Search Images Maps Play YouTube News Gmail Drive More »
Sign in
Screen reader users: click this link for accessible mode. Accessible mode has the same essential features but works better with your reader.

Patents

  1. Advanced Patent Search
Publication numberUS20040025048 A1
Publication typeApplication
Application numberUS 10/441,941
Publication dateFeb 5, 2004
Filing dateMay 20, 2003
Priority dateMay 20, 2002
Also published asUS8429723, US20110252333
Publication number10441941, 441941, US 2004/0025048 A1, US 2004/025048 A1, US 20040025048 A1, US 20040025048A1, US 2004025048 A1, US 2004025048A1, US-A1-20040025048, US-A1-2004025048, US2004/0025048A1, US2004/025048A1, US20040025048 A1, US20040025048A1, US2004025048 A1, US2004025048A1
InventorsDamian Porcari, David Dinsdale
Original AssigneePorcari Damian O., David Dinsdale
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
Method and system for role-based access control to a collaborative online legal workflow tool
US 20040025048 A1
Abstract
A computer system and method for distributed legal workflow security provides role-based access control to a collaborative online workflow tool. The system includes a computer network having one or more computers operably programmed and configured to receive input defining computer system access privileges for a plurality of distributed legal workflow participants. The system receives input associating one or more legal workflow role types defined by users with one or more of the distributed legal workflow participants to define the role-based access. Permission privileges are input and associated with a plurality of legal workflow graphical interface functions based on the one or more legal workflow role types. Based on the permission privileges associated with the role type of the participant, the system provides legal workflow graphical interface functionality to the one or more distributed legal workflow participants.
Images(18)
Previous page
Next page
Claims(21)
What is claimed:
1. A computer system for distributed legal workflow security, the computer system providing central administration of legal workflow conducted by a plurality of distributed workflow participants, the system comprising a computer network including one or more computers operably programmed and configured to:
(i) receive input defining computer system access privileges for a plurality of distributed legal workflow participants;
(ii) receive input associating one or more legal workflow role types with one or more of the distributed legal workflow participants;
(iii) receive input associating permission privileges for a plurality of legal workflow graphical interface functionality with one or more of the legal workflow role types; and
(iv) provide legal workflow graphical interface functionality to the one or more distributed legal workflow participants according to the permission privileges associated with the participants respective legal workflow role types.
2. The system of claim 1 wherein the legal workflow includes intellectual property legal workflow.
3. The system of claim 2 wherein the intellectual property legal workflow includes patent legal workflow.
4. The system of claim 2 wherein the intellectual property legal workflow includes trademark legal workflow.
5. The system of claim 2 wherein the intellectual property legal workflow includes conflict legal workflow.
6. The system of claim 2 wherein the intellectual property legal workflow includes agreement legal workflow.
7. The system of claim 2 wherein the intellectual property legal workflow includes legal financial workflow.
8. The computer system of claim 1 wherein the permission privileges are selected from a group consisting of active, inactive, hidden, greyed, edit, no edit, add, delete and grant.
9. The computer system of claim 1 wherein the graphical interface functionality is selected from a group consisting of text, graphics, hyperlinks, form fields, buttons, drop-down lists, tables, menu items and page sections.
10. The computer system of claim 1 wherein the distributed legal workflow participants are selected from a group consisting of attorneys, support staff, customers, customer clients, internal employees and suppliers.
11. The computer system of claim 1 wherein the one or more computers are additionally programmed and configured to filter data records according to legal workflow role type.
12. The computer system of claim 1 wherein the one or more computers are additionally programmed and configured to filter data records according to distributed legal workflow participant.
13. The computer system of claim 1 wherein the permission privileges are associated based on a geographical location of the distributed legal workflow participants.
14. A method for providing legal workflow security conducted by a plurality of distributed workflow participants, the method comprising:
receiving input defining computer system access privileges for a plurality of distributed legal workflow participants;
receiving input associating one or more legal workflow role types with one or more of the distributed legal workflow participants;
receiving input associating permission privileges for a plurality of legal workflow graphical interface functionality with one or more of the legal workflow role types; and
providing legal workflow graphical interface functionality to the one or more distributed legal workflow participants according to the permission privileges associated with the participants respective legal workflow role types.
15. The method of claim 14 further comprising providing a computer network including one or more computers operably programmed and configured to input user access commands.
16. The method of claim 15 further comprising the step of filtering data records with the one or more computers according to legal work role type.
17. The method of claim 15 further comprising the step of filtering data records with the one or more computers according to distributed legal workflow participant.
18. The method of claim 15 further comprising the step of filtering data records with the one or more computers according based on a geographical location of the distributed legal workflow participants.
19. The method of claim 14 wherein the step of providing legal workflow graphical interface functionality comprises interfaces for intellectual property legal workflow.
20. The method of claim 14 wherein the step of receiving permission privileges further comprises inputting permission privileges selected from a group consisting of active, inactive, hidden, greyed, edit, no edit, add, delete and grant.
21. The method of claim 14 wherein the step of providing graphical interface functionality further comprises generating functionality selected from a group consisting of text, graphics, hyperlinks, form fields, buttons, drop-down lists, tables, menu items and page sections.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

[0001] This application claims the benefit of U.S. provisional application Serial No. 60/381,841 filed May 20, 2002.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0002] 1. Field of the Invention

[0003] This invention relates to a collaborative online legal workflow tool and more particularly, to a method and system for role-based access control to a collaborative online legal workflow tool.

[0004] 2. Background Art

[0005] A variety of legal workflow tools are currently available in the marketplace which allow users to manage an intellectual property portfolio. Typical information managed by these systems include filing and prosecution information for patent and trademark applications filed around the world. Many of these systems are based upon well known client-server architecture and provide limited ability for internal users to collaborate with external service providers without complex hardware and networking architecture.

[0006] Recently, developers have modified existing client-server systems to incorporate online collaborative tools, such as web access plugins, to allow a variety of users in various locations to access common information stored in the tool. One of the challenges associated with this collaborative exchange of information is the level of access and control users have to the information stored in the tool.

