RFP for Legal Services

Please click HERE for a PDF version of the below RFP


PHONE: 970.725.3391
FAX: 970.725.3478


A. Purpose.

This request for proposal (RFP) is to contract for legal services to be provided to the GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK-MMI PROJECT for TIME PERIOD WITHIN YEAR 2015.

B. Who May Respond.

Only attorneys who are currently licensed to practice law in COLORADO may respond to this RFP.

C. Instructions on Proposal Submission.

1. Closing Submission Date.

Proposals must be submitted no later than 4:00 PM on FEBRUARY 25, 2015.

2. Inquiries.

Inquiries concerning this RFP should be mailed to:


Or e-mailed to: health@grandbeginnings.org

3. Conditions of Proposal.

All costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal responding to this RFP will be the responsibility of the Offeror and will not be reimbursed by the GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK.

4. Instructions to Prospective Contractors.

Your proposal should be addressed as follows:


It is important that the Offeror’s proposal be submitted in a sealed envelope clearly marked in the lower left-hand corner with the following information:

Request for Proposal

Failure to do so may result in premature disclosure of your proposal. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to insure that the proposal is received by the MMI PROJECT MANAGER, by the date and time specified above. Late proposals will not be considered.

5. Right to Reject.

The GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received in response to this RFP. A contract for the accepted proposal will be drafted based upon the factors described in this RFP.

6. Notification of Award.

It is expected that a decision selecting the successful Firm will be made within four (4) weeks of the closing date for the receipt of proposals. Upon conclusion of final negotiations with the successful Firm, all Offerors submitting proposals in response to this Request for Proposal will be informed, in writing, of the name of the successful consultant. It is expected that the contract shall be a contract for work performed within a specific time period with a retainer and additional fees considered on a monthly basis.

D. Description of Entity.

The GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK is an agency that serves GRAND COUNTY in COLORADO. GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK is a NONPROFIT CORPORATION and, has been determined to be exempt from Federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK has an annual budget of approximately $750,000 and is governed by a 10 member volunteer Board of Directors, which meets 11 times per year. GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK employs 7 people. Administrative offices are located at 416 BYERS AVENUE, HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS, COLORADO 80451.

GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK works to educate the community on health issues and improve accessibility and efficiency of the healthcare system.

The specific goals of the MMI (Meeting Milestones Initiative) Project from the Grand County Rural Health Network perspective is to serve as the fiscal agent and collaborate with four additional community agencies (Grand Beginnings/Rural Resort Region Early Childhood Council, Horizons Specialized Services, Assuring Better Child Health and Development, and Patient Tools, Inc.) to pilot a cross-sector coordinated system of care for standardized developmental screenings for children in which all local healthcare and early childhood providers ensure that children are screened according to vetted community guidelines.

The MMI Project accomplishes its goal through: 1) Implementing the Ages and Stages Questionnaire 3 (ASQ-3, the standardized developmental screening tool chosen by the community) in all provider settings (successful with 100% of healthcare providers and early childhood provider settings using the same tool); 2) Creating a consistent referral policy for healthcare and early childhood providers based on the results of the screening; 3) Implementing an online ASQ-3 platform with a provider interface in primary care offices and early childhood centers; 4) Creating an electronic communication model to ensure a high level of consistent communication between healthcare and early childhood providers, Horizons Specialized Services/Early Intervention CO, Child Find, and any other providers chosen by the family.

Our collaboration with Patient Tools, Inc., a private healthcare data collection and communication company, is allowing us to build cutting-edge technology that will be a state, and possibly national, demonstration project. In addition to the aforementioned components in the community model, Patient Tools, Inc. is creating an app for Droids and iPhones so that parents can conveniently complete their child’s screenings and automatically send the results to the provider(s) of their choice. Additionally, healthcare, early childhood, and resource and referral providers can make referrals and communicate electronically to close the screening, referral, evaluation and follow-up loop. The app also includes age-specific parent education with activities on how to promote best development in the child. The parent education activities will also be tailored to specific screening results.


The Offeror shall be readily available to perform the following legal services, as requested by the Executive Director:

1. Advise on issues regarding intellectual property in relation to different components and collaborators included in the MMI Project.

2. Advise on legal supports necessary to implementing a fully electronic screening, referral, and follow up process. This includes verifying the legality of electronic consent and sharing of confidential information-sharing across healthcare providers, early childhood centers, community-centered boards, Child Find (BOCES), and families. For example, advice is needed to determine what parents need to “sign” electronically to legally facilitate information sharing across all of the above mentioned entities.

