Classifications

• • G—PHYSICS
  • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
  • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
  • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
  • G06Q10/10—Office automation; Time management

Definitions

• the present invention relates generally to dispute resolution and more specifically relates to a system for providing complete non-judicial dispute resolution management and procedures.
• U.S. Patent No. 5,956,687 to Wamsley, et al. discloses a technique for computerized management of a plaintiff s personal injury case.
• the technique includes establishing works reflective of each phase of a personal injury claim, including a pre-negotiation phase, a technique to generate a demand letter and calculate settlement amounts based on information gathered in the record during handling ofthe claim.
• the Wamsley, et al. discloses a technique for computerized management of a plaintiff s personal injury case. The technique includes establishing works reflective of each phase of a personal injury claim, including a pre-negotiation phase, a technique to generate a demand letter and calculate settlement amounts based on information gathered in the record during handling ofthe claim.
• Non-judicial means originated and/or handled outside ofthe court system - although a court may be involved at some point in the dispute, e.g., to sign a document, order implementation, etc).
• Arbitration can be carried out by a single arbitrator or by a panel of arbitrators.
• the procedure used for arbitration can be somewhat complex, depending on the rules of arbitration agreed to by the parties.
• the level of participation by a mediator or an arbitrator (or panel of arbitrators) can vary widely depending on the scenario selected by the parties. Generally, this rather wide range of unspecified possibilities has been referred to as alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
• ADR alternative dispute resolution
• parties have, from time to time, participated in blind-bid scenarios which mean that each party to a dispute submits a bid without the other party(ies) knowing its bid.
• the bids are evaluated with a view to settling the dispute. If the bids are sufficiently close or fall within a pre-arranged relationship, the dispute can be settled. If not, additional bidding can be provoked.
• Bid reception and evaluation can be effected by a judge, a mediator, an arbitrator, or even electronically. See, for example, U.S. Patent No. 5,7615,269 to Micali, which describes an electronic communications method for resolving a transaction when bids from at least two parties come within a predetermined relationship.
• CyberSettle.Com Inc. has made available a web site which accepts three (3) bids from each party, compares the bids to determine whether they are within an agreed-upon range, and reports settlement or provokes a "last chance" bid.
• Non-judicial dispute resolution includes so many possible procedural schemes that it unduly complicates standard claim handling in a traditional judicial agency such as those enumerated in the previous sentence.
• the present invention is a unique system which enables adverse parties to conduct and manage a full array of non-judicial dispute resolution.
• the present invention includes an electronic architecture which receives, sorts, and stores data related to non-judicial dispute resolution. This architecture enables implementation and management of a full range of non-judicial dispute resolution procedures between two or more adverse parties to a dispute. "Full range of non-judicial dispute resolution procedures" includes bid-style negotiations, mediation, and arbitration.
• the system can be accessible electronically via wired and/or wireless communications, and is preferably accessible via the internet.
• the system is accessible over the internet via a link provided in a web site of another entity.
• wireless communications any viable frequencies available from the electromagnetic spectrum can be used, e.g., radio frequency, microwave, UHF, and other frequencies.
• the architecture itself includes a management module, configured to receive, sort and store dispute resolution data and to provide internal continuous compilation of such data and new data generated during non-judicial dispute resolution procedures.
• the architecture also includes a reckoning module connected to and/or electronically associated with (e.g., including a computerized relationship) the management module for receipt of dispute resolution data, and is designed to implement a selected resolution procedure and to transmit to the management module new data generated during a resolution procedure.
• a reckoning module connected to and/or electronically associated with (e.g., including a computerized relationship) the management module for receipt of dispute resolution data, and is designed to implement a selected resolution procedure and to transmit to the management module new data generated during a resolution procedure.
• the system can be accessed in response to the biographical data input by at least one ofthe parties.
• the biographical data can include personal and/or organization-identification information and/or one or more of an account number, username, a password, etc., and can be verified by the system.
• the access is a tiered leveled access having at least a program manager access and a program user access.
• the program manager access can include a plurality of selectable actions such as, for example and not limited hereby, adding users, modifying existing user data, transferring active cases from one user to another, activating users, modifying account registration data, browsing all disputes, generating detailed dispute reports, generating summary reports of disputes, browsing dispute resolution cases, as well as other actions which are used by a manager of non-judicial dispute resolutions, and any combination of one or more of the foregoing.
• the management module can provide relevant data to a program manager in response to an appropriate signal selected by the program manager.
• a plurality of selectable options can be made available such as, e.g., adding a dispute, responding to a dispute, browsing disputes, generating dispute reports, generating summary reports, as well as any other options required by a case manager of a dispute and any combinations of one or more of such options.
• Other options can be included and the possibilities are not limited by those set forth above.
• the management module provides relevant data to the program user in response to the options selected by the user.
• a further aspect ofthe present architecture is an administrative personnel access which enables required administrative personnel to select from one of a plurality of selectable choices.
• Such choices can include, but is not limited to, informing the parties of disputes submitted to the system which request their response, informing users of settled disputes, marking disputes active, generating prior dispute lists, generating activity reports for the system, providing billing information, generating summary reports for any or all accounts vv ⁇ thin the system, generating audit reports to ensure that the system is functioning properly, and any other choices required of an administrative personnel, and any combination ofthe foregoing.
• the management module provides relevant data to the administrative personnel in response to one or more ofthe choices selected by such personnel.
• the management module ofthe present invention can also provide operational support to be used in connection the non judicial proceeding(s).
• the system can provide reporting services in the event the proceedings require such services, e.g., in the event mediation or arbitration proceedings requiring a "record" are used.
• the reporting services can be called upon for both on-line and off-line proceedings, and can include stenographic services, and all types of electronic reporting services such as audio, video, etc.
• Another operational support available in the present invention is translation services and/or interpretation services. This support can also be rendered on-line or off-line, and can be made available for all types of non-judicial proceedings and possible in the present system.
• a settlement arrangement can be structured for a pay out over time and/or fully funded by a third party (e.g., lending institution, factor, etc.).
• the structured settlement feature ofthe invention can be made available at any time before, during, and/or after the non-judicial resolution proceeding(s).
• the architecture also provides to the user a "settle-only" access. "Settle-only" access enables a party to a dispute to access the system for purposes of only attempting to resolve that dispute via the system and does not allow access to the management capabilities ofthe system.
• the management module provides relevant data to the reckoning module. Moreover, the system displays only the relevant data to a settle-only access user.
• the architecture of the present invention further includes a claims-data storage and retrieval system which retains data relating to non-judicial dispute resolution and enables retrieval of data by category.
• the categories in the retrieval system include, but are not limited to, description ofthe nature of the dispute, settlement amount, venue, type of injury, body part injured, sex, age, occupation, geographical data, and any combination of one or more ofthe foregoing categories, and any other information capable of being stored in a data bank in an electronic system, e.g., computer system.
• the storage and retrieval system data is confidential.
• the management module provides relevant data to the reckoning module in response to the selection by one or both ofthe parties.
• the resolution procedure is a bid-style negotiation
• one or both ofthe parties can select either a "blind bid” or an "open bid” type of negotiation.
• a profile prompter prompts a party selecting a dispute resolution procedure to indicate whether or not it is a plaintiff and/or court.
• the responding party also provides information in response to a prompt indicating the profile ofthe responding party.
• the party Depending on who the party is, i.e., plaintiff or lawyer, the party then provides either a demand (as a plaintiff) or an offer (as a court).
• the reckoning module preferably provides a pre-selected criteria for comparing the demand and the offer to determine whether or not the dispute can be resolved. If the pre-selected criteria is satisfied, the system can send a notification to the plaintiff and/or liability of resolution.
• the system can resolve the dispute for the value of the demand if the value of the demand is less than or equal to the offer, or, for the average between the demand and the offer if the demand is within a pre-selected percentage ofthe offer.
• a pre-selected percentage range can be from about 5% to about 35%.
• the system can also ask that the dispute can be resolved for the value ofthe demand if the demand is between the high value and the low value ofthe range, or, for the low value ofthe resolution range if the demand is equal to or less than the low value.
• the low value can be a fixed value whereas the high value can be a changing value.
• On-line proceedings can be real time such that all parties and a mediator(s) or arbitrator(s) are in communication simultaneously.
• On-line proceedings are not limited to a real time scenario, and can be conducted via a format which permits delayed responses. Such formats can include, but are not limited to, chat room(s), bulletin board(s), etc.
• Off-line proceedings can be "in-person” and "not-in-person.”
