DOCSLIB.ORG

Leveraging Law Department Metrics to Manage Costs and Improve Performance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Leveraging Law Department Metrics to Manage Costs and Improve Performance ACC’s 2008 Annual Meeting Informed. In-house. Indispensable. Tuesday, October 21 11:00 am-12:30 pm 509 Metrics Mania: Leveraging Law Department Metrics to Manage Costs and Improve Performance Arvie J. Anderson Patent Counsel and Six Sigma Black Belt Eli Lilly & Company Eric Chung Director of Corporate Legal Affairs Atmel Corporation Mary B. Clark Vice President Law and Deputy General Counsel LexisNexis Miguel R. Rivera Sr. Associate General Counsel Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated This material is protected by copyright. Copyright © 2008 various authors and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). Materials may not be reproduced without the consent of ACC. Reprint permission requests should be directed to ACC’s Legal Resources Department at ACC: 202/293-4103, ext. 338; [email protected] ACC's 2008 Annual Meeting Informed. In-house. Indispensable. Prior to joining LexisNexis, Ms. Clark practiced law as corporate counsel and in private Faculty Biographies litigation practice. Arvie Anderson Ms. Clark has shared her expertise at numerous conferences hosted by professional organizations such as the American Bar Association, LegalTech, and the Association of Arvie Anderson is a patent attorney at Eli Lilly and Company in Indianapolis. For the Corporate Counsel, and was selected by her peers as a Northern California Super Lawyer past two years, Mr. Anderson has been a Six Sigma Black Belt for the law division. He is in business law. responsible for legal process improvement projects across the department in areas such as budgeting, IT utilization, patent procurement, and litigation cost management. Beginning Ms. Clark is a graduate of the University of Kansas School of Law. October 1, 2008, Mr. Anderson will transition into the newly created role of regional patent counsel for the Lilly Commonwealth Affiliates of Canada, New Zealand, Miguel R. Rivera Sr. Australia, and South Africa. In this capacity, Mr. Anderson will focus on the areas of litigation and advocacy while continuing to address infrastructure improvements within Miguel R. Rivera Sr. is associate general counsel in the class action division of the Wal- the Lilly OUS IP. Mart legal department where he defends Wal-Mart in complex class action cases around the country. Prior to joining the class action division, Mr. Rivera served as associate Prior to this current role, Mr. Anderson supported Lilly Neuroscience as a patent counsel. general counsel for outside counsel management in the administration and external In that capacity he counseled global business units on IP exclusivity, prosecuted small relations division of the Wal-Mart legal department. molecule patent applications, and supported Lilly’s drug discovery efforts. Prior to joining Wal-Mart, Mr. Rivera was appointed Commissioner of Labor for the state Mr. Anderson received a BS from Michigan State University in 1994 and is a graduate of of Indiana, and served as a member of the Governor’s cabinet. As Commissioner of the University of Michigan Law School. Labor, Mr. Rivera was responsible for managing the Indiana Department of Labor, which includes the Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration (IOSHA), the state Eric Chung Wage & Hour and Child Labor divisions, and underground mine safety and mine rescue. Mr. Rivera also advised the Governor on issues of public policy, law, labor, and Eric Chung currently serves as director of corporate legal affairs for Atmel Corporation, a underground coal mine safety and rescue. public semiconductor company, in San Francisco. He is responsible for securities, board matters, M&A, stock administration, ethics, and compliance. Mr. Rivera is a well-recognized expert in the area of outside counsel management and regularly speaks around the country on this and issues related to diversity. Mr. Rivera is Prior to joining Atmel, Mr. Chung was the general counsel for Protiviti Inc., a global risk also very involved in the ACC and is a member of the Bentonville Board of Education. management firm. Before going in-house, Mr. Chung was an associate with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP in the firm's corporate practice. Mr. Rivera earned a BA from the University of Illinois, and is a graduate of the College of Law at the University of Illinois. Mr. Chung received a BS from the University of Western of Ontario and is a graduate of Vanderbilt University Law School. Mary B. Clark Mary B. Clark is vice president, law, and deputy general counsel for LexisNexis in Sacramento. Ms. Clark currently works with alliances and customer transactions in LexisNexis’s Global Practice Management products and services solution line. She has experience in all areas of legal resource planning and management, including law-firm client relations and partnering, legal billing metrics and analysis, technologies for the legal industry, and current best practices. For six years, Ms. Clark managed a team of attorneys and CPAs who consulted with government, law firms, and corporate entities and testified as experts at trial. Her career also includes years of executive responsibility for business operations. 