3. Attend MMI team meetings as necessary.

4. Advise on stipulations unique to our government grant (Race To The Top) as necessary.

Specific grant deliverables are:

Although it is preferable for an attorney or firm to submit a proposal covering all of the above areas, GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK will consider proposals for subsets of these areas.
Offeror shall be prepared to submit detailed billing statements for all services billed at an hourly rate, if any, broken down into time increments of no more than a quarter hour. Offeror shall also include summaries of work performed and time spent on services performed under the flat monthly fee, as
discussed below.


The Offeror, in its proposal, shall, as a minimum, include the following;

A. Legal Experience.

The Offeror should describe its legal experience, including the names, addresses, contact persons, and telephone numbers of at least three clients, preferably including clients similar to the GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK. Experience should include the following categories:

1. Experience advising nonprofit organizations and/or multi-partner collaborative projects.

2. Experience advising clients on cross-sector, electronic consent and information-sharing.

3. Experience advising clients on intellectual property rights.

Preferred Experience or Expertise:

1. Knowledge of HIPAA compliant regulations through health information technology.

2. Knowledge of FERPA compliant regulations.

B. Organization, Size, Structure, and Areas of Practice.

If the Offeror is a firm, it should describe its organization, size, structure, areas of practice, and office location(s). Include copy of Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy, if the firm has one.

C. Attorney Qualifications.

The Offeror should describe the qualifications of attorney(s) to be assigned to the representation. Description(s) should include:

1. Professional and education background of each attorney.

2. Overall supervision to be exercised.

3. Prior experience of the individual attorneys with respect to the required experience listed above. Only include resumes of attorneys likely to be assigned to the representation. Education, position in firm, years and types of experience, and continuing professional education will be considered.

D. Price.

The Offeror’s proposed price should include information on the hourly billing rates of each attorney or other legal staff who is expected to work on this representation and charges
for expenses, if any, such as legal research, copies, and faxes. Also include a monthly flat fee that would be charged to advise on routine matters that could be handled over the telephone or
otherwise without extensive research or other legal work. GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK reserves the right to negotiate with the Offeror on the structure of the billing and/or
retainer fee, including non-profit rate/discount.

GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK has a grant to support this project. The maximum amount of funding available for legal services is $10,000. The Offeror can provide the non-profit rate/discount in its proposed price, as well as the total discounted rate to be provided to the GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK. The discounted rate can then be counted as in-kind professionals services for the GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK, who can then provide documentation to the Offeror for same.

E. Invoicing and Billing.

GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK has a grant to support this project through the federal Race To The Top initiative. Therefore, GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK has significant reporting requirements for consultants as part of the grant process. As such, the Offeror must submit regular (e.g. monthly) itemized invoices to the GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK, including details on hours spent, total rate, and discounted rate.


A. Submission of Proposals.

All proposals shall include an original and 2 copies.

B. Evaluation Procedure and Criteria.

GRAND COUNTY RURAL HEALTH NETWORK’s Executive Director and appropriate staff on the collaborative will review proposals and make the final approval. The Executive Director may request a meeting with some qualified Offerors prior to final selection. Proposals will be reviewed in accordance with the following criteria:

1. Proposed approach to scope of work.

2. Level of experience of the individual(s) identified to work on this matter.

3. The Offeror’s experience with similar clients and legal matters.

4. Response from references.

5. Cost.

6. Interviews, if conducted.

From the Macintosh to the iPhone: Steve Jobs Patent Exhibit Opens at Denver Public Library

Exhibit opens ahead of ribbon-cutting of Denver’s satellite patent office

Denver, CO – A life-sized exhibit showcasing the hundreds of patents that Steve Jobs holds to his name, and that of Apple, the company he founded and helmed for nearly three decades, opens today at the Denver Public Library’s Central Library in downtown Denver.

The exhibit, entitled “Patents and Trademarks of Steve Jobs: Art and Technology that Changed the World,” will be on display through September. It is free and open to the public.

“We’re thrilled to host the Steve Jobs exhibit as it showcases the collaborative relationship we’ve built with innovators across the West,” Diane Lapierre, Director of Community Relations for the Denver Public Library, said. “Our Patent and Trademark Research Center helps connect inventors and business people with the information, resources, and direction they need to succeed. This exhibit lets others see the complex and groundbreaking work that led to some of the greatest technological advances of our times.”

The exhibit is on loan from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), arriving 10 days ahead of the grand opening of Denver’s satellite office of the USPTO, scheduled for June 30. The Mile High City’s selection as a location for a satellite office is expected to bring hundreds of direct jobs and millions in economic development to the state and region.