• relevant material, such as evidence can be transmitted electronically, again via wire and/or wireless communication (each party can also submit material via mail, delivery service, courier, etc.).
• all or even a portion ofthe proceedings can be conducted via video transmission.
• the reckoning module transmits new dated generated to the management module for compiling, sorting and storing.
• the management module provides relevant data to a mediator in response to a mediation selection.
• the mediation can be real-time on-line mediation wherein information (evidence or otherwise ) can be transmitted to the mediator electronically, e.g., by fax, by phone, video, and by computer (e-mail) when available, etc.
• information can be transmitted to the mediator electronically, e.g., by fax, by phone, video, and by computer (e-mail) when available, etc.
• the mediation is off-line, at least some ofthe necessary information can be transmitted on-line by the same modes set forth above.
• the management module provides relevant data to an arbitrator, or a board of arbitrators, in response to the selection to arbitrate.
• the arbitration is real-time on-line arbitration, information (which can include evidence) can be sent electronically by telephone, fax, video and via computer (e-mail) when available, etc.
• the arbitration is off-line, at least some ofthe information can be sent on-line by electronic communications.
• the system provides the ability ofthe non-judicial dispute resolution in the present case to respond to an election by one or more of the parties to move to a different non-judicial dispute resolution procedure regardless of the one which is chosen first.
• the election to go to a different resolution procedure can be made, for example, because the first method chosen has not succeeded.
• one or more ofthe parties can enter into a bid-style negotiation which may not succeed; advance to a mediated (on or off-line); and or move to an on or offline arbitration proceeding.
• This entire procedure can be conducted seamlessly, that is to say without re-entry of data previously provided.
• information relating to value of demands and bids can be kept confidential as the parties proceed from one resolution procedure to another. Consequently, a case manager can take advantage of a full range of non-judicial dispute resolution techniques and have the ability to fully manage the case in each, and in all, ofthe different procedures selected.
• a preferred embodiment contemplates a fee structure which financially encourages each ofthe parties to resolve the dispute.
• One such structure requires each party to pay a certain amount to participate in the resolution proceeding(s). Thus, the plaintiff must pay a fee for submission of each demand and the court must pay a fee for submission of each offer.
• These fees can also be graduated to correspond to the financial magnitude ofthe dispute, e.g., a "dog bite" case to a serious injury or even a death case.
• a variety of schemes can be employed, but this feature of the invention financially rewards resolution and financially penalizes non- resolution by fee structure.
• the present invention also includes separate aspects ofthe system which are unique to managing and conducting non-judicial dispute resolution, such as the system for managing the non-judicial dispute resolution separately (another aspect of it is the electronic architecture for managing non-judicial dispute resolution). Furthermore, the present invention includes the concept of maintaining an on-line real-time updated database for managing non-judicial dispute resolutions which includes the management module configured as described above, e.g., to receive, sort and store dispute resolution data and to provide internal continuous compilation ofthe data into searchable records. This management module can be updated in response to changes or additions to said compilation of data.
• aspects ofthe present invention include, separately, a system for managing non-judicial dispute resolution which includes an electronic interface along with multiple types of access to an electronic architecture as described hereinabove.
• the present invention also includes a method of managing non-judicial dispute resolution by providing and maintaining an electronic interface having multiple types of access to an electronic architecture as fully described hereinbefore.
• Another aspect ofthe method ofthe present invention includes managing non- judicial disputes by providing an accessible architecture set forth above, receiving dispute resolution data from one or more ofthe parties, storing the data and prompting the parties to implement the full range of non-judicial dispute resolution procedures as also described hereinbefore.
• the present invention also includes a method of managing non-judicial dispute resolutions by accessing an architecture having non-judicial dispute resolution data stored therein and retrieving data relating to the dispute, reviewing the stored data to determine if an action is needed, and selecting a plurality of selectable choices and action to be performed with respect to the data.
• Another advantage realized as a result ofthe present invention is that organizations charged with the duty of resolving disputes, e.g., insurance companies, claims departments, law firms, etc. are now able to manage and conduct non-judicial dispute resolution without the necessity of having to provide a complete on-site installation of a non-judicial case management infrastructure.
• Such infrastructure usually includes docketing systems, electronic (e.g., computer) tracking and reminder systems, etc.
• the present invention also reduces the need for personal communication between advocates which are required in the absence of such a non-judicial dispute resolution system.
• Another advantage ofthe present invention is the ability to actively negotiate a high volume of cases in a short period of time, the present invention virtually eliminates the need to retrieve and review individual "hard copy" files of cases.
• Fig. 1 is a block diagram of the system ofthe present invention
• Fig. 2 is a block diagram ofthe architecture ofthe system ofthe present invention.
• Fig. 3 is a flow chart ofthe steps for accessing the system ofthe present invention and various management options available to a user accessing the system;
• Fig. 4 is a flow chart ofthe process for adding a dispute, and the data related thereto, into the system of the present invention.
• the present system enables a party to avail itself of a complete system for managing and engaging in non-judicial dispute resolution.
• a party can even enhance its ability to successfully settle a dispute in a non-judicial setting by accessing dispute-settlement information made available by the present invention.
• a party can access the inventive system by connecting with it electronically such as, for example, through a web site maintained on the internet.
• biographical information is provided by the user (party) which the system identifies by category, verifies, when appropriate, records as part of its management function, and correlates, when appropriate, to a user code identifying such party.
• the system issues identifying indicia, e.g., account number, user name, password, etc.
• the present system is not limited by language and can be adapted to be in any language and/or dialect.
• the description herein relies on U.S. dollars in its examples, but the present invention is not constrained in scope to a single currency, and can be adapted for use with any currency.
• the system can. as a part of its management function, provide different levels of identification and use.
• a party inputs data corresponding to a non-judicial dispute resolution
• the system sorts, organizes and compiles the data, and enables the party to avail itself of a full range of non-judicial dispute resolution procedures.
• the system also allows users ofthe system to organize data corresponding to multiple disputes, manage that data into a form selected by the user, and generate reports based on the data from one or more disputes that have been input into the system to which they are a party.
• the present system allows parties to disputes to effectively and efficiently input, sort, organize and manage the data corresponding to disputes, and resolve disputes via the internet.
• a dispute as defined in the present invention, relates to a disagreement or other adversarial relationship between two or more parties.
• the parties to a dispute are divided into two main classifications, a submitting party, which is the party who initiates the dispute, and the responding party, which is the party against whom the dispute is directed and is invited to participate in the non- judicial dispute resolution process.
• the submitting or responding party can be plaintiff or victim.
• the submitting party and the responding party access the system and manage all data records which are related to any and all disputes, whether settled or not settled, in which they are parties.
• the submitting party and the responding party to a particular dispute can take part in a bid style negotiation by entering consideration into the system for the purpose of reaching a settlement ofthe dispute. If and when the bidding process does not resolve the dispute, the parties can continue without interruption to other non-judicial dispute resolution procedures, e.g., on or off-line mediation, arbitration, etc. Alternatively, a party can initiate the process using another technique and subsequently engage the bid-style, if desired.
• the present invention is hereinafter described for use as an internet web-based system. It will be evident to one skilled in the art that, given the following detailed description, that the present invention can be modified for use with any interconnected network which is linked together by a standard set of protocols (such as TCP/IP and HTTP) to form a distributed network. While this type of network is commonly referred to as the Internet, the present invention is contemplated for use with all variations which may be made to the internet in the future, including changes and additions to standard protocols.
• a standard set of protocols such as TCP/IP and HTTP
• the present system is accessed by the user via a web browser, such as that described above, which is capable of communicating with the web site or home page which supports and provides access to the architecture of the present system.
• the web browser ofthe user is resident within a user terminal which has a CPU, monitor, keyboard and mouse. The user instructs the web browser to seek out and display the web site ofthe present system.
• the web server is accessed, the web site for the present system is displayed.
• the system of the present invention can be accessed by providing a "hot link" embedded within the web site of another entity. With this arrangement, a user, who is actively viewing the web site of another entity, can easily select the "hot link" corresponding to the present system.
• a “hot link” as defined in the present invention can be an embedded URL code or other indication means which, with its selection, instructs the web browser ofthe user to seek out a specified web page(s) which interact with the present system.
• This "hot link” feature is especially useful when the web site of another entity is engaged in a business where disputes may occur, such as, for example, a web site which sells goods or services.
• the purchaser, vendor or web site entity itself may wish to provide access to the present system via a "hot link” as an avenue for submitting, organizing and managing the data related to the dispute, and for possibly conducting an on-line settlement of that dispute.
