Anonymous User wrote:Thank you very much for doing this. I will just ask some pretty general questions.
Q1: Can you share your experience on transitioning from pros to lit? What motivated you? Is it money, life style, type of challenges, or something else?
I wanted to try out everything to see what I was best at. My firm actually encouraged this. So I did. Litigation is fun. It is more interactive. You are doing the things law school teaches you to do. You're applying substantive patent law to very interesting facts and you're following rules of evidence and civil procedure. Prosecution can be solitary.
Anonymous User wrote:Q2: I am a typical engineering kid (nerd), who has a strong technical background but wouldn't say fast and efficient reading / writing is one of my strength. My impression is people like me "naturally" fit into pros side. What's you take on this? (even though as you suggested earlier, I should definitely try both of them myself.)
Play a game with me. Go to Wikipedia and teach yourself the difference between impedance and resistance in an electric circuit.
If you found that exercise enjoyable, challenging, and enriching, do prosecution and litigation.
If you found that exercise interesting and doable, but not enriching, do litigation.
If you found that exercise uninteresting, boring, and painstaking, do copyright work.
Anonymous User wrote:Q2: Other than working hard in my law classes, do you have any suggestion (such as law review, specific types of SA etc.) for typical engineering law students to better prepare themselves for a patent law career, especially patent litigation?
I was on my school's law review. It helped with bluebooking. I don't think I got much out of that experience other than bluebooking. Maybe the process of editing briefs is easier now. But you can get that from any journal. I remember during one of my callbacks way back when, someone said "Oh wow you're an engineer who can write!" when they noted my LR membership.