“This exhibit provides a unique glimpse into one of our country’s most iconic innovators, highlighting Jobs’ wide-ranging portfolio and lasting influence on modern technology,” Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet said. “The U.S. patent process plays a critical role in making ideas come to life and we’re thrilled to bring that process even closer to Colorado entrepreneurs and inventors with the opening of the USPTO’s satellite office in Denver.”

“Our city, state, and region continue to make their mark on the intellectual property world with the opening of the USPTO Denver office,” John Posthumus, an intellectual property attorney with Sheridan Ross P.C. and a key player in helping to secure the Denver USPTO office, said. “The Steve Jobs patent and trademark exhibit serves as the perfect visual and educational tool to share the importance and global impact of one of the world’s leading innovators and entrepreneurs. The exhibit’s Denver visit is a tribute to all who have worked so diligently to get us to this point, as well as a peek into Colorado’s future role in the world of innovation. There’s no doubt that we’ll look back at the opening of the Denver USPTO office as a game changing moment in our history.”

Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet helped coordinate the state’s bipartisan effort to bring the satellite office to Colorado. This included securing an amendment in the 2011 patent reform law directing the USPTO to establish three satellite offices nationwide, working with the state’s business community and local governments to attract the office, and leading several letters from Colorado’s Congressional delegation urging the Administration and the USPTO to choose Colorado as a location for a satellite office.

USPTO Opening Gala & CLE Information – REGISTER TODAY!

Colorado Celebrates the Opening of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office
Rocky Mountain Regional Satellite Office in Denver

Hosted by the Rocky Mountain IP Collective with support from the Colorado IP Inn of Court and the Colorado Bar Association Intellectual Property Section

For further details and registration, please visit our website:


Grand Opening Gala

Monday, June 30th

Wings Over the Rockies
Air & Space Museum

$40 ($50 after 6/22)

Lunch & CLE

Tuesday, July 1st

Century Link
Conference Center


CLE & Networking Reception

Tuesday, July 1st

The Ritz Carlton


(details for each below)

USPTO Denver Grand Opening Gala – Monday, June 30th

Location: Wings Over the Rockies Air & Space Museum
7711 E. Academy Boulevard, Denver, CO 80230

To Register, Click Here

Early Registration: $40 (until June 22nd).
Regular Registration: $50.
Time: 5:30 pm-10:00pm – Spouses and significant others welcome.
Cocktail attire.

Featuring:  Live music, cocktail reception, dinner, dessert, speakers from the USPTO and Colorado’s leaders, and an opportunity to view the exhibits in the Wings Over the Rockies Air & Space Museum.

Lunch & CLE – Tuesday, July 1st (4 CLE General Credits)

Location: Century Link Conference Center
1801 California, Denver, CO 80202

To Register, Click Here



Lunch at Guard & Grace Restaurant, 1st floor

“How Recent Supreme Court IP Decisions Will Affect Your Practice”


  • Hal Wegner, Foley & Lardner, LLP
  • Q. Todd Dickinson, Executive Director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
  • John Posthumus, Sheridan Ross, PC


Session 1 at Century Link Conference Center, 1st floor“New Initiatives to Harmonize Global Patents”


  • Mark Powell, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Session 2 at Century Link Conference Center, 1st floor“ProBoPat: Pro Bono Patent Opportunities”


  • Ben Fernandez, Faegre Baker Daniels
  • Sue Purvis, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office





Session 3 at Century Link Conference Center, 1st floor

“Moving Prosecution Forward I: Proper Use of Interviews and RCEs”


  • Kathleen Ott, Merchant & Gould
  • Barry Schindler, Greenberg Traurig
  • Glenn Johnson, Microsoft



Session 4 at Century Link Conference Center, 1st floor

“Trademark Basics: What Every Small Business Should Know Now, Not Later”


  • Craig Morris, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office






Session 5 at Century Link Conference Center, 1st floor

“Moving Prosecution Forward II: Proper Use of Appeals and Pre-Appeal Conferences”


  • Stephen Kunin, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt
  • Mike Drapkin, Holland & Hart
  • Matthew Colagrosso, Covidien

CLE & Networking Reception- Tuesday, July 1st (2 CLE General Credits)

Location: The Ritz Carlton
1881 Curtis Street, Denver, CO 80202

To Register, Click Here


5:30-6:00 pm

Reception/Happy Hour

6:00-7:00 pm

Session 1 at The Ritz CarltonDistrict of Colorado Pilot Program Implementing Proposed Patent Local Rules: Panel Discussion with Local Judges and Practitioners

Moderated panel discussion including overview of pilot program, detailed discussion of merits of proposed rules, and potential impacts and effects of same.