• the management capabilities of the present system with relation to organizing, sorting and compiling the data relating to disputes will be useful for web site entities in tracking and reporting the disputes that have arisen out of activities originating from their web site.
• the reporting and organizing of this data will enable the web sites to determine if problems exist with any one particular customer or vendor and their goods or services.
• the user accesses the web site and it is displayed, if the user is a new user to the system, they are directed to register with the system to obtain an account number, a username and a password. During the registration process, the user is requested to input relevant biographical information such as, name, address, phone number, e-mail, etc.
• the system reviews the information and confirms the validity ofthe entered data. Review ofthe registration data can be effectuated by the system itself, by an additional dedicated physically distinct computer system, or by an actual system staff member. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, other forms of registration may be used, including but not limited to regular mail and electronic mail.
• the registration may be deleted from the system so as to free- up system resources.
• the username and password are activated for that user and that user can then access the system.
• a user accessing the system already has a username and password, they can proceed to sign-in.
• a user attempting to sign-in to the system is prompted to enter a valid username and password.
• a valid username and password are entered, the user is given access to the system's management and dispute resolution capabilities.
• Fig. 1 shows one embodiment ofthe system of the present invention.
• the system is configured for access by one or more user terminals UTi, UT , UT 3 ... UT n ).
• the user terminals can be directly linked to the system, or, preferably are linked to the system via the Internet 2.
• the present invention resides on a state of the art, high-performance computer server connected to the Internet via a high speed communications line.
• the present system can be configured for access via other forms of electronic or wireless communication, such as, radio frequency, microwave, UHF and other frequencies selected from the electromagnetic spectrum.
• the system ofthe present invention includes an electronic, preferably a computer-based, architecture 3 for managing data relevant to non-judicial dispute resolution, for conducting non-judicial dispute resolution and/or for transmitting dispute resolution data for use in any ofthe non-judicial dispute resolution procedures.
• the architecture 3 allows the parties to a dispute to input the data relevant to the dispute, organize, compile and store the data, query the data, update the data with any additional data generated during a resolution procedure via the system, and generate detailed reports for any and all cases with which the party requesting the report is a party.
• the architecture 3 ofthe present invention includes a management module 5 configured to receive, sort and retrievably store dispute resolution data and provide an internal continuous compilation of that data.
• the management module 5 identifies, sorts, compiles, organizes and stores the data in a queryable, retrievable and transmittable form.
• the management module 5 retrieves, sorts and transmits the results ofthe query to the requestor ofthe data.
• management module 5 is configured to transmit notices to each party to a dispute regarding a change in the status of the dispute, the input of additional data in relation to the dispute, the results of a query ofthe data contained within management module, or any other information relating to the dispute and/or for transmitting the dispute resolution data to the appropriate entity for mediation and/or arbitration.
• the management module 5 is prompted to send the notices/information by an appropriate signal generated in response to receipt of a new dispute, new data for an existing dispute, a query, or a request for the transmission ofthe data for mediation and/or arbitration.
• the management module 5 preferably, and as shown in Fig. 2, communicates with the relevant parties to a dispute by sending an e-mail containing the relevant information. It is contemplated, however, that the management module may be configured to send the appropriate notices/information via channels 8 other than, or in addition to e-mail, such as facsimile or regular mail.
• a dispute is marked as INACTIVE by default upon entry into the system. If a dispute was submitted by a dispute was submitted by a lawyer the status ofthe dispute is set to OPEN by default, indicating that no demands have been placed on it by the plaintiff. If the dispute was submitted by a plaintiff, the status of the dispute is set to NO OFFER by default, indicating that no offers have been placed on it by the court. Further, upon successful retrieval ofthe dispute, the dispute is marked ACTIVE and the status ofthe dispute is changed from NO OFFER to OPEN, indicating to the user that demands or offers may be entered on the dispute.
• the status of the dispute may be changed to Contacted, Initial Offer, Initial Demand, New Offer, New Demand, Final Offer, or Final Demand, to name a few.
• the system may also utilize secondary dispute status codes to provide users with a greater level of detailed information.
• the following secondary dispute status codes may be utilized: Letter Faxed, Left Message, Will Participate, Awaiting
• primary and secondary dispute status codes will allow the users of the system to more efficiently and effectively obtain detailed reporting information because they can sort the dispute data by both primary and secondary dispute status codes.
• the management module of the present invention can also provide operational support 7 to be used in connection the non-judicial proceeding(s).
• the system can provide reporting services in the event the proceedings require such services, e.g., in the event mediation or arbitration proceedings requiring a "record" are used.
• the reporting services can be called upon for both on-line and off-line proceedings, and can include stenographic services, and all types of electronic reporting services such as audio, video, etc.
• Another operational support available in the present invention is translation services and/or interpretation services. This support can also be rendered on-line or off-line, and can be made available for all types of non-judicial proceedings possible in the present system.
• a settlement arrangement can be structured for a pay out over time and/or fully funded by a third party (e.g., lending institution, factor, etc.).
• a third party e.g., lending institution, factor, etc.
• the structured settlement feature ofthe invention can be made available at any time before, during, and/or after the non-judicial resolution proceeding(s).
• the user selects the appropriate support needed when accessing the system's management module.
• a user can easily access the present system to manage all dispute related data, to facilitate an organized transmission ofthe data for mediation and/or arbitration, or to actually conduct non-judicial dispute resolution.
• access to the present system is a tiered level access comprising at least a program manager access and a program user access.
• the authority given to each type of access will be discussed in greater detail below.
• Program Managers and the Program Users access the system typically for the same account.
• Program Managers are individuals at a company, law firm, municipality, etc. (which can be referred to, along with an individual, herein as an "account") who are responsible for maintaining the account with the present system, such as an office manager or information systems personnel.
• the Program Users are individuals within those companies, law firms, municipalities, etc., who have authority to settle the disputes, such as attorneys or insurance company representatives. Although this is generally the hierarchy within the system, this does not mean that any one individual can not be both a Program Manager and a Program User.
• Program Managers manage the Program Users and have access to view and prepare reports for each separate dispute or all disputes submitted for their particular account.
• the system when granted access to the system as a Program Manager, the system prompts the user to select from a plurality of selectable actions 24 from a Program Manager Page ofthe web site.
• selectable actions may include, for example, add additional users 26. modify the existing user data 27, transfer active cases from one user to another user 28, deactivate users 29, modify any account registration data 30, browse all disputes 31, generate detailed dispute reports for all disputes 32, generate summary reports 33, browse all dispute resolution cases 34, send the system an e-mail 35, and log-off the system 36, and any combination of these actions, or any additional actions which may be provided.
• an appropriate signal is sent to the management module ofthe system.
• the management module Upon receipt ofthe signal, the management module will search the dispute resolution data stored therein for the relevant information, gather that information, sort it into an appropriate form and transmit it to the Program Manager.
• the relevant information retrieved by the management module will be dependent upon the signal sent by the Program Manager. In other words, each action chosen will be associated with a different query ofthe dispute resolution data stored within the management module and therefore, retrieve different amounts, quantities and types of information.
• Program Manager Page offers the following selectable actions to a Program Manager: Adding Program Users
• Program Manager clicks on the "Add User" icon 26 on the Program Manager Page to access the Add User Form.
• the Add User Form prompts the Program Manager for the input of relevant Program User information such as name ofthe user, department, telephone number, e-mail address, etc.
• the Program Manager clicks on the "Submit" icon in the Add User Form.
• a confirmation screen appears indicating that the individual has been added to the system as a Program User and displays their user name and password.
• the password may be randomly generated by the system itself, or it may be selected by the Program Manager. This information is then provided to the Program User so that he or she may access the system.
• the Program Manager may update Program User data at any time.
• the Program Manager clicks on the "Modify User" icon 27 on the Program Manager Page to access a Program User List, sorted by User Last Name and User First Name.
• an Update User Form appears.
• the Program Manager may update and change any and all data previously entered for a Program User.
• the Program Manager may save those changes by clicking on the "Submit" icon within the form. Thereafter, the Program Manager is notified that the changes have been saved.
• Transferring disputes from one Program User to another may also be used when a Program User has changed from one department to another within the company, or firm.
• a person changes departments they may be added to the system as a "new" Program User with all of their original data, except with a different listed department. All disputes may then be transferred from the "old" Program User to the "new” Program User, even though they are the same User.
• the "old” User may then be deactivated (discussed in greater detail below). This procedure allows for the movement of Program Users from one department to another while, at the same time, retaining historical data on the disputes assigned to the "old" User and department.