2 of 85 ACC's 2008 Annual Meeting Informed. In-house. Indispensable. Why Quality Metrics? Where Are Your Metrics? !"Demonstrate your measure of success !" Internal and external stakeholders and systems !" Availability !"A standard to assess performance !" Manual aggregation or technology !" Cost !" Outcome !" Time No information Information Information !"Foundational to quality management collected collected in collected in one multiple systems system !"TQM (Total Quality Management), Six Sigma, BPR (Business Process Reengineering), CTQ (Critical to Quality) What Are the Right Metrics? Pitfalls !"Performance against customer expectations !"Collecting useless (e.g., inaccurate or !"Efficiency of internal workflow incomplete) data !"ROI for outside counsel performance !"Overly complex metrics ! " Overall financial performance and ! " Measuring too many variables !"Be SMART ! " Other management data (volume v. capacity) !" Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Relevant Timely 3 of 85 ACC's 2008 Annual Meeting Informed. In-house. Indispensable. Metrics Strategy Matrix Metrics Strategy Matrix STRATEGY OUTSIDE COUNSEL INTERNAL STAFF EFFICIENCIES/ TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY OUTSIDE COUNSEL INTERNAL STAFF EFFICIENCIES/ TECHNOLOGY Outside Counsel Create billing guidelines Prioritize and evaluate Appoint manager for process/technology/ Management workload implement electronic billing, contract Outside Counsel Create billing guidelines Prioritize and evaluate Appoint manager for process/technology/ management and other systems Management workload implement electronic billing, contract management and other systems Early Settlement Negotiate alternative fees Leverage paralegal and Contract directly for support services Early Settlement Negotiate alternative fees and Leverage paralegal and Contract directly for support services and rates/ initiate support staff Strategy rates/ initiate support staff Strategy competitive bidding competitive bidding IP Strategy Negotiate fixed rates for Train upward Systematize critical data – agent, inventor, IP Strategy Negotiate fixed rates for Train upward Systematize critical data – agent, inventor, defined, repeatable services/ country, local agent, IP status, docket number defined, repeatable country, local agent, IP status, docket Offshore & outsource services/ number Offshore & outsource Document/Discovery Risk-sharing Standardize forms, contracts Use procurement team Document/Discovery Risk-sharing Standardize forms, contracts Use procurement team Management Management Active Risk Management Offshore & outsource routine Utilize developed expertise Use metrics & measurement; scorecards Active Risk Management Offshore & outsource routine Utilize developed expertise Use metrics & measurement; scorecards work work Compliance/Regulatory Share data Standardize forms and Utilize collaborative systems for reporting Compliance/Regulatory Share data Standardize forms and Utilize collaborative systems for reporting Strategy automate scheduling Strategy automate scheduling Metrics Strategy Matrix Metrics Strategy Matrix STRATEGY OUTSIDE COUNSEL INTERNAL STAFF EFFICIENCIES/ STRATEGY OUTSIDE COUNSEL INTERNAL STAFF EFFICIENCIES/ TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY Outside Counsel Create billing guidelines Prioritize and evaluate Appoint manager for process/technology/ Outside Counsel Create billing guidelines Prioritize and evaluate Appoint manager for process/technology/ Management workload implement electronic billing, contract Management workload implement electronic billing, contract management and other systems management and other systems Early Settlement Negotiate alternative fees Leverage paralegal and Contract directly for support services Early Settlement Negotiate alternative fees Leverage paralegal and Contract directly for support services Strategy and rates/ initiate support staff Strategy and rates/ initiate support staff competitive bidding competitive bidding IP Strategy Negotiate fixed rates for Train upward Systematize critical data – agent, inventor, IP Strategy Negotiate fixed rates for Train upward Systematize critical data – agent, inventor, defined, repeatable services/ country, local agent, IP status, docket defined, repeatable services/ country, local agent, IP status, docket number Offshore & outsource number Offshore & outsource Document/Discovery Risk-sharing Standardize forms, contracts Use procurement team Document/Discovery Risk-sharing Standardize forms, Use procurement team