Moderated by:

  • Kristopher L. Reed, Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP


  • Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger, U.S. District Court of Colorado
  • Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix, U.S. District Court of Colorado
  • Wayne Stacy, Cooley LLP
  • Jon R. Trembath, Lathrop & Gage LLP

7:00-7:15 pm


7:15-8:15 pm

Session 2 at The Ritz Carlton

Post-Grant Procedures Under the America Invents Act: Roundtable discussion with PTAB Administrative Law Judges

Moderated roundtable discussing various post-grant procedures, including comparison amongst the procedures and with validity disputes in district court.

Moderated by:

  • Bernard Chao, Sturm College of Law, University of Denver


  • Chief Judge James D. Smith
  • PTAB Judge Patrick Boucher
  • PTAB Judge Kristina M. Kalan

Women’s Entrepreneurship Symposium

Click HERE to register!

Download (PDF, 711B)

Save the Date — USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board Visit

More details, such as venues, agendas, and webcast access information will be published HERE.

Please click HERE to download a PDF version of the flyer.

Copyright Trolls and Presumptively Fair Uses

University of Colorado Law Review
Proudly Presents
Copyright Trolls and Presumptively Fair Use

By Brad Greenberg

February 18, 2014 at 5:15 PM
University of Colorado Law School Room 204

Mr. Greenberg published his article on copyright trolls in the Colorado Law Review, Volume 85. He will discuss the fair use doctrine as copyright law’s internal limitation on the enforcement-only business model.

Mr. Greenberg is an Intellectual Property Fellow at Columbia University’s Kernochan Center. His Scholarship focuses on laws that encourage, restrict, or regulate speech and technological development, with an emphasis on legal questions raised by disruptive innovation. He graduated from UCLA with a degree in communication studies and, after a five-year journalism career, from UCLA School of Law. During law school he served as Editor-in-Chief of the UCLA Entertainment Law Review and was a Copyright Society Paul Miller Scholar.

This event is eligible for one general CLE credit.

Students: Free
Law Review Alumni: $5
Non-Law review Alumni: $10

To Register: Click here

Pondering Patent Jury Verdict Forms

By Bernard Chao1

Most attorneys don’t spend a lot of time thinking about how to draft a proposed jury verdict form. However, a recent paper written by one of my students, Vanessa Otero, reminded me how important this document can be. A well thought out jury verdict form has the potential to prevent a lot of wasted time and effort on behalf of both the patentee and the defendant.

Otero’s paper entitled “How Much Is Really at Stake? Damages Statutes Collide in Multiple-IP Litigation” will be published in in the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. The paper uses the Apple v. Samsung litigation to discuss the complexities that arise in calculating damages when the defendant’s products are accused of infringing different types of intellectual property. As many us know by now, Samsung was found to infringe Apple’s utility patents, design patents, and trade dress. But despite all these theories, the verdict form was surprisingly simple with respect to damages. The jury was just asked to determine the total damages due for each infringing product. Otero’s paper argues that in the future, jury verdict forms should ask juries to allocate damages for each different type of infringement. This should help parties avoid retrying damages in the event that post-trial motions or appeals alter the verdict. It will also help judges determine whether to enhance or reduce damages awards. Although Otero does not suggest that a more detailed jury verdict would have prevented the second damages trial in Apple v. Samsung, she does argue that it would have avoided some of the post-trial disputes.

Of course most cases are not as complicated as the Apple v. Samsung litigation and don’t involve different types of intellectual property. But lawsuits involving multiple patents are fairly common. After thinking about Otero’s paper, I wondered what patent jury verdict forms look like in cases with multiple patents. I looked at a few such cases on Lex Machina, a database that crawls PACER for information on all district court patent cases, and contacted a few patent litigators I know. In this very small and unscientific sample, I found both verdict forms that did and did not ask the jury to break out damages on a per patent basis. Furthermore, based on my conversations, I got the impression that the litigators did not give a lot of thought to this particular detail of the verdict form. But perhaps they should.

My belief is that Otero’s insight makes sense for almost all cases that involve more than one patent. Let’s just take the easiest example. Assume the patentee prevailed at trial on two patents and was awarded $5,000,000. If the verdict is appealed and the Federal Circuit reverses on one of the patents and affirms on the other, the parties will be forced to retry damages. Presumably, there will no way for the courts to determine how much of the $5,000,000 should be attributed to the patent that was affirmed. Since there is no reason to believe that a second damages trial would favor either party, such a trial does no one any good. The parties could have avoided the additional expense by simply asking the jury to break out damages on a per patent basis.

Now there may well be countervailing interests. I know that many plaintiffs prefer simple jury verdict forms so that defendants can’t pick a part the verdict. But breaking out damages for each patent should not unduly open up a verdict to challenge. Asking the jury to break down damages on a per patent basis just may be one of those rare suggestions that saves everyone money!