• the Program Manager clicks on the "Transfer Cases" icon 28 on the Program Manager Page to access the Transfer Disputes List.
• the Program Manager clicks on the Program User from whom they wish to transfer a dispute(s). If there are no cases to transfer, a message will appear indicating such. If there are disputes which can be transferred, a Program User to Transfer Disputes To List appears. To avoid improper selection of a Program User to transfer disputes to, the identical Program User selected is not displayed on this list.
• the Program Manager clicks on the applicable Program User to transfer the dispute. Thereafter, the Program Manager will be notified that the dispute(s) have been successfully transferred from one Program User to another.
• the Program Manager may deactivate a Program User at any time. For example, a Program User who has no active disputes may be deactivated. To deactivate a Program User, the Program Manager clicks on the "Deactivate User" icon 29 on the Program Manager Page to access the Deactivate User List. From this list, the Program Manager clicks on the Program User they wish to deactivate. If the Program User selected still has an active dispute a message will appear indicating such, and no action will be allowed to be taken. If the Program User has no active disputes within the system, a message will be shown to the Program Manager indicating that the Program User has been deactivated.
• the Program Manager may, at any time, update the account registration data.
• the Program Manager clicks on the "Account Data” icon 30 on the Program Manager Page to access the Update Registration Form. After the appropriate changes are made, they are saved by clicking on the "Submit” icon within the form. Thereafter, a message will appear indicating that the changes have been saved.
• This feature allows the Program Manager to browse and sort all disputes that have been submitted to the system by all Program Users within an account.
• the Program Manager clicks on the "Browse Disputes" icon 31 on the Program Manager Page to access the Browse Disputes List.
• the Browse Disputes List is displayed to the Program Manager as sorted by Dispute Status.
• the system can be configured to have the list sorted by any desired criteria.
• the Program Manager can simply click on the "Sort By" icon. Thereafter, the list can be sorted by any category available, such as dispute, caption, status, claimant, court, etc. Additionally, the Program Manager can sort the list by multiple categories simultaneously, if desired. After choosing the sort order, the list will be sorted and displayed accordingly.
• the Program Manager may also click on the "Find Dispute" icon to find a particular dispute. Thereafter, a Find Dispute Form will appear. The Program Manager then inputs characters in any or all ofthe fields in the Find Dispute Form so that the system can locate the dispute.
• the fields displayed for searching are, for example, dispute, caption, claimant, lawyer, etc.
• the system is prompted to search for any matching disputes and display only those disputes which match the entered characters.
• Program Managers can also create a viewable and printable detailed account report on all disputes submitted by all users within the account. Clicking on the "Reports" icon 32 causes the Report Form to be displayed. By selecting various criteria and sort orders, virtually any variation of a report may be generated.
• the criteria used to generate the account reports may include, in a bodily injury dispute for example, the following: all departments / one particular department, all Program Users / one particular Program User, all opposing parties / one particular opposing party, all dispute types / one particular dispute type, all venues / one particular venue, all injury types / one particular injury type, all primary body parts injured / one particular primary body part injured, all disputes / only active disputes, etc. For other types of disputes, other relevant criteria may be used to generate account reports.
• the sort order may be arranged in any desired manner, such as, for example, department / Program User / dispute; Program User / dispute; department / Program User / status; Program User / status; department / Program User / dispute type; Program User / dispute type; opposing party / claim; and opposing party / status.
• the system enables the requested information to be arranged and displayed in any desired order.
• the Program Manager can print the Report. Generating Summary Account Case Reports
• Program Managers may further elect to create viewable and printable summary reports on all cases submitted by all users within the account. Clicking on the "Summaries" icon 33 causes the Summary Report Menu to be displayed.
• the Program Manager may elect to view summary statistics sorted, subtotaled and totaled by any ofthe following qualifying criteria including, but not limited to: user witl ⁇ i department, user, dispute type, primary injury, primary body part injured, venue, opposing party, or any other qualifying criteria within the system.
• the Program Manager may also elect to view summary statistics based on any combination ofthe following quantifying criteria including, but not limited to: number of disputes, number of disputes activated, number of disputes engaged, number of disputes settled, percentage of disputes settled, total monetary value of disputes settled, average monetary value of disputes settled, or any other quantifying criteria within the system.
• dispute resolution data can be entered into the system, organized, sorted, compiled and transmitted to the appropriate personnel for use in mediation and/or arbitration proceedings.
• the Program Manager clicks on the "All Cases" icon 34 on the Program Manager Page to access the All Cases List.
• the list is sorted by Case Status.
• the sorting criteria may be changed to provide a display customized to the Program Manager's particular needs.
• the Program Manager clicks on the "Sort By" icon to sort the list. Thereafter, the system displays the information requested in the sort order requested. Further, the Program Manager can sort the list by multiple categories simultaneously, if desired. After choosing the sort order, the list will be sorted and displayed accordingly. Additionally, the Program Manager may also click on the "Find Case” icon to find a particular case. Thereafter, a Find Case Form will appear. The Program Manager then inputs characters in any or all ofthe fields in the Find Case Form so that the system can locate any mediation or arbitration cases which match the input characters. The fields displayed for searching are, for example, case type, caption, claimant, jury, etc. By clicking on the "Submit” icon within the form, a signal is sent to the management module instructing it to retrieve any matching mediation or arbitration cases and transmit those cases to the Program Manager.
• the Program Manager may select to analyze settlement data for all mediation and/or arbitration cases for a particular Hearing Officer.
• the data analyzed may include settlement amounts, award data, case status, case type, etc. This will allow program managers to analyze the performance of particular Hearing Officers with respect to particular case types, or any other information available.
• the Program Manager may click on the E-Mail icon 35 from the Program Manager Page at any time to send an E-Mail to the system administrative department.
• the system will automatically set the "Send To" field in users E-Mail program to the assigned e-mail address for the system administrative department.
• the Program Manager may also choose to "Log Off' the system from the Program Manager Page. To do this, the Program Manager simply clicks on the Log Off icon 36.
• the present system is designed to automatically log off any Program Manager who has not clicked the mouse or pressed any key on the keyboard for a pre-set period of time, e.g., 30 minutes. This automatic log off is setup in order to free resources to other Program Managers (or Program Users) who may be actively using the system.
• a Program Manager simply needs to log-in again in order to continue working with the system.
• the Program Manager may be provided with access to the system as a Program User 37.
• the Program Manager may access the Program User Page and all actions 38 given to a Program User. Use of the system as a Program User is described in detail below.
• Program Manager may also be given access to the system as a Program User.
• Program Users are provided with access codes comprising a user name and a password. Once provided, a Program User can then log-on to the system. As seen in Fig. 3, when granted access to the system as a Program User, the user is presented with various selectable options 38 from a Program User Page ofthe web site. Depending upon the authority given to the Program User, the information and selectable options provided on the Program User Page will vary. These selectable options may include, for example, add a dispute 40, respond to a dispute 41, browse disputes 42, generate summary reports 43, generate dispute reports 44, send the system an E-Mail 45, log off 46, or any other options with which the Program User may be allowed to utilize.
• an appropriate message is sent to the management module ofthe system.
• the management module Upon receipt ofthe message, the management module will search the dispute resolution data stored therein for the relevant information, gather that information, sort it into an appropriate form and transmit the same to the Program User.
• the relevant information retrieved by the management module will be dependant upon the message sent to it by the Program User. In other words, each option chosen will be associated with a different query ofthe dispute resolution data stored within the management module and therefore, retrieve different amounts, quantities and types of information.
• the Program User Page offers the following selectable options to a Program User.
• Adding (or submitting) disputes to the system is the primary activity for a Program User.
• Program Users begin the process of adding a dispute by clicking on the Add Dispute icon 40 from the Program User Page.
• a Program User selects to add a dispute 40, they are then prompted to select a profile classification 58 as either a plaintiff or a court.
• the general nature of the dispute can be a general dispute, a bad loan, a business transaction, construction, contract, credit card, foreclosure, labor and employment, landlord / tenant, lender liability, partnership agreement, personal injury, professional liability, purchase and sale transaction, rental agreement, intellectual property, subrogation, worker compensation, or any other cause of action recognized by a judicial system, whether in the United States or abroad.
• Program User is prompted by the system to select an Opposing Party at 61 from a list generated from the data stored in the management module, or a new Opposing Party whose data is not yet entered into the system.
• Opposing Parties are those individuals, firms or companies who have accounts with the system or who have been users ofthe system.
• the present system is designed such that every time a Program User within a particular account adds a new dispute to the system, data on both the Opposing Party and an individual person representing that Opposing Party is retained within the management module ofthe system. This retaining of information is done for a number of reasons.
• reports may be generated based on those Opposing Parties. This is particularly advantageous in determining which Opposing Parties respond to dispute submissions and the analysis of disputes settled with those Opposing Parties.