[0007] In today's legal arena, corporations, institutions and firm clients typically rely on multiple distributed firms and agencies to assist with or independently conduct their legal workflow. It is not uncommon for a single corporation to have several private law firms handling hundreds of co-pending legal matters ranging from basic transactional work to larger projects such as litigation, negotiation, etc. In the intellectual property area, for example, a corporation often relies on outside counsel to independently manage all searches and applications for trademarks, patents etc.

[0008] For example, a corporate attorney may provide access to one or more external service providers to records stored in the corporate workflow tool for which the external service provider is responsible for managing on a day to day basis. Current portfolio management solutions have security tools which restrict the external service provider's access only to records assigned to the external service provider. The external service provider is unable to access information entered by other service providers which may be related to the matters handled by that individual. This inability to collaborate with other service providers limits the level of service provided to the client and may create additional support burdens for both the corporation and the service provider.

[0009] A variety of companies currently offer software applications for managing or otherwise automating workflow in both the legal and non-legal arenas. One example is Aspen Grove's ipWorkflow. Aspen Grove is located at 101 Federal Street, Suite 1900, Boston, Mass. 02110 (www.aspengrove.net). Another example is offered by Vinsoft Solutions located at 1155 West Chestnut Street, Suite 2-C, Union, N.J. 07083 (www.vinsoftsolutions.com). Another example is offered by FoundationIP located at 830 TCF Tower, 121 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, Minn. 55402 (www.foundationip.com). Another example is Inproma offered by Computer Patent Annuities North America LLC located at 225 Reinekers Lane, Suite 400, Alexandria, Va. 22314 (www.cpajersey.com). Another example is offered by iManage located at 950 Tower Lane, Suite 500, Foster City, Calif. 94404 (www.imanage.com).

[0010] Embodiments and features of the present invention include an alternative to or valuable improvement upon conventional legal workflow applications. Without limiting the scope or applicability of the present invention, one goal of the present invention is to provide a collaborative online legal workflow tool which overcomes the limitations described above. It would also be advantageous to provide a method and system for role-based access control to information in the collaborative online legal workflow tool which provides central administration of legal workflow conducted by a plurality of distributed workflow participants.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0011] Accordingly, a computer system and method for distributed legal workflow security is disclosed allowing role-based access control to a collaborative online workflow tool. The computer system provides central administration of legal workflow conducted by a plurality of distributed workflow participants. The system includes a computer network having one or more computers operably programmed and configured to receive input defining computer system access privileges for a plurality of distributed legal workflow participants.

[0012] The system receives input associating one or more legal workflow role types defined by users with one or more of the distributed legal workflow participants to define the role-based access. Permission privileges are input and associated with a plurality of legal workflow graphical interface functions based on the one or more legal workflow role types. Based on the permission privileges associated with the role type of the participant, the system provides legal workflow graphical interface functionality to the one or more distributed legal workflow participants.

[0013] Advantages of the present invention include a reduction in the time, cost and risk associated with conventional distributed/remote management of legal workflow. Via the online collaboration tool, integrated parties cooperate with real-time knowledge access and visibility to work product and status. By applying business/legal logic to this integrated pool of knowledge, a value-added workflow results.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0014]FIGS. 1 and 2 illustrate online legal workflow collaboration between organizations (e.g., brand owners, law firms, law firm clients, brand owner clients, etc.), business processes and information systems in accordance with one embodiment or aspect of the present invention;

[0015]FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating a workflow for adding a new user to the system;

[0016]FIG. 4 is an example of a graphical user interface for adding a new user to the system;

[0017]FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating a workflow for maintaining user workflow;

[0018]FIG. 6 is an example of a graphical user interface for a user search;

[0019]FIG. 7 is an example of a graphical user interface for displaying user search criteria;

[0020]FIG. 8 is an example of a graphical user interface for amending user details;

[0021]FIG. 9 is an example of a graphical user interface for granting roles to users;

[0022]FIG. 10 is a flowchart illustrating a workflow for defining user preferences;

[0023]FIG. 11 is an example of a graphical user interface displaying user preferences;

[0024]FIG. 12 is a flowchart illustrating a workflow for user login procedures;

[0025]FIG. 13 is an example of a graphical user interface for user login;

[0026]FIG. 14 is an example of a graphical user interface for displaying terms and conditions of user login;

[0027]FIG. 15 is an example of a graphical user interface for changing password features for user login;

[0028]FIG. 16 is a flowchart illustrating a workflow for role maintenance;

[0029]FIG. 17 is an example of a graphical user interface for selecting a user role to maintain;

[0030]FIG. 18 is an example of a graphical user interface for defining attributes of the user interface;

[0031]FIG. 19 is a block diagram illustrating a preferred entity relationship diagram setting forth user roles and access rights;

[0032]FIG. 20 is an example of a graphical user interface for maintaining legal workflow details;

[0033]FIG. 21 is an example of a graphical user interface for trademark application legal workflow details;

[0034]FIG. 22 is an example of a graphical user interface for conflict legal workflow details;

[0035]FIG. 23 is an example of a graphical user interface for defining organizational details; and

[0036]FIG. 24 is an example of a graphical user interface for defining contact information.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT(S) System Overview

[0037] Embodiments of the present invention relate to an online legal workflow collaboration tool and methodology. In today's legal arena, corporations, institutions and firm clients typically rely on multiple distributed firms and agencies to assist with or independently conduct their legal workflow. It is not uncommon for a single corporation to have several private law firms handling hundreds of co-pending legal matters ranging from basic transactional work to larger projects such as litigation, negotiation, etc. In the intellectual property area, for example, a corporation often relies on outside counsel to independently manage all searches and applications for trademarks, patents etc.

[0038] Advantages of such an online legal workflow collaboration tool and methodology include a reduction in the time, cost and risk associated with conventional distributed/remote management of legal workflow. Via the online collaboration tool, integrated parties cooperate with real-time knowledge access and visibility to work product and status. A law engine implements or otherwise applies business/legal logic to this integrated pool of knowledge to produce a value-added workflow.

[0039]FIG. 1 illustrates an overview of environment 10 in which embodiments of the present invention may operate. A central online leal workflow and knowledge management system 12 operably interfaces or is otherwise in operable communication with a plurality of local or distributed workflow participants (e.g., brand owners 14, agents/law firms 16, law firm clients 18, brand owner clients 20, etc.). More specifically, and as illustrated in greater detail in FIG. 2, workflow participants (e.g. agent/law firm 22, legal department 24, etc.) and associated workflow applications (e.g. document management system 26, finance system 28, etc.) productively collaborate with one another via central online leal workflow and knowledge management system 12. Notably, an unlimited number of participants may collaborate with one another in an unlimited number of different fashions.

