Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

(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.
NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:49 am

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

sbalive
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby sbalive » Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:54 am

NYAssociate wrote:You absolutely do not need a tech degree to be an IP litigator. I've said this before, but people cried, "flame." A tech degree might help in recruiting because it could convince a hiring partner that you're less of a tourist, but if you have solid reasons it shouldn't be a problem.


and this isn't just "oh yeah that's soft IP" but it applies to patent lit too (which is the vast majority of IP lit work)

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:24 am

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273120
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:27 am

I don't know if you guys feel inadequate because of your lack of a technical degree or what, but the degree of psychological projection going on in this thread is staggering. I mean - to suggest that a technical degree is actually a drawback for IP lit - come on. Those are some serious feelings of inadequacy talking.

You wouldn't go around telling people you don't need to be tall to be basketball player. Of course it's not a requirement set in stone, but it's simply very common, the occasional Allen Iverson or Muggsy Bogues notwithstanding. Can an enterprising and smart 1L get a job as an IP litigator without such a degree? Sure - it would be silly to deny that. But the proportion of IP litigators who didn't come from engineering or the sciences is about the same as the proportion of NBA stars who are under 6'2.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273120
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:32 am

NYAssociate wrote:You absolutely do not need a tech degree to be an IP litigator. I've said this before, but people cried, "flame." A tech degree might help in recruiting because it could convince a hiring partner that you're less of a tourist, but if you have solid reasons it shouldn't be a problem.

And for massive cases, firms will always, always hire experts. They'll hold seminars to teach you complex concepts. It's like school all over again. This happens in litigation too. I know many partners who are unintentional experts in the weirdest fields simply because the case required them to learn the subject matter better in order to make their argument.

This opinion has a lot of bugs in it, I'm just going to leave it at that, take it for what its worth, an opinion on the patent game from someone who's probably not in it.

Some points are true, yes, you don't "need" it - but the "tourist" point is baseless, same with the comment regarding the hiring of experts, it ain't as simplistic as that, these are litigators practicing substantive patent law, of which the subject matter involves technical complexity - doing well involves way more than hiring some dorko on your team to whittle it down for you.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:33 am

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273120
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:34 am

NYAssociate wrote:
from someone who's probably not in it.


Yes... except I am.

then I'm surprised, because I think you're off on multiple points. The topic you're shedding your insight on is something I've had, frankly the honor, of discussing with some serious heavy hitters in the patent game (Powers, Desmarais, Chu) during interviews and other events. I'm headed out to work for one of them, (yes, Desmarais LLP was in the running).

You're really misguided if you conceptualize the practice of patent law as a general litigation practice with some technical briefing needs, which is the picture you paint up there.

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:37 am

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:40 am

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273120
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:40 am

NYAssociate wrote:
The next time you want to discredit me, rather than insult my qualifications–which you know nothing about–try contributing a different perspective.

yikes, calm down, I said "maybe" - I don't know the first thing about you - but your opinions sound like they're coming from someone who is outside of the patent litigation field because they're wrong.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273120
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:43 am

many partners/more senior IP litigation attorneys don't have a tech backgrounds because until about 10, 15 years ago, there really weren't that many people with tech background going into IP lit and a lot of the people with tech backgrounds went into prosecution. a partner in ip lit at my v10 firm last summer didn't have a tech background, but got into ip lit because when he was an associate, there weren't really any associates at the firm with a tech background and there happened to be an ongoing patent lit case that he got assigned to. now, however, given the number of engineers in law school, he hires only people with tech backgrounds for ip lit.

if you look at firms' websites, you'll notice that the younger associates in IP lit who don't have tech backgrounds rarely have IP lit. listed as their only practice area. most likely they're probably just general litigation associates who helped out on a few ip cases. at both my 1l and 2l firms, although there were partners without tech backgrounds doing ip lit, there were 0 associates who focused on ip lit that did not have tech backgrounds. also, if you look at the real heavy hitting firms that focus on ip lit - finnegan, fish, knobbe, fitzpatrick, kenyon - the only non-tech people are in soft ip.

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:44 am

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273120
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:44 am

NYAssociate wrote:
The topic you're shedding your insight on is something I've had, frankly the honor, of discussing with some serious heavy hitters in the patent game (Powers, Desmarais, Chu) during interviews and other events. I'm headed out to work for one of them, (yes, Desmarais LLP was in the running).

You're really misguided if you conceptualize the practice of patent law as a general litigation practice with some technical briefing needs, which is the picture you paint up there.


Slightly more constructive. Congratulations. Unfortunately, I don't conceptualize the practice of patent law like that at all. I guess you're just insecure and reading too much into my post? The thesis was, "you don't need a technical degree for hard patent litigation."