• the Program User is prompted at 62 to enter additional dispute information such as name of case and reference numbers, etc.
• the type of dispute information requested will depend upon the dispute type selected. For example, if the general nature ofthe dispute is personal injury, then additional information requested would be information such as injury type, venue, primary body parts injured, etc.
• a body parts injured display can be selected by clicking on an icon. This display will assist the users in identifying the body parts injured by displaying a human skeleton from which they may select any number of body parts involved in the dispute.
• the user When selecting to utilize the resolution capabilities ofthe system, the user is prompted at 66 to enter an initial demand if profiled as a plaintiff, or an initial offer if profiled as a court.
• the system can display at 67, additional system options which can be selected or entered at 68 by the party submitting the dispute.
• additional system options which may be selected by the submitted party will be described in greater detail throughout the present specification.
• the Program User submitting the dispute wishes to use the management capabilities ofthe system to organize the dispute data and submit the same for mediation and/or arbitration, they can simply submit the above-entered information to the management module at 64 for sorting, compiling, organization, storing and notification 65 to the opposing party and appropriate mediation or arbitration personnel.
• the Program User submitting the dispute chooses to negotiate the dispute via the system or transmit the entered data for mediation and/or arbitration, after all relevant data corresponding to the dispute is entered, the Program User then submits the data to the management module at 64 for identification, sorting, organizing and storing by clicking on the Submit icon.
• the Program User submitting the dispute (whether profiled as a plaintiff or a lawyer) is preferably prompted to review all the entered data before it is finally submitted to the management module.
• the Program User has the opportunity to review the accuracy ofthe entered data and make any changes which may be required. If all ofthe information is correct, the Program User then clicks on the Submit icon to finally send the data to the management module ofthe system.
• the Program User will then receive an indication that the dispute has been properly saved.
• a dispute is entered into the system, several actions begin. As seen in Fig. 4, a notice is sent to the opposing party at 65 indicating that a dispute soliciting their response has been entered into the system.
• the opposing party is contacted by letter, e-mail or any other means available.
• the opposing party is provided with a user code and dispute code so that they may access the system via the web site. Unless the opposing party responds, additional follow-up notices may be sent.
• the Program User submitting the dispute into the system may also mark the dispute as a priority.
• This option invokes additional notification services from the system.
• the system will normally inform the opposing party of a submitted dispute via regular mail. If a dispute is marked as a priority, administrative personnel for the system will attempt to contact the opposing party directly, in addition to the mailed notice, in order to actively persuade them to activate and engage the dispute.
• the party submitting the dispute may set the time limit the opposing party has to respond.
• a party enters a dispute into the system they can specify the maximum number of days the dispute may be negotiated before the negotiation process is automatically terminated. If the expiration date ofthe dispute is set to 60 days from the date of entry, the dispute status will be changed to expired if there is no response from the opposing party within 60 days.
• the opposing party After the opposing party receives notification that a dispute has been entered into the system, they can respond to the submitted dispute in several ways. Before responding, however, the opposing party must have their access code and dispute code. Without these, the opposing party cannot access the system.
• the opposing party uses the web browser of their computer to locate and retrieve the web site for the present system as described above. After accessing the web site, the responding party is prompted to either utilize the settle- only access (if not already a Program Manager/User ofthe present system), register a new account with the system and establish themselves as a Program Manager/User, or indicate that they are not interested in utilizing the present system to conduct 0/68865
• the management module Upon entry of a valid access code and a dispute code, the management module will send all dispute resolution data corresponding to these input codes to the reckoning module for application ofthe pre-selected criteria.
• the process of applying the pre-selected criteria will be discussed in greater detail with respect to the reckoning module below.
• the responding party may not agree to utilize the present system to resolve the dispute. If the responding party so desires, they may click on the "Not Interested" icon. If the responding party is not interested, the present system will notify the submitting party via e-mail that the responding party is not interested in negotiating via the system.
• each may access the dispute at any time to either enter a new demand or offer, or simply to see if your adversary has entered a new demand or offer.
• the responding party Before the demand/offer is submitted to the reckoning module, however, the responding party will be prompted by the system for a final review ofthe dispute data and demand/offer amount to ensure accuracy. If the data is accurate, the responding party then finally submits the demand/offer. The system will then determine if the dispute is resolved or not resolved based upon the pre-selected criteria within the reckoning module.
• the system is designed such that either party does not need to wait until their adversary enters a new demand or offer in order for them to enter additional demands or offers, they can enter as many demands or offers as they deem appropriate.
• the parties may choose to have the dispute forwarded for mediation or arbitration. If this route is chosen, all information entered into the system will be forwarded to the appropriate personnel by the management module for mediation or arbitration.
• a mediator or arbitrator If the parties mutually agree to allow their dispute to be decided by mediation or arbitration, all parties would then have an opportunity to submit arguments, information and proof, to a mediator or arbitrator.
• information is preferably submitted to the mediator or arbitrator via a network communication channel, such as wireless communication, the Internet or any suitable equivalent thereof.
• the mediator or arbitrator would then review the respective positions and issue a decision to both parties.
• the mediation and/or arbitration can be a real-time on-line mediation or arbitration, or can be an off-line mediation or arbitration.
• the parties submit arguments, information, proof, and any other evidence to be considered by the mediator or arbitrator via the Internet.
• the parties may also include offers and demands with the dispute information submitted.
• the mediator or arbitrator can request additional information or explanation from a party, should such further information or explanation be required.
• Program Users may also manage the data entered for a dispute and the new data generated during the dispute process.
• This feature allows the Program User to browse and sort all disputes that they have submitted or that they are a party.
• the Browse Disputes List is displayed to the Program User as sorted by Dispute Status.
• the system can be configured to have the list sorted by any desired criteria.
• the Program User can simply click on the Sort By icon. Thereafter, the list can be sorted by any category available, such as dispute, caption, status, claimant, court, etc. Additionally, the Program User can sort the list by multiple categories simultaneously, if desired. After choosing the sort order, the list will be sorted and displayed accordingly.
• the Program User may also click on the "Find Dispute" icon to find a particular dispute. Thereafter, a Find Dispute Form will appear. The Program User then inputs characters in any or all ofthe fields in the Find Dispute Form so that the system can locate the dispute.
• the fields displayed for searching are, for example, dispute, caption, claimant, lawyer, etc.
• the system is prompted to search for any matching disputes and display only those disputes which match the entered characters.
• the criteria used to generate the dispute reports may include, but is not limited to, the following: all opposing parties / one particular opposing party, all dispute types / one particular dispute type, all venues / one particular venue, all injury types / one particular injury type, all primary body parts injured / one particular primary body part injured, all disputes / only active disputes, etc.
• the sort order may be arranged in any desired manner, such as, for example, claim; status; dispute type; opposing party / claim; opposing party / status; and opposing party / dispute type. The system, however, enables the requested information to be arranged in any desired order.
• the Program User can print the Report.
• Program Users may further elect to create viewable and printable summary reports on all disputes which they have submitted or in which they are a party. Clicking on the Summaries icon 43 causes the Summary Report Menu to be displayed.
• the Program User may elect to view summary statistics sorted, subtotaled and totaled by any ofthe following qualifying criteria, including, but not limited to: dispute type, primary injury, primary body part injured, venue, opposing party, or any other qualifying criteria within the system.
• the Program User may also elect to view summary statistics based on any combination ofthe following quantifying criteria, including but not limited to: number of disputes, number of disputes activated, number of disputes engaged, number of disputes settled, percentage of disputes settled, total monetary value of disputes settled, average monetary value of disputes settled, or any other quantifying criteria within the system.
• the Program User may select to analyze settlement data for all mediation and/or arbitration cases for a particular Hearing Officer.
• the data analyzed may include settlement amounts, award data, case status, case type, etc. This will allow program users to analyze the performance of particular Hearing Officers with respect to particular case types.
• the Program User may click on the E-Mail icon 45 from the Program User Page at any time to send an E-Mail to the system administrative department.
• the system will automatically set the "Send To" field in users E-Mail program to the assigned e-mail address for the system administrative department.
• the Program User may also choose to "Log Off' the system from the Program
• the present system is designed to automatically log off any Program User who has not clicked the mouse or pressed any key on the keyboard for a pre-set period of time, most preferably 30 minutes.
• This automatic log off is set-up in order to free resources to other Program Users (or Program Managers) who may be actively using the system.
• Program Users or Program Managers
• all Program Users simply need to log-in again in order to continue working with the system.