[0040] One aspect of the present invention is a system and methodology for controlling user access to the online legal workflow collaboration tool, or portions thereof. The system comprises a computer network including one or more computers operably programmed and configured to allow access to the collaborative online workflow tool. This aspect is easy to manage and a flexible user permissioning model that relies on the definition of generic roles for multiple users.

[0041] As evidenced by the variety and breadth of existing computer architectures hosting or otherwise supporting knowledge and management workflow applications, those of ordinary skill in the art recognize that such applications may be implemented on or over a multitude of different computing platforms and networks. According to one embodiment, functional aspects of the present invention may be centrally hosted from one or more web servers to web browsers located at a plurality of local or distributed workflow participant locations. Alternately, aspects of the present invention may be implemented according to a more dedicated/localized client-server architecture over a local or wide area network.

[0042] Example role types include a Customer User, an External Counsel (or agent) User, a Customer Client User, a Customer Client User with an anonymous log in, and an Inventor with an anonymous log in. In one embodiment, a Customer is a company who is using the system to store and manage their IP data. Preferably, where a Customer has subcontracted part of their service provision to an agent, the agent's users will still be Customer Users as they are essentially fulfilling the role of a Customer User.

[0043] In addition to a user ID/password, access to the system may be restricted at levels such as Menu level (e.g. create trademark—main screen, create trademark—based on etc.), and section of a page level (e.g. proprietor details on trademark not visible to External Counsel). While section of a page may be regarded at it's largest as a whole page, at it's smallest as a single data field or button, or somewhere between. The business users define the permissionable sections for each page.

[0044] A pragmatic approach may be taken as to whether it is best to create a complex permissioning scenario for a particular screen, or just create two or more screens. For example, for Trademarks, it may be simple to develop separate Trademark pages for Customer Users and External Counsel Users, than to create a complex permissioning model for a simple page.

[0045] External Counsel Users and Customer Client Users have the ability to see only the records for which their company has responsibility. A protocol may be followed that allows a user to view (read only) the diary of any other user from the same External Counsel organization and they may re-allocate tasks to other users in their organization.

Security Principles

[0046] The present invention assumes that people will attempt to hack the computer system or access areas outside their granted level of permission. To prevent this, security principles may be applied. For example, content for which a user is not permissioned may not be returned to the user from the server.

[0047] In another example, all permissionable actions (menus, pages, buttons, hyperlinks, etc.) will check (server side) before executing business logic that the user has permission to execute the action. This functionality will prevent hackers from guessing action calls, etc. Where appropriate, if the system detects any possible security issue, an e-mail may be sent to a system administrator. The activity may also be logged for further investigation.

User Trust Requirements

[0048] User Trust Requirements relate to the business process necessary to ensure that the person who is being added to the system has been verified as a valid user of the system for the permissions granted to them. The general principle is that a user with the appropriate permissions may create other users of their own user type (e.g., Customer User, External Counsel User or Customer Client User, etc.).

[0049] External Counsel may have the ability to create and maintain their own users. In one embodiment, they will not have the ability to modify the definitions of the roles for which they are permissioned. A Creating User is defined as a user who is logged in and who is creating a new user.

User Types

[0050] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention different access rights are provided for different types of users. Table 1 contains example user types in accordance with the present invention. It is envisioned that an unlimited number of user types may be defined.

TABLE 1
User Type 1 Customer User
User Type 2 External Counsel (or agent) User
User Type 3 Customer Client User
User Type 4 Customer Client User - self-created log in
User Type 5 Inventor - self-created log in

[0051] The Customer User will generally be an employee. Examples include a Counsel/Attorney/Paralegal or other administrative staff. Some companies may have outsourced aspects of the management of their IP or other legal work to External Counsel; hence it is possible that a Customer User is from an External Counsel.

[0052] External Counsel are those companies instructed to do something by the Customer User in relation to the registration, renewal, maintenance, etc. of one or more of the Customer's records. As a general principle, External Counsel should only be able to access records that are allocated to the company to whom the user belongs.

[0053] The Customer Client User represents the client of the Customer. This could be an employee of an operating company. Customer Client Users are generally interested in a subset of records that relate to their company only.

[0054] Prior to display, each page checks that the user has the necessary authority to access the main record being displayed. If the record belongs to the Customer Client to whom the user also belongs, the record should be displayed. The Client field on the main record identifies the Customer Client User.

Permission Based on Model

[0055] Once an agent or client has been added to a particular record, a permission database is updated to reflect this automatically. Preferably, a user can add and remove rights to any particular record.

Menu Permissions

[0056] In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a common menu is provided on each screen. The content of this menu will be specific to a role profile. Main Menu items not permissioned for a particular role are preferably de-activated, hidden, or greyed out. The Add Users and Maintain Roles permissions are maintained at the user level (on the user table).

[0057] Even if a role allocated to a user has been permissioned to add new users/maintain roles, the user setting will override this setting if there is a conflict. I.e., if the role allows access to the Add User capability, but the user account is flagged with the setting ‘Add New User’=No, the user will be prevented from accessing this capability.

[0058] By default, if there is not a specific grant of permission for a menu item against a role, the permission to access that menu item is assumed to be no. A check on each page will also check if the user's ,account suspended flag is set to yes. If they are, the user should be shown the account suspended page and logged off the system. Suspended accounts will not be allowed to log onto the system.

Sections of a Web Page Permissions

[0059] Preferably, each web page sections. These sections may contain one or more data fields and/or buttons etc. The sections for a particular screen are defined in the Workflow Specification for that screen. As each page is processed, the permissions for each section are applied.

[0060] Table 2 contains example permissions in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.

