IP lit: Irell v. Munger

(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.

IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Irell
21
70%
Munger
9
30%
 
Total votes: 30

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:46 am

Science background, pretty sure on the IP lit. Anywhere else in LA you'd take over these? Thanks!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:51 am

I would take Quinn in a second over Munger for IP lit. I would call it even between Irell and Quinn. However, the cultures are very different between the latter two. I would say if you want a larger national clientbase and more diverse IP projects, and are more of an Alpha Quinn is better. If you want to work for the strongest Southern California market firm, Irell is for you. If you want to work fewer hours, Munger is for you. The danger with Quinn is that partner track is less sure.

Wavelet
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Wavelet » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:55 am

Irell. There is no better firm in LA--and arguably the country--for patent lit.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:01 am

Wavelet wrote:Irell. There is no better firm in LA--and arguably the country--for patent lit.


Agreed. Soft IP may go to Quinn though. Munger I do not know a lot about.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:02 am

Wavelet wrote:Irell. There is no better firm in LA--and arguably the country--for patent lit.

Questionable.

In LA, Quinn and Kirkland are also monsters. Nationally, you again have Quinn and Kirkland, and also the smaller shops like Keker, Durie Tangri, Fish & Richardson, etc.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:05 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wavelet wrote:Irell. There is no better firm in LA--and arguably the country--for patent lit.

Questionable.

In LA, Quinn and Kirkland are also monsters. Nationally, you again have Quinn and Kirkland, and also the smaller shops like Keker, Durie Tangri, Fish & Richardson, etc.


Terrible Kirkland-LA trolling.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:26 am

Wavelet wrote:Irell. There is no better firm in LA--and arguably the country--for patent lit.

Very bold for a firm without a bench.

Wavelet
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Wavelet » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:32 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wavelet wrote:Irell. There is no better firm in LA--and arguably the country--for patent lit.

Very bold for a firm without a bench.


No bench?

Morgan Chu maintains a reputation as "one of the best IP trial lawyers in California and the USA - period." He continues to represent marquee technology clients such as Skype, Novellus and most recently eBay. Currently, eBay is asserting one patent against IDT, which is in turn asserting two patents against eBay. The case concerns calling-card technology designed to reduce the cost of long-distance calling. Jonathan Steinberg, another of the firm's principal IP litigators, has notable experience in disputes involving patents, trademarks and copyrights. He was part of the team acting as co-counsel to Tessera in a patent enforcement investigation before the ITC involving semiconductor chips. Benjamin Hattenbach has handled many IP matters before the federal and state courts, ITC, USPTO and arbitration panels. In addition to working alongside Steinberg on the Tessera case mentioned above, he has recently represented semiconductor designer and manufacturer Diodes in a patent infringement suit brought by Integrated Discrete Devices. Younger partner Alan Heinrich is noted for his involvement in some of the firm's more notable engagements, including the successful defense of Skype in a patent infringement suit brought by Peer Communications. Also in the team defending Skype was Andrei Iancu, a patent litigator recognized for his expertise in the medical device, Internet and video game arenas. His practice incorporates patent and trademark prosecution, due diligence and licensing. David Gindler's clients point to his "superb counsel and drafting talents" as reasons to retain his services. He is experienced in matters involving biotechnology, medical devices, computing, microprocessors and semiconductors. Jonathan Kagan focuses on patent litigation and impresses with his compelling courtroom style. David Nimmer is a leader in the field of copyright, representing clients from the entertainment, publishing and hi-tech sectors. Also noted for his copyright knowledge is managing partner Elliot Brown. Previously he has worked with clients such as Broadcom, HP and Google.

Source: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/ ... 1#org_3628

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:46 am

what makes Irell the best firm for patent litigation in the country? Not sure what you're basing this on. There are several equals like Irell, Weil, Quinn, Mofo, Fish, Finnegan, Kirkland, Ropes, Wilmer Hale, and even smaller shops like Keker, Durie Tangri, Susman, etc. More and more law firms are entering this field. Even firms like W&C boast a growing IP practice. Irell does not have a strong ITC practice, there are several D.C. firms that do.