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Journal of the Licensing Executives Society International
    MARCH 2013 2013 SEMINAR SERIES lesles NouvellesNouvelles JOURNALJOURNAL OF OF THE THE LICENSING LICENSING EXECUTIVES EXECUTIVES SOCIETY SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL L L U.S. Trademark L Summer Patent Advanced Patent Practice Seminar Seminar & Licensing Seminar Volume XLVIII No. 1 March 2013 April 8 - 12, 2013 June 5 - 28, 2013 September 23 - October 4, 2013 A one week seminar which addresses all aspects This three and a half week seminar A two week seminar focusing on advanced of trademark practice before the United States covers all major areas of U.S. patent topics in U.S. patent law which includes LES NOUVELLES Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the law, beginning with an overview of the workshops and problem solving in order to courts, including the preparation of trademark U.S. patent system and moving on to illustrate the more advanced concepts with applications, practice before the Trademark Trial more complex subjects such as patent regard to prosecution, claim interpretation, and Advancing the Business of Intellectual Property Globally and Appeal Board, licensing, inter partes matters prosecution, infringement litigation, validity and infringement issues. Participants including opposition and cancellation and interference practice. Includes learn how to modify and determine the scope proceedings, and the enforcement of trademark practical problems and discussion of of a granted U.S. patent, as well as how to Recent Rulings On The Entire Market Value Rule And Impacts On rights in the federal and state courts. recent cases where applicable. address significant licensing issues. Patent Litigation And Valuation ERIC PHILLIPS AND DAVID BOAg — Page 1 Visit www.bskb.comfo r further seminar details.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of the Licensing Executives Society
    DECEMBER 2016 LES NOUVELLESDECEMBER 2016 lleess NNoouvuveelllleess Translations JOURNAL OF THE LICENSING EXECUTIVES SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL Patent Mapping Strategies Patent MappingCopyright IP Legal advice Renewal Management Descriptions Domain Names Domain Names Attorneys Flat fee prosecution Descriptions Patent Annuities IP Contracts Flat fee prosecution Copyright Domain Names RenewalEP Management - Validation BrandsIP Contracts IP Due Diligence Software Solutions Filings Copyright PCT - Nationalizations PatentPCT - Nationalizations Seminars IP Due Diligence Domain Names Trademark Descriptions Descriptions Filings Mapping Descriptions Strategies Renewals Filings Patent Mapping Copyright Patent Mapping Prior artDescriptions searches Volume LI No. 4 Designs Copyright IP Legal advice December 2016 Brands Software Solutions IP Contracts Trademarks Docketing EP - Validation DIAMS iQ DIAMS iQPatents Trademarks IP Contracts Trademarks Seminars Software EP - Validation Copyright Portfolio Analysis Recordal ServicesDesigns Trademarks Patent Mapping Portfolio Analysis Portfolio Analysis PCT - Nationalizations DIAMS iQ Patents Descriptions Flat fee prosecution Patent Mapping Software Solutions Solutions artPrior searches Flat fee prosecution Strategies Designs TranslationsDomain NamesMonetization Patent Filings Mapping IP Legal advice Copyright Translations Copyright Brands Trademarks Seminars Brands Filings Contracts Designs Designs Domains Copyright StrategiesTrademarks Prior art searches IP Legal advice Descriptions Filings Domain Names Brands
    [Show full text]
  • Limiting Downstream Effects of Patent Licensing Activity in Software And
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 91 Issue 1 Congressional Dysfunction and Executive Lawmaking During the Obama Article 14 Administration 1-29-2016 Limiting Downstream Effects of Patent Licensing Activity in Software and Electronics: An Argument for Alienability of Patent Licenses to Licensees' Business Successors Anna A. Onley IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Anna A. Onley, Limiting Downstream Effects of Patent Licensing Activity in Software and Electronics: An Argument for Alienability of Patent Licenses to Licensees' Business Successors, 91 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 361 (2016). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol91/iss1/14 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 37288-ckt_91-1 Sheet No. 188 Side A 12/28/2015 14:43:02 13 ONLEY FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 12/24/2015 9:25 PM LIMITING DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS OF PATENT LICENSING ACTIVITY IN SOFTWARE AND ELECTRONICS: AN ARGUMENT FOR ALIENABILITY OF PATENT LICENSES TO LICENSEES’ BUSINESS SUCCESSORS ANNA A. ONLEY* Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 362 THE PROBLEM ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Drafting Patent License Agreements
