patent litigation questions Forum

[Anonymous User]

Clerking is a nice idea, but it's definitely not available for everyone right out of law school. You need top grades from a top law school, and if you have that you can do whatever you want anyway. I know people who graded on to law review at my T10 who did not land a federal clerkship. So unless you absolutely want to work for a firm that requires clerking, like KVN, I think you should work at a firm for a year or two and, if you think it's appropriate, apply for clerkships then. The work experience at a firm will probably give you a leg up in the clerkship hunt.

I agree with parts of this. Although by year three or four, it is extremely hard for most people to give up the income. Also, by that point in your career, the value-added of a district clerkship - while certainly there - is attenuated because of all that you've done as a junior associate. And by year three or four, I'm not sure what extra oomph you could add to your skills by clerking on an appellate court.

One common reason for clerking midway during one's career is lateraling out of big law into something else - academia, government (AUSA), etc. Another reason is lateraling up - although I often wonder about this idea given that clerks for the most part come from pretty decent firms - and the firms north of those firms don't magically hire you after your clerkship (at least based on my cursory observations).

I noticed that at my firm a lot of second or third years simply lost the desire they once had to clerk - relative to how they felt about clerkships as law students. Once you're at a firm, nobody really gives a shit where you clerked or talks about it. It is like law review - nobody actually brings it up. And once nobody's talking about it, junior associates stop giving a shit about it. I once read that teenage girls have a higher statistical chance of getting pregnant if they observe their friends getting pregnant. I guess the same idea operates here.

incoming ip litigation associate here. ive been trying to decide whether to apply now to clerk a year or two out or not. no desire to go into academia or lateral up. i do have to admit, a big part of why i'm thinking of clerking is simply the fact in law school all the profs/students talk about it and how great it is. you mention that no one gives a shit at a firm, and i found that to be generally true during my SA experience (no one ever talked about clerkships other than the people that did SCOTUS). after being at a firm for a while, have you ever seen litigation associates with clerkships getting better assignments or being used to get clients etc.?

and thanks for the blurb about the pregnant girls... i'm trying to figure out if a big reason i want to clerk is precisely because i'm on the editorial board of my LR and it seems that everyone else is clerking.

[run26.2]

btw, for boutique vs GP. i have seen it described as boutique="engineers practicing law" whereas GP="lawyers with technical background". boutiques also have better work/life balance, but GP is generally more lucrative.

Can you explain the basis for your statement? My impression is that boutiques pay higher bonuses (except for possibly K&E or Quinn but even then they're on par). I remember reading on Vault somewhere that one boutique's compensation lagged for more senior associates, but I could be wrong.

[englawyer]

btw, for boutique vs GP. i have seen it described as boutique="engineers practicing law" whereas GP="lawyers with technical background". boutiques also have better work/life balance, but GP is generally more lucrative.

Can you explain the basis for your statement? My impression is that boutiques pay higher bonuses (except for possibly K&E or Quinn but even then they're on par). I remember reading on Vault somewhere that one boutique's compensation lagged for more senior associates, but I could be wrong.

--LinkRemoved--

"It seems to me that the amount of money at stake and the money companies are willing to pay litigators in the patent space is exorbitant. Couple this together with low margin prosecution work and litigators think why am I subsidizing patent prosecution? "

its probably similar for entry lvl and a few years out; i think the difference becomes apparent at senior/partner level. but you also have to take into account that IP boutiques will potentially collapse or be bought out.

[Anonymous User]

I've heard this claim a number of times, although I've also heard it rebutted. So, just to get your perspective, why do you say that it won't continue to be a moneymaker?

There is a phenomenon called group polarization that runs rampant among patent circles. I'll just say you should be a detached (keyword, detached) observer of the value of patents as an asset to businesses - and where that trajectory is headed. And you should keep an eye on how businesses are responding to those changes in the value of patents as an asset - and where THAT more important trajectory is headed.

It is an excellent idea, I think, for a patent litigation associate to diversify the portfolio - so to speak. General commercial litigation is actually more challenging than patent litigation and can actually make you a better patent litigator. So in that sense, I would even go for a non-patent clerkship (on either district or appellate level) - again, depending on the damn judge.

Sorry for qualifying every comment regarding clerkships with "depends on the judge." The judge is your firm for that one year. And I have heard too many horror stories and seen too much disparity between peoples' clerkship experiences to understate the importance of finding the right fit.

Came across this thread while researching IP litigation. I've read a bit about the future of IP litigation and also get the feeling that attitude towards patents are changing and may continue to change (from a business perspective and also from a federal policy perspective). However, do you feel like this trajectory will affect other areas of IP litigation (such as copyright, trademark, trade secret, etc)? Or is this partly what you mean when you talk about broadening the litigation portfolio?

[Anonymous User]

.

[erico]

Is this a joke?

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Came across this thread while researching IP litigation. I've read a bit about the future of IP litigation and also get the feeling that attitude towards patents are changing and may continue to change (from a business perspective and also from a federal policy perspective). However, do you feel like this trajectory will affect other areas of IP litigation (such as copyright, trademark, trade secret, etc)? Or is this partly what you mean when you talk about broadening the litigation portfolio?

What exactly are you implying? That the market for patent litigators will dry up? That patent litigation will decline?

If that happens, that doesn't have any implications for copyright or trademark protection because they're unrelated. But I would guess if patent litigation dries up because software patents are pared down further, then trade secret litigation might spike because software companies without ability to patent will be more guarded with their proprietary code instead of disclosing it via patents.