TABLE 2
No View/Execute No View applies to data (text boxes/list boxes, etc.) and
sections.
No Execute applies to buttons, links, etc.
These two permissions have been grouped together as they are
effectively the same, i.e., if a No View/Execute permission
applies to a section of a web page, then the content of that
section shall not be returned to the client at all
Where the section includes executable items (buttons, links,
etc.) the system must ensure at the server that these items
are not executable (e.g., where a hacker guesses an action
from a button on a page).
No Update Applies to data. If the permission ‘No Update’ is flagged
for a particular section, the data must not be allowed to be
updated by the system. The system must both disable the
user's ability to change the data on the page, and protect
from a hacker calling a HTTP get/post action with modified
data.
No Restrictions The section of the page is fully permissioned.
Add The ability to add a record is controlled at either the menu
level (2.1.1 above), page level (2.1.2 above) or, if there is
an add button on a page, via a No Execute permission on the
button.
Delete The ability to delete a record is controlled at page level
(2.1.2 above) or via a No Execute permission on the Delete
button on pages.
Grant The ability to grant permissions is controlled by the User
Trust Architecture - see below.

[0061] Permissions may be applied in an optimistic way. E.g., the user is allowed the maximum possible access (all permissions granted) unless a permission exists to restrict access.

Vertical Data Filtering

[0062] To prevent users from seeing data that they are not authorized/required to see, the present invention may filter data for difference user categories such as those contained in Table 3.

TABLE 3
Type of user Filter required
Customer User None
External Counsel The ability to see only records allocated to
(or agent User) that external counsel.
Customer Client The ability to see only records where the
User Customer Client is the proprietor.

[0063] Additional user types may be added to the system requiring some kind of vertical data filtering (e.g., inventors, patent committee members, etc.).

Vertical Data Filtering—External Counsel (or Agent) User

[0064] Prior to display, each page may check that the user has the necessary authority to access the main IP record being displayed. If the record belongs to the External Counsel to whom the user also belongs, the record should be displayed. If the record does not belong to External Counsel to whom the user belongs, the user will be directed to an error page.

[0065] In some circumstances, an External Counsel may access to other records related to their own (e.g., based on, basis for, priority, etc.). External Counsel may subcontract a piece of work to another External Counsel.

Vertical Data Filtering—Customer Client User

[0066] Prior to display, each page may check that the user has the necessary authority to access the main IP record being displayed. If record belongs to the Customer Client to whom the user also belongs, the record should be displayed. If the record does not belong to the Customer Client to whom the user belongs, the user will be directed to an error page. Certain users may update certain records in a particular territory.

How Changes to Permissions and Roles are Implemented

[0067] Changes to the definition of a role may actioned the next time a user logs in (for permissions held at server or session level) or the next time a user tries to access a capability (for permissions that are dynamically derived from the database).

[0068]FIG. 3 is a preferred workflow diagram for adding a new user. At step 40, information about the new user is entered into the user create screen illustrated as FIG. 4. A prerequisite to this process may require that the creating user AND creating user's role have been flagged as having the ability to add new users. Preferably, any role may be allocated to the new user with the exception that only System Technical Support users may add other System Technical Support users.

[0069]FIG. 4 is an example user interface for adding a new user. The graphical user interface is generally illustrated as reference numeral 42. Table 4 defines example attributes for the different aspects of the user interface illustrated in FIG. 4.

TABLE 4
Label Table/Field Mandatory Type Details and validation
All fields are from the User table unless otherwise specified
Salutation Salutation Optional Text
First Name FirstName Mandatory Text
Surname Surname Mandatory Text
Job Title JobTitle Mandatory Text
Tel No TelephoneNo Mandatory Text
Fax No FaxNo Optional Text
Mobile Tel No MobileNo Optional Text
Role Profile UserRoleID Mandatory Dropdown Default is creating
users role profile
Dropdown list from role
profile table defaulting
to creating users role
profile.
If the user is an
External Counsel User,
they should only see
roles flagged as
available to External
Counsel.
User Class UserClassID Mandatory Dropdown No Default.
Dropdown list from User
Class table ((Mandatory)
(Attorney, Inventor,
Searcher, etc.). This
field is used to help
searching.
Welcome Message None Optional Text A message to the user
that will be sent in the
welcome e-mail.
If the creating user has role System Technical Support, the following fields may be
displayed:
User Type UserTypeID Mandatory Dropdown Defaults to Customer
User'.
Pick list of Customer
User', ‘External Counsel
User’, ‘Customer Client
User’
Organization OrganisationID Mandatory Picklist No default.
If User Type = ‘External
Counsel’, the creating
user is required to
enter the External
Counsel Company from a
pick list
If User Type = ‘Customer
Client’, the creating
user is required to
enter the Customer
Client Company from a
pick list
If the user being created is a Customer User
Users DepartmentID Optional Dropdown No default.
Department/Team Only for Customer Users.

[0070] In one embodiment of the present invention, the “Create User” button creates the user according to the following process:

[0071] Action 1—Validate that the e-mail is not already in use. If it is, the Add New Users page is re-displayed (data preserved) with an error message.

[0072] Action 2—Generate an initial password for the user.

[0073] Action 3—Create the user on the system with the allocated role profile and password.

[0074] If the creating user has role System Technical Support, the new user will have user type as defined by the User Type field, with the Organization being set to the organization entered from the Organization pock list.

[0075] If the creating user is a Customer User, the new user will also be a Customer User and belong to the Customer organization.

[0076] If the creating user is an External Counsel, the new user will be an External Counsel User and belong to the same External Counsel organization as the creating user.

[0077] If the creating user is a Customer Client, the new user will be a Customer Client User and belong to the same Customer Client organization as the creating user.

[0078] Example default values for user fields are listed in Table 5.

TABLE 5
Details
Label Table/Field Mandatory Type and validation
None LockedOut Mandatory Default set to No
None BadPWDAttempts Mandatory Default set to 0
None T&CVersionSigned Mandatory Default set to 0
None T&CNameTyped Mandatory Default set to null
None ChangePWDNextLogin Mandatory Default set to Yes
None LastLoginDate Mandatory Default set to null
None UserCanAddUsers Mandatory Default set to No
None UserCanAddRoles Mandatory Default set to No

[0079] Action 4—e-mail—E-mail to the user with the e-mail text set forth below in Table 6.

TABLE 6
E-mail Specification WSD011-001
To: New User E-mail
From: <Helpdesk e-mail>
Cc: None
Bcc: None
Title: Welcome to the <Customer Name> System
Details: I am pleased to notify you of your login details
for the <Customer Name> System
Password: <Password>
You can access the system at the following URL
<System URL>
<Message to the user>
Attachments: None

[0080] At step 44, the create user process is completed and the user returned to the user home page.