    Detailed Contents Preface ............................................................................................ v Preface to the First Edition ........................................................... vii Summary Contents ........................................................................ ix Contents of Forms .......................................................................... xxiii 1 Some Premises and Commentary ................................... 1 1.00 Orientation and a Disclaimer of Legal Completeness ............................................................... 1 1.01 License Agreements as a Separate Topic .................. 2 1.02 A Pessimistic Prognosis Concerning Certainty of Draftsmanship ......................................................... 4 A. The Semantic Problem .......................................... 4 B. Uncertainty Through Human Frailty .................. 6 1. Ambiguity ......................................................... 6 2. Vagueness ......................................................... 8 3. Misplaced Modifier .......................................... 10 1.03 Contra Preferentum .................................................... 12 2 Legal Principles ................................................................... 15 2.01 Evaluating the Legal Nature of the Subject Matter .......................................................................... 15 A. The Scope of a Patent ........................................... 16 B. The Scope of Unpatented Technology .................
    [Show full text]
  • Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets– an Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-House Counsel
    By in-house counsel, for in-house counsel.SM InfoPAKSM Intellectual Property Primer: Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets– An Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-House Counsel Third Edition Sponsored by: Association of Corporate Counsel 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 tel 202.293.4103, fax 202.293.4701 www.acc.com 2 Intellectual Property Primer: Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets: An Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-House Counsel Intellectual Property Primer: Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets– An Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-House Counsel Third Edition July 2008 Provided by the Association of Corporate Counsel 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Tel. 202.293.4103 Fax 202.293.4701 www.acc.com This InfoPAKSM is designed to provide corporate counsel with a general overview of intellectual property and to suggest useful practices for the handling of intellectual property issues in the corporate setting. This information should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on specific facts, or representative of the views of ACC or any of its lawyers, unless so stated. This is not intended as a definitive statement on the subject but a tool, providing practical informa- tion for the reader. We hope that you find this material useful. Thank you for contacting the Association of Corporate Counsel. This material was prepared, compiled, and updated by the Intellectual Property attorneys of Dickstein Shapiro LLP (www.dicksteinshapiro.com), edited by Kenneth W. Brothers (First, Sec- ond, and Third Editions) and Megan Woodworth (Third Edition), at the direction of the Asso- ciation of Corporate Counsel.
    [Show full text]
  • Study on Patents and the Public Domain12
    E CDIP/4/3 REV./STUDY/INF/2 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: APRIL 27, 2011 STUDY ON PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN12 1 The views expressed in the study are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the WIPO Secretariat or its Member States. 2 The Patents and the Public Domain part of the study was prepared by Mr. Jeremy Phillips, Professorial Fellow, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, University of London, London, United Kingdom. The Development Dimension: National Practices and Experiences part was prepared by: A. Mr. McLean Sibanda, Chief Executive Officer, The Innovation Hub, Pretoria, South Africa; B. Mr. Hossam El Saghir, Professor of Commercial Law and General Director of the, Regional Institute for Intellectual Property, Helwan University, and Attorney at Law, Cairo, Egypt; C. Mr. Ernesto Rengifo García, Professor, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia; D. Mrs. Olena Pavlina Orlyuk, Director, Scientific Research Institute of Intellectual Property, Kyiv, Ukraine; and E. Mr. Calab Gabriel, Senior Partner, K&S Partners, Intellectual Property Attorneys, Gurgaon, National Capital Region, India. CDIP/4/3 Rev./STUDY/INF/2. page i CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 2 I. PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 7 2. The notion of “public domain” in relation to the patent system.................................
    [Show full text]