1Assistant Professor the University of Denver Strum College of Law.

November 2013 IP Section Luncheon

Restoration of Priority
What will Change on December 18, 2013

Carl Oppedahl — Partner in Oppedahl Patent Law Firm LLC

Tuesday, November 19, 2013; 12:00 PM Denver ChopHouse

A client comes to you on December 20, 2013. The client filed a US provisional patent application on December 17, 2012. Clearly the one-year period has come and gone! What should you tell them about their ability to file a PCT patent application that claims priority from the US provisional patent application? How does your answer change if the application to be filed is a US non-provisional patent application? How do your answers change if the would-be priority application filed December 17, 2012 was a foreign patent application instead of a US provisional patent application? (Hint: Everything you knew about this is wrong!) Extra credit if you can say why it might be smart to file the PCT patent application in the Receiving Office of the International Bureau of WIPO rather than at the USPTO.

Cost: $35 for IP Section Members, $45 for the general public, and CU/DU Law students are free. Includes a catered lunch. You can register for the lunch clicking HERE. RSVP by calling (303) 860-1115 ext. 727 or by emailing lunches@cobar.org before 5 PM on Thursday, November 14, 2013.

1 general CLE credit applied for.

Cancellations after Thursday, November 14, 2013 and no-shows will be billed for the cost of the program. Checks can be sent to the Colorado Bar Association, 1900 Grant St., Suite 900, Denver, CO 80203. Also, please call or e-mail your RSVP when sending a check. Checks should be made payable to the CBA. If leaving a message, please spell your name, specify that you are attending the Intellectual Property Section November Luncheon, leave your phone number, and specify if you would prefer a vegetarian lunch.

October 2013 IP Section Luncheon

A Report form the Frontline of Privacy Wars

Paul Ohm, Associate Professor at the University of Colorado Law School

Thursday, October 10, 2013; 12:00 PM Denver ChopHouse

Please join Paul Ohm, Associate Professor at the University of Colorado Law School, in a discussion about the current state of privacy and privacy law. Professor Ohm spent the past year working in Washington, DC, as a Senior Policy Advisor for the Federal Trade Commission, and he will reflect in particular on how the FTC regards and administers its role in preserving consumer privacy. He will draw from controversies that flared in the past year, such as debates over the Child Online Privacy Protection Act, Do Not Track, Data Security, and mobile privacy.

Cost: $35 for IP Section Members, $45 for the general public, and CU/DU Law students are free. Includes a catered lunch. You can register for the lunch by going to: http://www.cobar.org/cle/item.cfm?eventid=IP101013. RSVP by calling (303) 860-1115 ext. 727 or by emailing lunches@cobar.org before 5 PM on Monday October 7, 2013.

What’s in a Name

Senator Bennet’s office is soliciting suggestions for the name of Denver’s new PTO satellite office. Detroit’s office is named after Elijah J. McCoy, an African-American inventor who settled in Michigan and contributed many inventions to the field of locomotives and steam engines. Know of a great Colorado inventor? Submit your ideas below:

Last year, the U.S. Department of Commerce selected Colorado for a new regional patent office. The office will help cement Colorado’s reputation as a hub for innovation, attract businesses and entrepreneurs, bring hundreds of high-paying jobs and pump nearly $440 million into our state’s economy during its first five years.

We’re working with the USPTO and the Department of Commerce to get the office open as quickly as possible. This week we’re beginning the process to help pick a name for the it.

For two weeks, we’re crowdsourcing, or COLORADOsourcing, suggestions for a name for Colorado’s new patent office. Tell us who your favorite Colorado innovators are and why we should name the new patent office after them. Or, if you have an idea for a name that isn’t a person, we’re all ears! You can also “up vote” your favorite ideas.

At the end of the two weeks, we’ll submit the top ideas to the Commerce Department for consideration.

This forum is open now and will be until Friday, August 9.

To share your ideas and participate in our online discussion, follow these simple steps:

1. Step in. Follow this link at any point during the next week: http://crowdhall.com/h/61

2. Speak up and share an idea here during my two week online forum.

3. Vote on your favorite ideas.

4. Stay tuned or receive notifications when we respond to the results.

We look forward to hearing from you and seeing all of the suggestions.


Michael F. Bennet

The IP Section focuses on educational programs and the exchange of information about new or proposed developments in the intellectual property field. This field embraces patent, copyright and trademark matters as well as antitrust, trade secrets and unfair competition issues. The Section holds monthly luncheon meetings on topics in the field, bringing in national speakers.