[0081]FIG. 5 is a preferred workflow diagram for maintaining user workflow. In order to access the user maintain user workflow, the user should be flagged as having permission to the maintain users menu item. On accessing this menu item the user accesses a search page to find the users. At step 46, a system user enters criteria into a search screen to locate a user to maintain. FIG. 6 is an example user interface 48 for a user search.

[0082] Preferably, criteria entered in more than one field are combined with a logical and. Wild cards are allowed. Names may be wild carded without the user knowing. External Counsel users may only find user details of that External Counsel's users. Customer Client users may only find details of that Customer Client's users.

[0083] The data of the original search should be preserved for the convenience of the user. If the user records are found at step 50, they should be displayed as a list below the search criteria and buttons, as illustrated generally by reference number 52, in FIG. 7.

[0084]FIG. 8 is an example user interface 56 for amending user details. In one embodiment of the present invention, the system will first check whether the user has any chasers allocated to them. If they do, the system will not allow the deletion, returning the user to the modify users page with an error message. Next at step 54, the system will physically delete the user and all records from the login history table. The list of roles that is presented should be the list of roles that the currently logged in user is authorized to grant.

[0085] Table 7 defines example attributes for aspects of the user interface illustrated in FIG. 8.

TABLE 7
Label Table/Field Mandatory Type Details and validation
All fields are from the User table unless otherwise specified
Salutation Salutation Optional Text
First Name FirstName Mandatory Text
Surname Surname Mandatory Text
Job Title JobTitle Mandatory Text
E-Mail address EmailAddress Mandatory Text
Tel No TelephoneNo Mandatory Text
Fax No FaxNo Optional Text
Mobile Tel No MobileNo Optional Text
Role Profile UserRoleID Mandatory Dropdown Default is creating
user's role profile
Dropdown list from role
profile table defaulting
to creating user's role
profile.
If the user is an
External Counsel User,
they should only see
roles flagged as
available to External
Counsel.
User Class UserClassID Mandatory Dropdown No default.
Dropdown list from User
Class table ((Mandatory)
(Attorney, Inventor,
Searcher, etc.)). This
field is used to help
searching.
Suspend User SuspendUserDate Mandatory Date
Date
User Is LockedOut Mandatory Dropdown Yes/No
Suspended
Failed Login BadPWDAttempts Optional Read Only
Attempts
Change Password ChangePWDNextLog Mandatory Dropdown Yes/No
at next login on
Show Ts & Cs at NONE Mandatory Calculation If T&CversionSigned <
next login <current system terms
and conditions> then Yes
else No
T & C version T&CversionSigned Optional
signed
Name Typed T&CnameTyped Optional Read only
when
T&Cs signed
Secret Question SecretQuestionID Mandatory Dropdown Dropdown from
SecretQuestion table
Secret Question SecretQuestionAn Optional Text
Answer swer
Last Login Date LastLoginDate Optional Read Only
If the modifying user has role System Technical Support, the following fields will be
displayed:
User Type UserTypeID Mandatory Dropdown Defaults to ‘Customer
User’.
Pick list of ‘Customer
User’, 'External Counsel
User’, ‘Customer Client
User’
Organization OrganisationID Mandatory Picklist No default
If User Type = ‘External
Counsel’, the creating
user is required to
enter the External
Counsel Company from a
pick list
If User Type =
‘Customer
Client’, the creating
user is required to
enter the Customer
Client Company from a
pick list.
If the user being created is a Customer User
Users DepartmentID Optional Dropdown No default.
Department/ Only for Customer
Team Users.
If the modifying user can add new users
User can add UserCanAddUsers Mandatory Checkbox
new users
If the modifying user can maintain roles
Users can UserCanMaintainR Mandatory Checkbox
maintain roles oles

[0086] At step 58, the ‘Save’ Button saves the changes and returns the user to Step 2. The ‘Back’ Button returns the user to step 2. The ‘Cancel’ Button cancels any changes and re-presents the user's record. If the user chooses to ‘Delete’ a user, a follow-up process may be followed.

[0087]FIG. 9 is an example user interface 60 for granting roles to another user. Table 8 defines example attributes for various aspects of the user interface illustrated in FIG. 9.

TABLE 8
Label Table/Field Mandatory Type Details and validation
Users e-mail User. Mandatory Text
address EmailAddress
All Fields from UserRoleMayGrant table unless specified
User Role UserRoleID Mandatory Readonly
User May Grant Optional Checkbox Derived from the
UserRoleMayGrant table. If a
record exists for the User ID/
Role ID combination, then User
May Grant is true. If a record
does not exist, then User May
Grant is false.

[0088]FIG. 10 is a preferred workflow diagram for defining user preferences, illustrated as 62. User preferences may include business information, such as telephone number and email address, as well as a secret question and answer, which are used to retrieve secured information. FIG. 11 is an example user interface 64 for defining user preferences. Table 9 defines example attributes for aspects of the user interface illustrated in FIG. 11.

TABLE 9
Label Table/Field Mandatory Type Details and validation
All fields are from the User table unless otherwise specified
Salutation Salutation Optional Text
First Name FirstName Mandatory Text
Surname Surname Mandatory Text
Job Title JobTitle Mandatory Text
Tel No TelephoneNo Mandatory Text
Fax No FaxNo Optional Text
Mobile Tel No MobileNo Optional Text
Role Profile UserRoleID Mandatory Read
only
User Class UserClassID Mandatory Dropdown Dropdown list from
User Class table
((Mandatory)
(Attorney, Inventor,
Searcher, etc.)).
This field is used to
help searching.
Secret Question SecretQuestionID Mandatory Dropdown Dropdown from
SecretQuestion table
Secret Question SecretQuestionAnswer Mandatory Text
Answer
Organization OrganisationID Mandatory Read
only
If the user being created is an Anaqua Customer User
Users DepartmentID Optional Dropdown No default.
Department/Team Only for Anagua
Customer Users

[0089] In one embodiment of the present invention, the ‘Save’ Button saves the changes and returns the user their home page. The ‘Cancel’ Button cancels any changes and returns the user to their home page.

