iPipeline Awarded Patent for Computer Method for Insurance Applications

June 16, 2010

iPipeline, which supplies on-demand software to insurance carriers and producers, reports it has been granted a U.S. patent for its computerized method for preparing insurance applications.

Under the method covered by patent, the completion of an insurance pre-application can be outsourced to a service provider, which reduces insurance broker or producer involvement in the application process, according to William Atlee, chief strategy officer at iPipeline and an inventor of the patented method.

“The benefits to the industry as a whole are enormous when you consider the speed to market advantages, gained efficiencies and reduced underwriting time,” Atlee said. “We believe the patented method of preparing insurance applications is of particular benefit in non-traditional markets such as banks and broker-dealers, and we are pleased to have brought this innovation to the insurance industry.”

iPipeline’s products for carriers, distributors and producers automate activities for quoting, forms processing, illustrations development, agency management, requirements ordering, contracting, and content distribution, enabling the insurance industry to market, sell, and process faster.

With headquarters in Exton, Pa., iPipeline has offices in Atlanta, Charlotte, Milwaukee and Salt Lake City.

Was this article valuable?

Here are more articles you may enjoy.

Latest Comments

  • June 17, 2010 at 11:54 am
    Rx says:
    It does withstand the Bilski, is it a "machine-or-transformation test" as it is a transformation. Essentially taking data from a profile, and using that to pre-populate a form... read more
  • June 17, 2010 at 9:21 am
    Bob says:
    I am no patent expert at all but I thought Bilski made it more difficult than it had been for business processes to win patents but not impossible. http://www.insurancejournal... read more
  • June 16, 2010 at 3:39 am
    matt says:
    The article says the patent was granted. I shared your mindset and suspected a wide variety of prior art. But the IJ article is a bit vague, and most non legal professionals (... read more

Add a CommentSee All Comments (6)Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features