• Administrative Personnel Access Function When granted access as an administrative personnel, the user is presented with a plurality of selectable choices 47. Administrative Personnel Access and the selectable choices are shown in Fig. 3, and include informing opposing parties of disputes submitted to the system which request their response 52, informing parties of settled disputes 53, generate activity reports 49, generating priority dispute lists 54, marking disputes active 51 , providing billing information to the system billing department 55, generating Account Summary Reports 50 and generating Audit Reports 56 to ensure that the system is functioning properly, or any combination of these choices.
• a Date Range Form appears. After entering valid Date Range values, and clicking on the Submit icon within the screen, a Report will be generated to the screen listing, on separate pages, a list of new disputes submitted within the date range with all data necessary to inform opposing parties of those disputes, a list of all disputes settled within the date range with all data necessary to inform parties of those disputes settled, a list of new disputes submitted which are marked as priority within the date range with all data necessary to inform opposing parties of those disputes on a prioritized basis, a list of disputes to be forwarded for mediation or arbitration that have either not settled or expired within the date range which were marked for forwarding for mediation or arbitration, and a list of amounts to be billed, along with all information on parties to be billed for disputes that have either settled, did not settle, or expired within the date range.
• dispute details will be absent from the summary reports because this report is used mainly for ensuring that disputes are settled properly from a technical perspective.
• Activate Dispute 51 When selecting Activate Dispute 51, an Activate Dispute Form appears. After entering a valid dispute identification and clicking on the Submit icon within the screen, an Activate Dispute Confirmation Screen will appear. Upon clicking the Submit icon within the Form, the dispute will then be marked ACTIVE in the system and, if applicable, the expiration date ofthe dispute will be set to 60 days from the activation date.
• the opposing party If the opposing party is not registered and only wishes to settle the dispute with the present system, they simply enter both the access and dispute codes for the particular dispute they wish to negotiate and select "settle-only" access. As can be seen in Fig. 3, upon entry of a valid access code, dispute code and selection of "settle-only" access, the responding party will be given access to the system for purposes of settlement only and will not be given access to the management capabilities ofthe system. All information input by the responding party, however, will be routed through the management module for organizing, sorting, compiling and storing for use by the submitting party, and possible use by the responding party should they decide to register with the system at a later date.
• the management module will send all dispute resolution data corresponding to the input access and dispute codes to the reckoning module. Since a responding party choosing to utilize the settle-only access will not be given access to any ofthe management module capabilities, the system will display only the relevant dispute resolution data to the settle only access user. This display will notify the settle only access user ofthe present status ofthe dispute, any recent activity, etc. For example, if the dispute has already expired or has been settled or did not settle, the settle only access user will be notified ofthe same by the system. Additionally, the system will list any dates and amounts of demands/offers entered for the dispute, if any, and the settlement date and amount in the event the dispute was resolved. If the dispute has been resolved or has expired, no further demands/offers will be allowed to be placed.
• a settle only access user responding to a submitted dispute may choose to register a new account with the present system.
• the various benefits of registering an account are that the responding party will be given the ability to perform detailed and summary reporting, the ability to manage multiple disputes from a single account without having to enter an access code and dispute code for each separate dispute (aside from the initial retrieval of a newly entered dispute to which they received notification), and the ability to actually submit disputes onto the system.
• the architecture 3 ofthe present system also includes a reckoning module 6 connected to the management module 5 for receipt ofthe non-judicial dispute resolution data in response to a request for implementing a dispute resolution procedure via the system.
• the reckoning module 6 utilizes pre-selected criteria and applies that criteria to the input dispute resolution data to effectuate a resolution ofthe dispute, and thereafter transmits any new data generated during the resolution procedure to the management module 5 for sorting, compiling, and retrievable storage with related data stored therein.
• the management module sends all dispute resolution data corresponding to the input access and dispute codes to the reckoning module.
• the system will display all relevant information regarding the dispute to the parties. For example, the display will notify the parties ofthe present status ofthe dispute, any recent activity, etc. For example, if the dispute has already expired or has been settled or did not settle, the parties will be notified ofthe same by the system. Additionally, the system will list any dates and amounts of demands/offers entered for the dispute, if any, and the settlement date and amount in the event the dispute was resolved. If the dispute has been resolved or has expired, no further demands/offers will be allowed to be placed.
• the parties will be prompted to place a demand/offer (depending upon their profile as either a plaintiff or a lawyer). If no previous demand offer had been placed on the dispute, the parties will be asked to enter their initial demand/offer. If an initial demand/offer has already been placed for the dispute, the parties will be prompted to enter a subsequent demand/offer. This process will continue until the dispute is resolved according to the pre-selected criteria within the reckoning module or the time limit for resolving the dispute expires.
• the system then applies the pre-selected criteria within the reckoning module. Further, each time a party enters a demand or offer into the system, the status ofthe dispute will be changed accordingly.
• the system employs a method for notifying the user of the status ofthe dispute by organizing the disputes entered into the system into certain color-coded categories.
• those disputes highlighted in yellow indicate that the user was the last person to enter a demand or offer and that the dispute will expire within ten (10) days if not settlement is reached; disputes listed in red indicate that the opposing party was the last party to enter a demand or offer into the system and that the dispute expires within ten (10) days if no settlement is reached; and disputes listed in blue indicate to the user that the opposing party was the last party to enter a demand or offer into the system, but that the dispute will not expire within ten (10) days.
• the reckoning module ofthe present system may invoke any number of preselected criteria to resolve a dispute.
• the system is setup to utilize bid- style negotiations, or, as stated above, simply forward the input dispute resolution data to an appropriate third party for mediation or arbitration.
• Bid-style negotiations can take place either "closed” or “open”. Closed bids are not made known to the opposing party(ies), while “open” bids are made known to the opposing party (ies). Each ofthe scenarios set forth herein can be made to apply in an "open” or "closed” condition.
• one party will be able to view the other party's demand or offer, but only after they first enter a demand or an offer. For example, if the court submits the dispute and enters an imtial offer, the system will not disclose the court's offer to the plaintiff until the plaintiff enters an initial demand. If the dispute is resolved, the parties will be informed ofthe resolution amount. If the dispute is not resolved, the parties will be so advised. Thereafter, the court will not learn the amount ofthe plaintif s initial demand until he or she enters another offer. Negotiations can continue until the dispute is resolved or until one party decides they are no longer interested in learning how much the other party has demanded or offered.
• the system can effectuate a settlement via bid-style negotiations, then, after the dispute resolution data is forwarded to the reckoning module, the reckoning module may compare the input demand to the input offer as follows:
• the dispute will (1) settle for the value of the plaintiffs demand if the plaintiffs demand is below the value ofthe court's offer; (2) settle for the average between the plaintiff's demand and the court's offer if the plaintiffs demand is within 30% ofthe court's offer; or (3) not settle if the plaintiffs demand is above 30% ofthe court's offer.
• the above algorithm can be varied by changing the percentage applied to the court's offer.
• the percentage applied to the court's offer is from about 5% to about 35%.
• the percentage applied to the court's offer can be set by the Program User, typically the Yankee, or preferably set as a default percentage by the system.
• the above bid-style negotiation may be repeated an unlimited number of times. That is, the plaintiff and the court may continue to negotiate until the dispute is resolved or negotiations are terminated.
• the above algorithm is applied to the plaintiffs last entered demand and the court's last entered offer. Take the following situations for example:
• Example 1 the dispute settled because the last demand ($18,000) was within 30% of the last offer ($15,000). It settled for $16,500, the average ofthe last offer ($15,000) and the last demand ($18,000).
• Example 2 the dispute settled because the last demand ($8,500) was below te last offer ($9,000). It settled for $8,500, the amount ofthe last demand.
• Example 3 the dispute settled because the last demand ($8,500) was below te last offer ($9,000). It settled for $8,500, the amount ofthe last demand.
• Example 3 the dispute settled because the last demand ($70,000) was within 30% ofthe last offer ($60,000). It settled for $65,000, the average ofthe last offer ($60,000) and the last demand ($70,000).
• Example 3 above illustrates that either a plaintiff or a lawyer may enter a demand or an offer at anytime they wish and they do not have to wait until the opposing party responds.
• the system will utilize the last entered offer or demand for comparison.
• bid-style negotiations can be setup to resolve a dispute by prompting the user to input either an initial demand (for a user profiled as a plaintiff) or a high value and a low value to establish a resolution range (for a user profiled as a court). These input amounts will be used by the system to calculate whether the dispute is resolved.
• the dispute will (1) settle for the amount ofthe plaintiffs demand if the demand is between the high value and the low value ofthe court's resolution range; (2) settle for the low value ofthe court's resolution range if the plaintiffs demand is less than or equal to the low value ofthe resolution range; or (3) not settle if the plaintiffs demand if above the high value ofthe court's resolution range.