[0090]FIG. 12 is a preferred workflow diagram for user login. The user login workflow comprises five primary steps. At step 66, the user enters a user identification and password into fields on the screen 68. FIG. 13 is an example user interface for Step 1 of user login. In one preferred aspect of the invention, the user identification is the user's email address. Table 10 defines example attributes for aspects of the user interface illustrated in FIG. 13.

TABLE 10
Details
Label Table/Field Mandatory Type and validation
All fields are from the User table unless otherwise specified
E-mail Address EmailAddress Mandatory Text
Password Password Mandatory Text Text entered should
be displayed as *s

[0091] The ‘Sign On’ Button proceeds the user to step 2. The ‘Forgotten Password’ Link redirects to a Forgotten Password Page.

[0092] At number 70, the second step of the user login workflow is user validation. The identification and password are checked against stored user information in the workflow tool. If the user identification (ID) exists and the password is incorrect, the following actions will be taken.

[0093] Action 1—Increment the user's <failed login attempts> counter by 1

[0094] Action 2—Error Page—The user is re-directed back to the login page with an error message at the top of the pages.

[0095] If the user's new <failed login attempts> counter is greater than the <system login attempts allowed> system parameter, the user is redirected to a page with the following text:

[0096] You have failed to correctly provide your user ID and password several times, so your account has been suspended. Please go to the forgotten password page to re-set your password.

[0097] The page may have two buttons;

[0098] Cancel—which returns the user to the www.domain.com site.

[0099] Forgotten Password—takes the user to the Forgotten Password page.

[0100] If the user ID is incorrect, the user is re-directed back to the login page with an error message at the top of the page.

[0101] If the User ID and Password are validated, and the user's IP address does not belong to the ‘blocked IP-address’ table, then the user's <failed login attempts> counter shall be set to 0, and the user may progress to step 3.

[0102] At step 72, the user login workflow checks the terms and conditions of the user's account. If the user's account has its <terms and conditions signed> greater than or equal to the <current system terms and conditions>, the user may progress to step 4, referenced by numeral 76. If the user's account has its <terms and conditions signed> less than the <current system terms and conditions>, the user may be redirected or may progress to step 4.

[0103] Preferably, a page is displayed requiring the user to read the terms and conditions, and give notice of their acceptance. FIG. 14 illustrates an example user interface 74 for displaying terms and conditions for a particular user account. According to one embodiment of the invention, upon selecting the “I agree” button, the system will do the following validations:

[0104] Validation 1—If the name typed does not match the first name and surname of the account, the system will re-display the terms and conditions page with an error message.

[0105] Validation 2—If the name typed matches the first name and surname of the account, the system will

[0106] store the name typed in the <name typed at last terms and conditions acceptance> attribute of the user accounts,

[0107] set to <terms and conditions signed> equal to the <current system terms and conditions> for the user account, and

[0108] allow the user to progress to Step 4.

[0109] The fourth step of the user login workflow is change password, illustrated as step 76. If the user's <change password on next login> is set to No, the user will proceed to Step 5, which is the user's system home page 80.

[0110] If the user's <change password on next login> is set to Yes, the system will prevent the example user interface illustrated as numeral 80 in FIG. 15. Table 11 defines example attributes for aspects of the user interface illustrated in FIG. 15.

TABLE 11
All fields are from the User table unless otherwise specified
Label Table/Field Mandatory Type Details and validation
Current Password Mandatory Text Text entered should be
Password displayed as *s
New Password None Mandatory Text Text entered should be
displayed as *s
Passwords stored in the
database should be
encrypted so that no-one
can view the password.
Confirm New None Mandatory Text Text entered should be
Password displayed as *s
Passwords stored in the
database should be
encrypted so that no-one
can view the password.
Secret SecretQuestionID Mandatory Dropdown Dropdown from
Question SecretQuestion table
Secret SecretQuestionAnswe Mandatory Text
Question r
Answer

[0111] If the user presses the Change Password button, the system will check if the length of the New Password less than <system min password length> or the password does not contain at least one Alpha character (a-z,A-Z) and one number character (0-9), the system will re-display the page with an error message. If the Current Password does not match the password on the user's account, or the New Password does not match the re-entered password, the system will re-display the change password page with an error message, and increment the users <failed login attempts> by 1.

[0112] If the user's new <failed login attempts> counter is greater than the <system login attempts allowed> system parameter, an error page is displayed. If the Current Password matches the password on the account and the New Password and Re-entered password are the same (but different from the current password), and the new password length is greater than the <system min password length> and the new password contains at least one letter and number, the system will set the user's <change password on next login> to No and the user will progress to Step 5.

[0113] The fifth step of the user login workflow is a successful login, referenced generally as numeral 80. In this step, the system will record the user ID, date and time in the successful login table, record the new password in an encrypted format in the user table, and redirect the user to their system home page.

[0114]FIG. 16 is a preferred workflow for role maintenance. This workflow comprises two primary steps: Selection of a role to maintain, referenced as numeral 82, and maintaining the selected user role, referenced as numeral 84. FIG. 17 is an example user interface 86 for selecting a role to maintain. FIG. 18 is an example user interface 88 for maintaining user roles. Table 12 defines example attributes for aspects of the user interface illustrated in FIGS. 17 and/or 18.

TABLE 12
Label Table/Field Mandatory Type Details and validation
All fields are from the UserRoles table unless otherwise specified
Role Name UserRoleName Mandatory Text Role names must be unique
Role Available AvailableToExte Mandatory Dropdown Yes/No
for external rnalCounsel
counsel
Number of users None Mandatory Read only The count of the number of
having this users having this role
role
Menu permissions Tab
All fields are from the RoleMenuPermissions table unless otherwise specified
Main Menu MenuName Mandatory Read only
Option
Sub Menu Option SubMenuName Mandatory Read only
Permissioned Permissiomed Mandatory Option Yes/No
Screen Section permissions Tab
All fields are from the RoleScreenSectionPermissions table unless otherwise specified
Screen Number ScreenID Mandatory Read only
Screen Name RoleScreenPermi Mandatory Read only
ssions.ScreenNa
me
Screen Section SectionName Mandatory Read only
Permissions PermissionID Mandatory Dropdown A dropdown of the
following
• No restrictions
• No Update
• No View/Execute
Label Table/Field Mandatory Type Details and validation
New Role Name UserRoles. Mandatory Text Role names must be unique
UserRoleName

[0115] The ‘Save’ Button saves the changes to the role profile and returns the user to step 1. The ‘Cancel’ Button cancels all changes and returns the user to step 1. The ‘Delete’ Button only appears if the number of users for this role' dialogue. If they confirm they are sure, the role is deleted.