You don't NEED a "JD" to practice law, but it sure as hell helps. Now - technical knowledge isn't on the same level as having a JD - but there are two things here. Litigating a patent involves being REALLY GOOD at several wrinkles of substantive patent law, ALL of which relate to technology - even seemingly non-tech components like priority fights relate to reduction to practice, which pops back to technology. Every wrinkle within substantive patent law is married to technology.

You're playing on the word "need" here. You're going to need it to have a shot at a half-decent IP lit firm. You're going to need it to do well in private practice.

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:48 am

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273120
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:50 am

NYAssociate wrote:I'm wrong? Ok... so here is some proof.

Thesis: You don't need a technical degree to do patent litigation.

Proof: --LinkRemoved--

That guy does not have a technical degree, and he works at Desmarais LLP.

It would appear that I'm right!

I can make your case better for you, and then break down where you're lost: Morgan Chu, Matt Powers, neither of whom have tech backgrounds. Morgan's a hell of a trial lawyer and a genius, Powers was a Notre Dame debater, Desmarais was a Assistant United States Attorney before he became great - even though he has a ChemE background.

Patent prosecutors historically LITIGATED their own patents back in the day - then when pats became a big money game - general guys like Powers saw an opportunity to do well - and became REALLY good at trying patent cases. Morgan Chu was one of the first players in the game, and is obviously one of the best at it.

The present generation of IP stars (graduating post-95) are ALL techies who did REALLY well in law school. The game is changing again, ask Mark Lemley (I did!)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273120
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:50 am

how much technical knowledge actually helps is less relevant than the fact that patent litigation clients like seeing associates with tech backgrounds on their litigation team. i mean, if you're microsoft's gc, who would you rather have doing depositions on experts, reviewing technical documents etc. - an amherst english major or an mit ee?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273120
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:53 am

Anonymous User wrote:
NYAssociate wrote:
The present generation of IP stars (graduating post-95) are ALL techies who did REALLY well in law school. The game is changing again, ask Mark Lemley (I did!)


exactly my point from a few posts above.

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:56 am

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

awesomepossum
Posts: 928
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 12:49 am

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby awesomepossum » Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:57 am

doyleoil wrote:
awesomepossum wrote:who's frank?


http://www.tvfanatic.com/quotes/i-barel ... ng-t/#vote



haha...nice.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273120
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 01, 2010 11:00 am

NYAssociate wrote:
i mean, if you're microsoft's gc, who would you rather have doing depositions on experts, reviewing technical documents etc. - an amherst english major or an mit ee?


Wait, do you seriously think an electrical engineer will understand programming code better than an an English major? The EE might have a head-start because of his facility with math, but they both will have to take lessons. That leads us back to square one.


no - i agree with you. both will likely be able to understand the technology given some training. and this may be anecdotal, but from a few partners at my firm indicated that having associates with engineering/tech backgrounds was a plus when getting clients etc.

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Oct 01, 2010 11:01 am

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273120
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 01, 2010 11:01 am

Anonymous User wrote:how much technical knowledge actually helps is less relevant than the fact that patent litigation clients like seeing associates with tech backgrounds on their litigation team. i mean, if you're microsoft's gc, who would you rather have doing depositions on experts, reviewing technical documents etc. - an amherst english major or an mit ee?

+1 the EEs at Irell, Weil, and Kirkland (three firms I know well enough by now) -get called to go on pitches non-stop.

And it isn't just superficial, deposing an expert is one of the critical units of successful litigation, expert witnesses in patent cases become REALLY GOOD over time at dominating a depo with their expertise. They're so familiar with the ways of the laws that they're empowered to mess around with a non-tech deposing attorney.

If you stack an MIT PhD EE deposing expert with an EE-bg lawyer from Cal Tech - law firm after law firm after law firm has told me that this makes for a better patent lit deposition. That's just ONE example.

awesomepossum
Posts: 928
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 12:49 am

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby awesomepossum » Fri Oct 01, 2010 11:01 am

NYAssociate wrote:
i mean, if you're microsoft's gc, who would you rather have doing depositions on experts, reviewing technical documents etc. - an amherst english major or an mit ee?


Wait, do you seriously think an electrical engineer will understand programming code better than an an English major? The EE might have a head-start because of his facility with math, but they both will have to take lessons. That leads us back to square one.


A few programming classes are generally required for EEs. So....I think they will understand code better.

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Oct 01, 2010 11:04 am

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Striking out at OCI- a frank discussion

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Oct 01, 2010 11:05 am

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.