IP Litigation question

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
risktaker
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:10 pm

IP Litigation question

Postby risktaker » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:43 pm

How much does an IP litigation associate straight out of law school make? Also, is it a tremendous advantage to have a B.S. Science degree (biochemistry and cell biology) in order to get an IP Litigation job? Finally, is there a possibility of moving from IP Litigation into IP prosecution with only a B.S. science degree? I have been trying to find answers to these questions, but I have been having a lot of trouble. Any answers will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

User avatar
wiseowl
Posts: 1071
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: IP Litigation question

Postby wiseowl » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:54 pm

risktaker wrote:How much does an IP litigation associate straight out of law school make?


It varies tremendously depending on where you work and who you work for. Anywhere from $40,000 to $160,000.

risktaker wrote:Also, is it a tremendous advantage to have a B.S. Science degree (biochemistry and cell biology) in order to get an IP Litigation job?


If there is any benefit at all, it is slight. The only "tremendous" advantage would be to go to a top school and get top grades.

risktaker wrote:Finally, is there a possibility of moving from IP Litigation into IP prosecution with only a B.S. science degree? I have been trying to find answers to these questions, but I have been having a lot of trouble. Any answers will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.


It's possible but very unlikely. For one, usually the path is the opposite. If you're doing any moving, its from prosecution to litigation, because as your billing rate increases each year, clients will be increasingly less willing to pay you to prosecute. Also working against you is that a B.S. is a pretty skimpy credential for bio/chem patent prosecution. There are so many candidates with M.S.s and Ph.D.s that you had better be 100% rockstar otherwise to stand out.

User avatar
risktaker
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:10 pm

Re: IP Litigation question

Postby risktaker » Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:05 pm

Thanks a lot for that response. Guess I need to pray that I get into a T14 and maintain stellar grades.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273459
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP Litigation question

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:37 am

Is it possible to do IP litigation even if one has no science background at all?

What is the difference between IP litigation and just, well, "IP." Are they the same thing?

User avatar
underdawg
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:15 am

Re: IP Litigation question

Postby underdawg » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:45 am

Anonymous User wrote:Is it possible to do IP litigation even if one has no science background at all?

What is the difference between IP litigation and just, well, "IP." Are they the same thing?

ip prosecution is getting the patent in the first place. as far as i know, you need a degree for this. but ip lit is arguing over these patents, and according to where I SA'ed, a science background is not necessary. who knows if they were just sugarcoating things, but there are at least some patent lawyers there without tech degrees. and you might have a "science background" but not really relevant to what you are doing. there were some patent lawyers like that too. i think i've seen threads on TLS saying that YOU NEED SCIENCE BACKGROUND. i KNOW at least sometimes you don't. it's possible you just need to be wicked smart to make it work without the background, i dunno.

BUT a few years ago--and you can see this on ATL--quinn emanuel proposed paying electrical engineers more than other associates. it got shot down, but it shows that the science background certainly helps.

i have no idea what ip transactional is--maybe negotiating contracts about patents? in any case, in patent prosecution you argue in front of the patent office. in patent lit you argue in front of a judge or jury. big difference.

also you don't need any relevant background for "soft ip," which is copyright, trademark, and trade secrets.

User avatar
Zugzwang
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:49 pm

Re: IP Litigation question

Postby Zugzwang » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:54 am

^^ above is true, but you have to realize that all the science degrees who are doing prosecution at a law firm (whether it is a boutique or a GP) will be doing litigation as well. They can and will do both, and they tend to gravitate towards litigation as they get older ( at least, until they get families and decide they want to stay in a more family-friendly practice area)

ip transactions = licensing agreements, valuations, etc.
Last edited by Zugzwang on Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
underdawg
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:15 am

Re: IP Litigation question

Postby underdawg » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:57 am

ok that makes sense. to shorten my post all i said was 1) science not necessary for ip lit; 2) science helps; 3) you might have science but work in a different fields; 4) EE's are hawt

User avatar
Bosque
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:14 pm

Re: IP Litigation question

Postby Bosque » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:24 am

underdawg wrote:BUT a few years ago--and you can see this on ATL--quinn emanuel proposed paying electrical engineers more than other associates. it got shot down, but it shows that the science background certainly helps.


I say someone proposes it again. I want more money! :P

And I will concur with the above about a technical degree. For IP litigation (specifically Patent, as there are Trademark and some copyright litigations too) you do not strictly need an engineering or hard science degree. There are people out there working in the field without them. However, they are not working at the Boutiques, and there are a LOT less of them than people with hard science and engineering degrees. In my experience, I tend to see them more at large firms who have a small IP department, and they invariably also do something else. Or they are partners in a firm that has a large IP department now, but did not when they joined.

So yes, it is possible. There is technically nothing stopping you. But it is going to be a lot harder to get a job.

EDIT: Also, because I am curious: who is paying people 40k to do IP lit? I am sure you are right that there are people out there doing it for that much, but the lowest I have seen is the 60s or 70s (I assumed because they knew that anything bellow that and the engineers might as well go be engineers). Do you have an example?

User avatar
dood
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:59 am

Re: IP Litigation question

Postby dood » Wed Aug 25, 2010 10:22 am

...
Last edited by dood on Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
paratactical
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: IP Litigation question

Postby paratactical » Wed Aug 25, 2010 10:28 am

.
Last edited by paratactical on Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zugzwang
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:49 pm

Re: IP Litigation question

Postby Zugzwang » Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:10 am

paratactical wrote:I don't know if this is just something weird that we do, but frequently patent prosecution people are not allowed to look at any of the patent litigation stuff. There are really strict walls as to what the prosecution people can see from litigations, so at least here, you don't do both.

That's a pretty bad practice, because patent litigation exposure makes better patent prosecutors.

User avatar
paratactical
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: IP Litigation question

Postby paratactical » Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:12 am

.
Last edited by paratactical on Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bosque
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:14 pm

Re: IP Litigation question

Postby Bosque » Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:11 pm

paratactical wrote:
Zugzwang wrote:
paratactical wrote:I don't know if this is just something weird that we do, but frequently patent prosecution people are not allowed to look at any of the patent litigation stuff. There are really strict walls as to what the prosecution people can see from litigations, so at least here, you don't do both.

That's a pretty bad practice, because patent litigation exposure makes better patent prosecutors.


I'm a paralegal, so I'm not privy to all the details. I do know that some of the barriers are because of ITC orders and that we're at V50 firm, so... there's gotta be something to it.


I'm sure it is for Chinese Wall purposes, and not because the firm thinks that prosecution people just should not be allowed access to litigation matters as a rule. They probably want to make sure the prosecution people can still take work from anyone. If they are privy to the litigation matters, they cannot really work for any company the firm goes up against in litigation.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.