[0116] The ‘Copy’ Button will check that a role name has been entered and that it is unique. If both of these conditions are satisfied, a new role is created copying all of the permissions of the original role. There is no link between the new and original roles, unless the user observes some kind of naming convention e.g.

[0117] Customer User—Trademarks

[0118] Customer User—Trademarks—Paralegal

[0119] Customer User—Trademarks—Attorney

[0120] On completion of the create process, the user is returned to the Step 2 Maintain Role screen with the new role being the focus.

[0121] Tables 13 and 14 contain example menu level permissions and roles.

TABLE 13
Accessible to External
Role Details Counsel
Role 1 - System Technical Support No
Role 2 - Super User No
Role 3 - Customer User - All No
Role 4 - Customer User - Trademarks No
Role 5 - Customer User - Patents No
Role 6 - Customer User - Conflicts No
Role 7 - Customer User - Agreements No
Role 8 - Not used No
Role 9 - External Counsel - All Yes
Role 10 - External Counsel - Trademarks Yes
Role 11 - External Counsel - Patents Yes
Role 12 - Not used No
Role 13 - Not used No
Role 14 - Customer Client No

[0122]

TABLE 14
Main Menu Role Role Role Role Role Role Role
Item Sub Menu Item 1 2 Role 3 Role 4 Role 5 Role 6 Role 7 Role 8 Role 9 10 11 12 13 14
Find TM Application
Patent (phase 3)
Search
Domain Name
Copyright
Conflict
Agreement
Invoice
Create TM Application
Patent (Phase 3)
Search
Domain Name
Copyright
Conflict
Agreement
Invoice
Maintain Brand
Mark
Invention (Phase
3)
Agent
Company
Territory
Users
User Roles
Preferences User Preferences
Edit Favouritas
Change
Password
Add New User
Add New User
Role

[0123]FIG. 19 is a block diagram 90 illustrating a preferred entity relationship diagram setting forth user roles and access rights. The distributed legal workflow security computer system allows users, through one or more computers, to input system access privileges for one or more legal workflow participants based on one or more legal workflow role types. System users may associate permission privileges for a plurality of legal workflow graphical interface systems functions based on the legal workflow role types. Each system user or participant is allowed access to legal workflow graphical interface functionality according to the permission privileges associated with the participants respective legal workflow role types.

Third Party Interface Workflow

[0124] In one aspect of the present invention, a process is defined in which third parties update information on the collaborative legal workflow tool. Third parties are presented with the same collaborative legal workflow product. One difference may be that the permissioning on the screens will vary, as defined by business requirements. There are different types of permissioning that may be applied. For example, certain screens may not be available to certain third parties and/or third party users, and certain fields may be set to ‘Read Only’ or ‘No Execute’.

[0125] Third party subject areas and functionality in accordance with the present invention include, but is not limited to, trademark applications, trademark searches, conflicts, organizations, time recording, billing, invoicing, agreements, copyrights, domain names, patents, maintenance screen (e.g., brands and marks, territories, organizations, etc.), reporting and the implementation of tasks for third party diaries.

[0126] Third party law firms may see records where they have been instructed as an agent. This rule may apply where law firms are browsing through related records; i.e., they may only see related records where they are representing the Customer.

[0127] When a trademark is registered, the Registry Office may insist that a trademark is associated with other registered trademarks. This typically means that the same company may own the associated trademarks. However, certain territories do not necessarily associate registrations. Therefore, if a law firm operates in a territory where associations do not apply, then the “associations” drop window option should be set to ‘No Execute’. Law firms may be able to use a diary to raise ad hoc tasks for Customers. In addition to this, law firms may record event history. Law Firms may also receive tasks through the diary.

[0128] When a third party wishes to click through an underlying record, they should be able to click through to conflicts (read only) and trademark records where they are representing the customer, and all organizational records (read only). Third parties may not be able to click through invoices, agreements, copyrights, domain names and maintenance functions. Preferably, the screen design clearly shows the user what areas are read only. For the third party interfaces, “create” and “admin” functionality should be disabled.

[0129]FIG. 20 is an example user interface 92 for maintenance of legal workflow in the collaborative online workflow tool of the present invention. For demonstrative purposes, a “Maintain TM Details” page is illustrated. In one embodiment of the present invention, the following permissible sections, “Main TM Details” 94, “Verification” 96 and “Budget Name” 98, are accessible by the users to allow modification of the information stored in those fields. The remainder of the fields are permissioned to “Read Only” access.

[0130] It is understood that if the security privileges for these fields are set to “Read Only,” a user would be unable to modify any information. Additionally, the “charges” child window option should be set to ‘No Execute’. The save, delete, edit and law buttons for the following child windows should be set to ‘No Execute’: based on, basis for, conv.priority, renewal, use/tax, certificates, image, verification and internationals. It is also understood that the user interface can be modified to manage a variety of intellectual property matters, including patents, financial invoicing, trademarks, conflicts and agreements.

[0131]FIG. 21 illustrates an example user interface 100 for a child window of the trademark workflow record. The child window includes permissioned fields which allow modification of trademark information based on security permissions. In one embodiment of the present invention, the agent instructions 102 and application details 104 sections are set to allow modification of information by the user.

[0132]FIG. 22 illustrates an example user interface 106 for defining and presenting main conflict details. Preferably the conflict umbrella and charges child window menu options are set to ‘No Execute’. On all of the windows, the save, delete, edit and law buttons should be set to ‘No Execute’.

[0133]FIG. 23 illustrates a user interface 108 for defining organizational details. Preferably, the contact comments section is set to ‘No View’. The following child window menu option should also be set to ‘No Execute’: Law firm specialty, supplier info., verification and umbrella.

[0134]FIG. 24 illustrates an example user interface 110 for defining contact information. Preferably, the contact comments and contact comments-add sections are set to ‘No View’.

