Insights from a FICPI survey on IP management systems
This has turned IP management from back-office function into a digitally driven, data-centric operation. As a result, firms are leaning heavily on IP management software to streamline workflows, improve compliance, reduce risk, and unlock efficiency. But the pressing question remains: are these tools truly equipped to support the modern pace and complexity of IP operations?
FICPI’s Practice Management Committee conducted a survey in 2025 to assess the capabilities, gaps, and user satisfaction levels with today’s IP management systems, which include docket management and document management tools. With 101 responses from FICPI member IP professionals, the findings provide a grounded look into what’s working—and what urgently needs improvement.
Our thanks to article author Shauna Paul, reviewer Vikrant Rana, to Johan Örtenblad who proposed the topic and prepared the Excel sheet for the docket management survey, and of course to all those who took the time to respond to the survey!
There is no dominant tool in the IP management ecosystem. While Patricia (21.78%), PatOrg (10.89%), and CPA Infotech (7.92%) were among the top tools cited, a significant 34.65% selected "Other", suggesting widespread reliance on custom, niche, or under-the-radar platforms.
This diversity signals a market still in flux—firms are looking for tailored features, but many are left cobbling together partial solutions. Furthermore, some of the document management tools listed in the survey are directed solely to docket management with minimal document management integration.
The good news? Most IP tools are delivering on the non-negotiables:
- Deadline management: supported by 97.96% of respondents’ tools
- Document docketing: present in 83.84% of tools
- Case management: available in 84.69% of systems
- Searchability of files/cases: high at 93.88%
These fundamentals are critical to legal compliance and internal coordination—and here, the tools do not disappoint.
Collaboration is essential in IP—especially when working with foreign associates, inventors, and clients. But the survey reveals limited support:
- Only 60.20% of tools offer a client portal
- Just 52.69% include a CRM/contact management module
- Only 48.42% support communication with foreign associates
- And 54.84% do not support offline file search
These figures point to an area where IP systems have yet to catch up with global, real-time collaboration needs.
In a connected workplace, tools must speak to each other. Yet IP systems often remain isolated:
- Only 50% sync with Microsoft Outlook
- 58% lack open API access
- 66.28% cannot be connected to Power BI or data tools
- 63.83% do not integrate with bookkeeping systems
This lack of interoperability hinders productivity and prevents strategic alignment with other departments like finance, analytics, or executive leadership.
A few tools are moving forward:
- 75.79% include automated workflows
- 51.61% support auto-generation of documents
Yet only 48.42% support document version control, a basic but essential feature for document management. Workflow improvements remain siloed and incomplete across platforms.
Perhaps the biggest red flag: today’s IP tools are not future-ready.
- Only 5.38% include AI functionality
- Just 18.48% offer built-in OCR
- 75.82% lack invention disclosure forms (IDFs)
- 80.22% cannot forecast costs
- 75% don’t offer prior art search or IDS generation
These figures highlight that while foundational functions are in place, the intelligence layer is missing. These features may be superfluous or unnecessary for some firms, particularly if provided with increased cost, however firms aiming for data-driven IP management are held back by outdated tech.
- 69.39% found their tool allows flexible configuration
However, 53.76% say migration is not easy—an obstacle when switching or upgrading tools.
Despite the above concerns, 80% of users believe their system meets their cost or principal expectations. This shows that while tools may not be advanced, many are seen as offering fair value for their price. Although actual cost wasn’t considered in this survey, it could be interesting to compare fees spent on IP management systems, since different size firms will consider different costs to be reasonable. Furthermore, a comparison of features versus cost could provide insight into which add-on abilities or features are considered expensive.
Final thoughts: solid foundations, but the future is calling
Today’s IP management tools do a commendable job of covering the fundamentals – docketing, case tracking, deadline alerts, and basic workflow support. These capabilities form a stable foundation for day-to-day IP operations. However, in an environment where IP strategy is becoming more dynamic, collaborative, and data-intensive, foundational support alone is no longer enough. The future of IP management lies in systems that are not only robust but also intelligent, flexible, and seamlessly integrated into the broader business ecosystem. Tools must evolve to empower legal teams with automation, analytics, AI-driven insights, and global accessibility. For firms aiming to remain competitive and compliant in this fast-moving space, the next generation of IP software must move from being merely functional – to being transformational.
The next frontier demands:
- Deeper integrations with mainstream tools
- Automation that goes beyond templates
- Smart features powered by AI and data analytics
- Seamless collaboration across jurisdictions and teams
- Reasonable costs for all to benefit
As firms review their systems, the question is no longer “Does it work?” but rather “Is it helping us work smarter?”
Next steps
If you are interested in this topic, FICPI’s Practice Management Committee (PMC) is inviting you to join its Technology group to follow the trends, understand what's at stake, and contribute.
Please contact PMC’s President: [email protected]