• This embodiment can also be repeated an unlimited number of times. That is, the plaintiff and the court may continue to negotiate until the dispute is resolved or negotiations are terminated by either party. When repeated, the court enters a high value and a low value for each repetition and the plaintiff enters a demand for each repetition.
• the system can be setup to automatically calculate a court's resolution range from a single entered value for each round.
• the system can either use the entered value as a median value, low value or high value and apply an appropriate percentage to that value to arrive at a resolution range.
• the system can be setup to keep the low value ofthe resolution range at a fixed value. For example, when the court enters an initial offer, the low value ofthe resolution range will be set to 50% less than the initial offer entered, and the high end will be set to the initial offer. During subsequent repetitions, the low value ofthe range will not change and will be set to the value previously calculated, however, the high end will be changed to the offer entered for that repetition.
• the system would calculate the resolution range as $5,000 to $10,000.
• the low end ofthe range will remain the same for each subsequent repetition ($5,000) and the high end ofthe range will be established as the subsequent offer entered.
• the user may choose an auto-negotiate option. If the auto-negotiate option is chosen, the system will calculate the demands/offers entered for each round based upon certain criteria. When the user selects the auto-negotiate option, the system will prompt the user to input certain criteria which will enable the system to make a decision as to the demands/offers to be made.
• the criteria prompted to be entered may include the following: i) the number of offers/demands the user would like to make, ii) the consideration they would like to increase or decrease with each successive repetition of negotiations, iii) the time period they would like between the submission of demands/offers, and any other similar criteria. This option may be selected by the court, plaintiff, both or neither.
• the court would be prompted to enter additional information which they would like the system to consider when making offers.
• the court could enter a single offer and an amount with which to increase that offer for each repetition. This option could also be used in conjunction with the different pre-selected criteria used to effectuate a settlement as discussed above.
• the system may also employ the use of a "silent mediator” feature, electronic or otherwise.
• This feature operates in the last repetition of negotiations if there was a set limit to the number of repetitions, or to demands/offers identified as final demands/offers.
• the "silent mediator” feature the dispute will settle for the average of the demand and the high value of the resolution range if the demand is within a specified percentage of the high value ofthe resolution range. In other words, the dispute will only not settle if the demand is higher than the high value of the resolution range for any repetition other than the most recent, and above the high value ofthe most recent established resolution range plus the specified percentage.
• the system assumes that the parties would truly wish to resolve the dispute if they knew they were within the specified percentage of each other at the end of the negotiation process.
• the specified percentage is preferably from about 5% to about 30%. Additionally, the specified percentage may be set by the system or chosen by one or more ofthe parties to the dispute.
• the party entering the demand/offer will be informed of such and prompted to either enter another demand/offer (if the demand/offer entered was not a final or last repetition demand/offer), or log-off the system. Should the user opt to enter another demand/offer they may do so and the process as outlined above will be repeated. If the user wishes to log-off the system they will be returned to the home page ofthe web site. Preferably, and to facilitate resolution ofthe dispute, the system may require that parties profiled as courts increase offers for each repetition of negotiations by a minimum of a predetermined percentage, such as 5% ofthe prior offer.
• the system may require that parties profiled as plaintiffs decrease their demands by a minimum of a predetermined percentage, such as 5% ofthe prior demand.
• a predetermined percentage such as 5% ofthe prior demand.
• you are the plaintiff and your last offer was $90,000 your next offer may be required to be $94,500 or higher ($90,000 + 5% is $94,500).
• the system preferably applies a fee structure for accessing and using the system. While any fee structure can be provided for accessing and using the present invention, a preferred embodiment contemplates a fee structure which financially encourages each ofthe parties to resolve the dispute.
• a fee structure which financially encourages each ofthe parties to resolve the dispute.
• One such structure requires each party to pay a certain amount to participate in the resolution proceeding(s). Thus, the plaintiff must pay a fee for submission of each demand and the lawyer must pay a fee for submission of each offer.
• These fees can also be graduated to correspond to the financial magnitude ofthe dispute, e.g., a "dog bite"case to a serious injury or even a death case.
• a variety of schemes can be employed, but this feature ofthe invention financially rewards resolution and financially penalizes non-resolution by fee structure.
• the parties before either the lawyer or the plaintiff enters an offer or a demand into the system, they are preferably prompted to review a Negotiation Agreement. If they agree to the terms ofthe Agreement, they then click on the Agree icon and are thereafter bound by the terms and conditions ofthe Agreement. If this option is utilized, and the parties do not agree to the terms and conditions, they are not allowed to enter demands or offers onto the system.
• This review of a Negotiation Agreement is preferably prompted to every party before the entering of demands or offers.
• the parties to the dispute may also have the option of entering a maximum settlement amount (for courts) or a minimum settlement amount (for plaintiffs). If a maximum settlement amount is entered, the system will prohibit a court from entering a settlement offer that may result in a settlement that exceeds the selected maximum amount. Conversely, if a minimum settlement amount is entered, the system will prohibit the plaintiff from demanding an amount that may result in a settlement that is less than the selected minimum amount. If a user enters a prohibited amount, the system will reject the amount and request the user to enter an appropriate value or amend their maximum or minimum settlement amount.
• the system may also utilize a negotiating safeguard. Specifically, after a user enters an offer or a demand, the system will prompt the user inquiring as to whether or not the user wishes to enter that particular amount, further modify the amount, or not enter the amount at all. This safeguard further ensures that either party has a sufficient time to contemplate and/or modify their demand or offer before entry, thereby decreasing the possibility of erroneous entry.
• the parties to the dispute may also be given the option of entering a "final demand” (plaintiff) or "final offer” (defendant) at one time during the negotiation process. This is accomplished by clicking on the "final demand” or "final offer” icon on the bid submission screen.
• the system will automatically calculate the exact amount the court can offer so that the maximum settlement amount possible on the dispute (calculated in accordance with the systems settlement criteria) will be equal to the maximum possible settlement amount.
• the system will automatically calculate the exact amount the claimant can enter so that the minimum settlement amount possible on the dispute (calculated in accordance with the systems settlement criteria) will be equal to the minimum possible settlement amount.
• Claims-data Storage and Retrieval System Further, Program Managers ofthe present system will be given the option of utilizing a claims-data storage and retrieval system. If a user chooses to use the storage and retrieval system, the data for all ofthe disputes for that particular user will be forwarded by the management module to a claims-data storage and retrieval system 20, as shown in Fig. 2. The claims-data storage and retrieval system will further sort, compile, arrange and store the forwarded data with the data from all other data in the system in a queryable form. Thereafter, all users who have forwarded data will have access to the claims-data storage and retrieval system 20 via the management module 5 ofthe system 1. All users who have forwarded data will be able to enter a query to the management module for a search ofthe storage and retrieval system.
• users ofthe storage and retrieval system can query the storage and retrieval system data to ascertain the average settlement values for all disputes entered into the system based on venue, type of injury and/or body part injured.
• the users will not have access to specific dispute information, such as the parties' names, attorneys' names or claim or dispute numbers.
• the present invention is designed for use with the following software packages, or their equivalent: Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 with Internet Information Server 3.0 (IIS), Allaire ColdFusion 4.0 Server and Studio, Microsoft Visual Foxpro 6.0 (alternatively, Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 Enterprise), Seagate Crystal Reports, Expert Systems Ease Telephony System, and the like.
• IIS Internet Information Server 3.0
• Microsoft Visual Foxpro 6.0 alternatively, Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 Enterprise
• Seagate Crystal Reports Expert Systems Ease Telephony System, and the like.
• IIS 3.0 allows the server to operate and involves setting user access rights and monitoring system performance.
• IIS 3.0 allows for the web hosting features related to Windows NT and allows internet users to access the present system.
• Allaire ColdFusion 4.0 Server and Studio software is a web hosting program which complements IIS 3.0. It specializes in handling the management module features ofthe present system, such as, for example, adding, updating, deleting and retrieving data in the management module. Coldfusion processes requests from the system and translates them into instructions that IIS 3.0 can understand. IIS 3.0 processes those instructions and returns the results back to Coldfusion.
• IIS 3.0 and Coldfusion communicate with this software via the Open Database Conductivity (ODBC) services feature offered in Windows NT.
• ODBC Open Database Conductivity
• Seagate Crystal Reports is a database report generating software package.
• This software outputs information to HTML format files utilized during communication with the internet.
• This software works in tandem with the ODBC feature of Windows NT.
• Expert Systems Ease Telephony System is a telephony platform as well as a development system. This package allows for the routing of incoming calls to the system and also communicates with the data files via the ODBC feature of Windows NT.
• the ability ofthe system ofthe present invention to manage and compile all information related to the dispute enables the substantially seamless progression from bid-style negotiations to mediation to arbitration. Additionally, the sorting, compiling, organizing and storage capabilities ofthe present system allow the parties to choose between some or all ofthe above-outlined resolution procedures, and in any order they desire.