[0135] While the best mode for carrying out the invention has been described in detail, those familiar with the art to which this invention relates will recognize various alternative designs and embodiments for practicing the invention as defined by the following claims.

Referenced by
Citing PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitle
US7490072Feb 15, 2006Feb 10, 2009Novell, Inc.Providing access controls
US7529756 *Dec 22, 2000May 5, 2009West Services, Inc.System and method for processing formatted text documents in a database
US7730480Aug 22, 2006Jun 1, 2010Novell, Inc.System and method for creating a pattern installation by cloning software installed another computer
US7769807 *Jul 18, 2008Aug 3, 2010International Business Machines CorporationPolicy based auditing of workflows
US7778954Mar 6, 2006Aug 17, 2010West Publishing CorporationSystems, methods, and software for presenting legal case histories
US7831978Dec 16, 2004Nov 9, 2010Sap AgReview mechanism for controlling the delegation of tasks in a workflow system
US7885847 *May 7, 2004Feb 8, 2011Sap AgEnd user oriented workflow approach including structured processing of ad hoc workflows with a collaborative process engine
US7975288 *May 2, 2006Jul 5, 2011Oracle International CorporationMethod and apparatus for imposing quorum-based access control in a computer system
US8041737 *Mar 29, 2007Oct 18, 2011Leo Software, Inc.Method of presenting leasing arrangements
US8068603May 21, 2010Nov 29, 2011Sap AgFocused retrieval of selected data in a call center environment
US8074214May 19, 2005Dec 6, 2011Oracle International CorporationSystem for creating a customized software installation on demand
US8099337Jun 19, 2007Jan 17, 2012Sap AgReplenishment planning management
US8146017Nov 30, 2006Mar 27, 2012Microsoft CorporationDeclarative data binding and data type propagation in a remote workflow schedule authoring system
US8214398 *Feb 15, 2006Jul 3, 2012Emc CorporationRole based access controls
US8219807Apr 26, 2005Jul 10, 2012Novell, Inc.Fine grained access control for linux services
US8230042Apr 19, 2005Jul 24, 2012International Business Machines CorporationPolicy based auditing of workflows
US8250118Dec 29, 2011Aug 21, 2012West Services, Inc.Systems, methods, and software for presenting legal case histories
US8271785Apr 26, 2005Sep 18, 2012Novell, Inc.Synthesized root privileges
US8316453 *Jul 24, 2009Nov 20, 2012Bank Of America CorporationDynamic community generator
US8352935May 19, 2005Jan 8, 2013Novell, Inc.System for creating a customized software distribution based on user requirements
US8468518Jul 18, 2006Jun 18, 2013Oracle International CorporationSystem and method for creating a customized installation on demand
US8600974Apr 29, 2009Dec 3, 2013West Services Inc.System and method for processing formatted text documents in a database
US8620713Jul 15, 2005Dec 31, 2013Sap AgMechanism to control delegation and revocation of tasks in workflow system
US8650216 *May 31, 2012Feb 11, 2014Microsoft CorporationDistributed storage for collaboration servers
US8655697Jan 31, 2005Feb 18, 2014Sap AktiengesellschaftAllocation table generation from assortment planning
US8661066Jun 13, 2012Feb 25, 2014West Service, Inc.Systems, methods, and software for presenting legal case histories
US8667136 *Dec 6, 2007Mar 4, 2014SkypeCommunication system
US8676973Mar 7, 2006Mar 18, 2014Novell Intellectual Property Holdings, Inc.Light-weight multi-user browser
US8707398 *Dec 22, 2010Apr 22, 2014Sap AgMetadata container-based user interface flexibility
US8744892Feb 17, 2006Jun 3, 2014Sap AgAutomated generation of access control policies in cross-organizational workflow
US20080182555 *Dec 6, 2007Jul 31, 2008Rodrigo MadanesCommunication system
US20100281512 *Jul 24, 2009Nov 4, 2010Bank Of America CorporationDynamic community generator
US20120167178 *Dec 22, 2010Jun 28, 2012Alexander RauhMetadata Container-Based User Interface Flexibility
US20120239708 *May 31, 2012Sep 20, 2012Microsoft CorporationDistributed storage for collaboration servers
EP1619618A1 *Jul 19, 2005Jan 25, 2006Sap AgMethod, computer system and computer program product for running a business application
EP1720123A1 *May 3, 2005Nov 8, 2006Sap AgMethod and system for automated generation of access control policies in cross-organizational workflows
WO2007019169A2 *Aug 2, 2006Feb 15, 2007Lehman Brothers IncMethod and system for workflow management of electronic documents
WO2007062523A1 *Dec 1, 2006Jun 7, 2007Rajeev KailaBusiness practice management system
WO2010098864A2 *Feb 26, 2010Sep 2, 2010Master Data Center, Inc.Method and system for workflow integration
Classifications
U.S. Classification726/1, 705/311, 705/310
International ClassificationG06Q10/00
Cooperative ClassificationG06Q50/18, G06Q10/10, G06Q50/184
European ClassificationG06Q10/10, G06Q50/184, G06Q50/18
Legal Events
DateCodeEventDescription
Jun 28, 2013ASAssignment
Owner name: ANAQUA, INC., MASSACHUSETTS
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC;FORD MOTOR COMPANY;REEL/FRAME:030745/0694
Effective date: 20130621
Jun 21, 2013ASAssignment
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:BATMARK LIMITED;REEL/FRAME:030677/0872
Owner name: ANAQUA, INC., MASSACHUSETTS
Effective date: 20130611
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:BATMARK LIMITED;REEL/FRAME:030678/0010
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:BATMARK LIMITED;REEL/FRAME:030677/0409
Owner name: ANAQUA, INC., MASSACHUSETTS
Jun 3, 2005ASAssignment
Owner name: BATMARK LIMITED, UNITED KINGDOM
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC;REEL/FRAME:016092/0792
Effective date: 20040418
Owner name: FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, MICHIGAN
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:FORD MOTOR COMPANY;REEL/FRAME:016092/0639
Effective date: 20050418
Oct 3, 2003ASAssignment
Owner name: FORD MOTOR COMPANY, MICHIGAN
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:PORCARI, DAMIAN O.;DINSDALE, DAVID;REEL/FRAME:014020/0120;SIGNING DATES FROM 20030701 TO 20030720