive and reasonably accurate estimate (budget) does “This give[s] everyone a stake in making the process more efficient and predictable.” Otherwise, if the lawyer estimates $60,000 and comes in at $51,000, why is the client better off “saving” $3,000 when the lawyer gets the same amount and Clearspire does. The temptation at Clearspire to inflate the estimate would be irresistible. In fact, the inside lawyer might conspire in the same direction so that she can claim a “savings.”

Published on:

By

Reverse auctions, where law firms submit successively lower bids on a matter or group of matters, are far from taking over the retention world (See my post of Aug. 9, 2011: huge overstatement by Ariba employee.). Even so, at least four groups offer online capabilities to enable the process.

ELawForum for years conducted sourcing bids (See my post of April 9, 2009: mentions at least 50 online bidding processes.) although I have heard that its founder, John Henry, has shifted or expanded to financing lawsuits.

Paul deJong (See my post of Jan. 20, 2007: LegalBenchmarket of Paul deJong.) runs sourcing processes like this primarily in Europe.

Continue reading
Published on:

By

If you feel management of this $100 billion segment deserves recognition, by inside counsel and by law firm lawyers, a few minutes of your time would make a difference.

To quote from an e-mail I received from the ABA, “Use the Blawg 100 Amici form to tell us about a blawg … that you read regularly that you think other lawyers should know about.” After some caveats at the top, click here on the short form, which basically asks you to identify yourself and then recommend a blog.

Two years ago LawDepartmentManagementBlog first made the Blawg 100 list of the ABA. That was important recognition for all who practice law in-house.

Continue reading
Published on:

By

Am. Legal Tech. Insider, Aug. 2011 has an item on page 7 about Capensys, a software training company. It trains users on Microsoft’s Office 2010 as well as other applications used in law firms.

Capensys “employs a goal-based training approach that begins by interviewing lawyers and staff to determine how they work and what they need to know. From this, learning objectives are established and the training blend determined to deliver better targeted, shorter training sessions.” If lawyers in law departments could spend a few minutes being interviewed online regarding their skill level and interest in an application, such as a matter management system, theoretically the training could much better match their needs.

Capensys offers a variety of ways to present the training. “The training blend includes marketing videos, scenario-based e-learning, hands-on workshops and post-rollout coaching.” I like the idea of just-in-time training and training by a variety of methods to appeal to differences in people’s learning styles. Some people read; some like to watch; others want to learn by doing (See my post of Nov. 3, 2009: training lawyers on software with 14 references.).

Published on:

By

I heard about Procurelaw.com and looked at its website. For members they can use “Legal Panel Manager” to help control and monitor the flow of work with their panel firms; “Go to Market” lets them source the right firm by sending their RFPs to qualified firms.

Here is the explanation offered by the website: “The site is confidential and protected by the highest level of on-line security available. All you have to do is register and the next time you need to instruct a law firm simply go on-line and complete our easy-to-follow request for proposal (RFP). The site will automatically generate a list of your panel members or the best qualified firms if you do not have a panel. You then have the option to screen out any unsuitable firms. The system will even take care of conflict checking. Those firms able to proceed will demonstrate their expertise, explain how they will undertake the matter and provide an indication of cost – allowing you to make an informed comparison. After reviewing their credentials, you appoint the firm of your choice.”

Published on:

By

Thomas Werlen, general counsel of Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis, leads a legal team of 700-plus that is spread across 140 jurisdictions. As he explains in the European Lawyer, June/July 2011 at 39, “The department is organised in a three-layered matrix of work areas, countries and business divisions.” That makes sense: the commercial lawyers could be a work area (what U.S. law departments might refer to as a practice group), sorted geographically by region of large country, as well as some in support of the pharma unit, some the generics unit (if there is one), and other business functions.

In addition at Novartis, “A layer of ‘enablers’ sits across the group, providing globally shared knowledge and information management, talent development and training, and legal spend and third party vendor management.” The notion behind enablers, as I see it, comes close to the functions a good head of operations (aka law department administrator) should handle. To gather and disseminate work product, to help people learn and progress, to administer invoices from vendors – all are functions that do better with focus and consistency across a law department.

Published on:

By

Benchmark reports typically sort participants into recognized broad industries such as manufacturing, high tech, and pharmaceutical. Several times I have taken a swing at these traditional industry classifications because they have flaws or miss factors that might distinguish law departments more usefully. One post alone discusses six attributes that significantly influence legal department size: heavy regulation, significant R&D, mass torts, industry transformation, rapid growth, and corporate concentration (See my post of Dec. 7, 2010: factors that significantly affect legal exposure.).

For benchmark analyses, these attributes of companies – and their law departments by extension – may tell us more than the accustomed broad industry designations (See my post of March 2, 2010: industry benchmarks with 8 references; Dec. 1, 2010: industry ranking of legal intensity; and Dec. 27, 2010: “sector” data below broader “industries”.).

Consider several other attributes on which to group benchmark participants or to analyze those in a broad industry more finely.

Continue reading
Published on:

By

The Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) has expanded to “more than 28,000 members (in 10,000 companies).” That statement from Corporate Counsel’s August issue tells us its membership averages 2.8 lawyers per member department, a calculation that does not support any estimate of the average or median number of lawyers per U.S. law department. Even if all the members were U.S. departments, who knows what percentage of the lawyers in the 10,000 departments belong to the ACC? All we can know is that 100 percent of the solo in-house lawyers in that set are members. Several times I have referred to an average number of lawyers per department, but without support for the estimate (See my post of April 30, 2010: three lawyers per department; May 10, 2010: average of three lawyers per department; Oct. 20, 2010: estimates 2-3 lawyers per department on average.).

Consider two clues for a representative number of lawyers per U.S. department (See my post of Sept. 25, 2005: ACC figures of 71,702 lawyers in 23,540 U.S. corporations averages 3.05; and Feb. 9, 2008: 60% of legal departments in the US have fewer than 5 lawyers.).

First, we can build on that last statement of 60 percent at 4 or fewer. Given power laws and probable distributions, assume 32 percent are single-lawyer departments; 16 percent have two lawyers (a drop in half from one level to the next higher is quite common in many distributions), 8 percent have three and 4 percent have four lawyers. If so, the median would be one (since more than half have only one lawyer and the average would1.6.

Continue reading