At CCN, Irell is not really a known entity other than people who want to live in LA for some reason. There's a lot of patent litigation out here in the east coast handled by firms like your Kirklands and Finnegans. The difference between Irell and all of the other firms isn't as large as you make it appear.

I also recall Munger having some pretty good IP litigators, but as a group for IP irell is kind of a no-brainer over Munger unless you have interests outside IP. You're not going to go "wrong" picking Munger over Irell, even for IP. It's a legendary firm. Watch out for the no-offer though.

Wavelet
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Wavelet » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:55 am

Anonymous User wrote:what makes Irell the best firm for patent litigation in the country? Not sure what you're basing this on. There are several equals like Irell, Weil, Quinn, Mofo, Fish, Finnegan, Ropes, Wilmer Hale, and even smaller shops like Keker, Durie Tangri, Susman, etc. More and more law firms are entering this field. Even firms like W&C boast a growing IP practice.


I said arguably.

And especially for a junior associate. Irell houses some of the best patent litigators in the country. Low leverage and early responsibility means you'll be working with them (and consequently, learning the ropes from them) earlier in your career.

Quinn also has some impressive patent litigators, but with its 5:1 leverage, I wouldn't count on working closely with any of them for a long time.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:14 am

You can't just "say" arguably without a sound argument. You listed a bunch of Band 4 litigators from Chambers. That applies just as well to any other firm. In fact, many other California firms have multiple Band 2 and 3 litigators versus Irell (which has 0) for IP.

Arguably, Irell isn't even the best firm for IP litigation in terms of bench strength in California.

Wavelet
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Wavelet » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:21 am

Anonymous User wrote:You can't just "say" arguably without a sound argument. You listed a bunch of Band 4 litigators from Chambers. That applies just as well to any other firm. In fact, other California firms have more Band 2 and 3 litigators than Irell for IP.

Arguably, Irell isn't even the best firm for IP litigation in terms of bench strength in California.


How convenient for you to ignore Morgan Chu.

As for your semantics argument: just because I assert that something is arguable doesn't mean I have to make the argument myself. Others have argued this before, and I see no need to have a repeat of that here. Just search TLS.

I really don't understand the backlash here. If I had said Kirkland & Ellis is arguably the best patent lit firm in the country (which it is), I doubt that I'd come across this kind of resistance.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:31 am

OP: If you go to Munger, you'll come out just as good a litigator as if you go to Irell. Maybe not in IP. But that's not so bad for a junior associate because it is probably best to be a good general litigator than to place your bets on IP anyway.

Partnership odds at Munger actually exist, but they no-offer more people than Irell. Also, Munger is considered more selective/elite, if that matters.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:31 am

I am making this same decision, also with an IP interest.

Have you considered splitting? I haven't verified that this is possible this year, but last year some people split between the two firms.

For me personally, if I can't split (fingers crossed), I'm leaning towards Munger. Mostly because I want to get involved in more than just patent lit, especially at the beginning of my career. I also think Munger gives marginally earlier responsibility. If you're interested in staying at a firm long-term, you'll have a much better shot at Munger. If not, Munger is also the tiniest bit more prestigious. You'll also work fewer hours there. My impression is that it's also a better place for women/minorities (this might not weigh into your decision.)

Irell obviously has some good things going for it: great pay, better location, Morgan Chu, lots more big patent cases. And the fabulous trip to Catalina Islands over the summer :) However, I will say this: when I went out for lunch with the associates at Irell, they seemed less likely to stay for more than a few years at the firm (and much more stressed out in general) than anyone I met at Munger.

Anyway, great choices and you can't go wrong either way.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:26 am

Anonymous User wrote:what makes Irell the best firm for patent litigation in the country? Not sure what you're basing this on. There are several equals like Irell, Weil, Quinn, Mofo, Fish, Finnegan, Kirkland, Ropes, Wilmer Hale, and even smaller shops like Keker, Durie Tangri, Susman, etc. More and more law firms are entering this field. Even firms like W&C boast a growing IP practice. Irell does not have a strong ITC practice, there are several D.C. firms that do.