Landscapes

• Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
• Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
• Strategic Management (AREA)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
• Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
• Operations Research (AREA)
• Economics (AREA)
• Marketing (AREA)
• Data Mining & Analysis (AREA)
• Quality & Reliability (AREA)
• Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
• Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
• General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
• General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
• Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
• Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
• Financial Or Insurance-Related Operations Such As Payment And Settlement (AREA)

Priority Applications (6)

Applications Claiming Priority (12)

Publications (1)

Family

ID=27558166

Family Applications (1)

Country Status (8)

Cited By (8)

Families Citing this family (2)

Citations (8)

Family Cites Families (4)

• 2000
  • 2000-05-11 CA CA002373168A patent/CA2373168A1/en not_active Abandoned
  • 2000-05-11 CN CN 00807332 patent/CN1352777A/zh active Pending
  • 2000-05-11 EP EP00935938A patent/EP1242960A1/en not_active Withdrawn
  • 2000-05-11 MX MXPA01011412A patent/MXPA01011412A/es not_active Application Discontinuation
  • 2000-05-11 AU AU51323/00A patent/AU771486B2/en not_active Ceased
  • 2000-05-11 BR BR0010506-6A patent/BR0010506A/pt not_active IP Right Cessation
  • 2000-05-11 JP JP2000616573A patent/JP2002544601A/ja active Pending
  • 2000-05-11 WO PCT/US2000/013111 patent/WO2000068865A1/en not_active Application Discontinuation

Patent Citations (8)

Non-Patent Citations (1)

Also Published As

Similar Documents

Legal Events