At CCN, Irell is not really a known entity other than people who want to live in LA for some reason. There's a lot of patent litigation out here in the east coast handled by firms like your Kirklands and Finnegans. The difference between Irell and all of the other firms isn't as large as you make it appear.

I also recall Munger having some pretty good IP litigators, but as a group for IP irell is kind of a no-brainer over Munger unless you have interests outside IP. You're not going to go "wrong" picking Munger over Irell, even for IP. It's a legendary firm. Watch out for the no-offer though.


LISTEN

Morgan Chu is simply the best patent lawyer in the country. He brings in so much business himself that he's basically the reason Irell's PPP has swelled so much recently. If you want to do patent lit, there isn't a better firm because you'd be learning from the best. Plus Irell is known for having some of the best compensation in the country outside of WLRK and has low leverage relative to other big law firms.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:12 am

has low leverage relative to other big law firms.


This statement becomes more inaccurate every year.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:24 am

64 P:114 A is < 2:1.. Still pretty low, even if it used to be closer to 1.5:1.

User avatar
Julio_El_Chavo
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Julio_El_Chavo » Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:44 am

Anonymous User wrote:what makes Irell the best firm for patent litigation in the country? Not sure what you're basing this on. There are several equals like Irell, Weil, Quinn, Mofo, Fish, Finnegan, Kirkland, Ropes, Wilmer Hale, and even smaller shops like Keker, Durie Tangri, Susman, etc. More and more law firms are entering this field. Even firms like W&C boast a growing IP practice. Irell does not have a strong ITC practice, there are several D.C. firms that do.

At CCN, Irell is not really a known entity other than people who want to live in LA for some reason. There's a lot of patent litigation out here in the east coast handled by firms like your Kirklands and Finnegans. The difference between Irell and all of the other firms isn't as large as you make it appear.

I also recall Munger having some pretty good IP litigators, but as a group for IP irell is kind of a no-brainer over Munger unless you have interests outside IP. You're not going to go "wrong" picking Munger over Irell, even for IP. It's a legendary firm. Watch out for the no-offer though.


People at CCN have no fucking clue what makes a good IP lawyer. HTH.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:15 am

Anonymous User wrote:
For me personally, if I can't split (fingers crossed), I'm leaning towards Munger. Mostly because I want to get involved in more than just patent lit, especially at the beginning of my career. I also think Munger gives marginally earlier responsibility. If you're interested in staying at a firm long-term, you'll have a much better shot at Munger. If not, Munger is also the tiniest bit more prestigious. You'll also work fewer hours there. My impression is that it's also a better place for women/minorities (this might not weigh into your decision.)



This is why I would choose Munger, even with your IP preferences. Munger definitely gives more responsibility to young attorneys, and you have far better partnership prospects.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:21 am

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:what makes Irell the best firm for patent litigation in the country? Not sure what you're basing this on. There are several equals like Irell, Weil, Quinn, Mofo, Fish, Finnegan, Kirkland, Ropes, Wilmer Hale, and even smaller shops like Keker, Durie Tangri, Susman, etc. More and more law firms are entering this field. Even firms like W&C boast a growing IP practice. Irell does not have a strong ITC practice, there are several D.C. firms that do.

At CCN, Irell is not really a known entity other than people who want to live in LA for some reason. There's a lot of patent litigation out here in the east coast handled by firms like your Kirklands and Finnegans. The difference between Irell and all of the other firms isn't as large as you make it appear.

I also recall Munger having some pretty good IP litigators, but as a group for IP irell is kind of a no-brainer over Munger unless you have interests outside IP. You're not going to go "wrong" picking Munger over Irell, even for IP. It's a legendary firm. Watch out for the no-offer though.


People at CCN have no fucking clue what makes a good IP lawyer. HTH.


This. NYC and Chicago are the center of a lot of things...IP is not one of them. California has and will continue to dominate that space.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273154
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: IP lit: Irell v. Munger

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:25 am

also depends significantly on your personality. irell is known as a firm where you can sit in your office, lock your door, and not say a single word to people for days and get by. the people i know that work there say it is incredibly anti-social and say even if they wanted to be social, the people there are beta extreme.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.