Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

(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
Nammertat
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:25 pm

Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby Nammertat » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:16 pm

First and foremost, thanks to those who offer advice!

I am currently a GW 1L with decent grades (top 15%). I do not have a technical degree, but have 3 years of WE in software engineering. Does anyone have an idea how successful I'll be getting PLIP interviews?

I realize I'm only looking at patent litigation groups, and ideally can land in a firm that does more than just IP. (Sidley, Crowell, Covington, etc)

Any feedback would be great!

**EDIT** I recently accepted a summer associate position with a large CA tech company's in-house patent litigation group. I'm hoping this eases employers' concerns about my technical background and patent focus.
Last edited by Nammertat on Wed Mar 20, 2013 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

target
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby target » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:21 pm

I assume you have registered for it since the deadline for registration has passed. When the firm list comes out, just bid on firms that you would like to work at. I know some firms say that you can substitute WE for a degree in engineering. So maybe it depends on what your WE is exactly and how you sell it.

User avatar
Nammertat
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby Nammertat » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:29 pm

target wrote:I assume you have registered for it since the deadline for registration has passed. When the firm list comes out, just bid on firms that you would like to work at. I know some firms say that you can substitute WE for a degree in engineering. So maybe it depends on what your WE is exactly and how you sell it.


Yeah, I did already register for it. I'm not concerned about selling my WE as technical enough once I'm in the room, I'm more worried about the bias of not being patent bar eligible. Does anyone have/know someone with experience in this?

User avatar
buddyt
Posts: 773
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby buddyt » Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:44 pm

tag

bigredforlaw
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:57 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby bigredforlaw » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:56 pm

I don't know much about IP in the software industry but with top 15% grades you should be competitive for IP positions even without being patent bar eligible IF your resume/interview screams I'm interested in IP litigation (think state/city bar IP sections, IP inn of courts, law school IP clubs, tech journals etc). I'm more than a few credits shy of patent bar eligibility but got interviews at even IP boutiques. I haven't been to PLIP yet but all the firms I interviewed at do recruit there. Make sure you bid on firms that do litigation in the software space and good luck!

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby 09042014 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:02 pm

Just don't waste any bids on firms that does prosecution. I'd stick to big law firms that do IP lit.

User avatar
DildaMan
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:03 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby DildaMan » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:07 pm

My classmate is a CS major but not eligible for pbar without another 9 units. He got plenty of patent lit interviews last year; he struck out for anything prosecution related. Same WE as you, software engineer for 3-4 years.

kryptix
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby kryptix » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:11 am

Biochem degree, 2-3 years biotech experience before 3-4 years software engineering, every single IP interview I did stuck me on a pharma track rather than a engineering track and almost no one considered me for engineering... Issue is that I am definitely much more up to date on the software side than biotech so it didn't help me much when I got organic chem questions...

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby r6_philly » Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:59 am

I think most firms use your degree to approximate your competency in given technology. Yes you can have software engineering on your resume, but how good is the experience? What is software engineering anyway -- my UG software engineering classes involved no coding, only process and designs. Besides, they don't have a handy dandy GPA to gauge your performance. It is also harder to sell you to clients, even in lit. I think when there was a lack of law students with tech degrees, no one cared too much. There are just too many with them nowadays.

User avatar
Nammertat
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby Nammertat » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:56 am

r6_philly wrote:I think most firms use your degree to approximate your competency in given technology. Yes you can have software engineering on your resume, but how good is the experience? What is software engineering anyway -- my UG software engineering classes involved no coding, only process and designs. Besides, they don't have a handy dandy GPA to gauge your performance. It is also harder to sell you to clients, even in lit. I think when there was a lack of law students with tech degrees, no one cared too much. There are just too many with them nowadays.


These points are all well taken, and ultimately at the base of my concerns. I should add to this conversation that I have secured a 1L SA in-house with a large CA tech company doing patent litigation work. My hope is this will ease employers' concerns about my non-technical degrees!

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby r6_philly » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:13 am

Nammertat wrote:
r6_philly wrote:I think most firms use your degree to approximate your competency in given technology. Yes you can have software engineering on your resume, but how good is the experience? What is software engineering anyway -- my UG software engineering classes involved no coding, only process and designs. Besides, they don't have a handy dandy GPA to gauge your performance. It is also harder to sell you to clients, even in lit. I think when there was a lack of law students with tech degrees, no one cared too much. There are just too many with them nowadays.


These points are all well taken, and ultimately at the base of my concerns. I should add to this conversation that I have secured a 1L SA in-house with a large CA tech company doing patent litigation work. My hope is this will ease employers' concerns about my non-technical degrees!


It isn't something that will ultimately stop you from getting a job you want. Just be aware that when comparing to other candidates, it may be a point against you (comparatively), and maybe two points at some firms.

User avatar
Jsa725
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:20 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby Jsa725 » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:19 am

.
Last edited by Jsa725 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kryptix
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby kryptix » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:02 pm

r6_philly wrote:I think most firms use your degree to approximate your competency in given technology. Yes you can have software engineering on your resume, but how good is the experience? What is software engineering anyway -- my UG software engineering classes involved no coding, only process and designs. Besides, they don't have a handy dandy GPA to gauge your performance. It is also harder to sell you to clients, even in lit. I think when there was a lack of law students with tech degrees, no one cared too much. There are just too many with them nowadays.


Yeah but I would think that the roles I have had on the IT side (and that I currently hold as a part-time student) would have been enough to convey my competency... You don't stay on at the places I've been if your no good...

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby r6_philly » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:40 pm

kryptix wrote:
Yeah but I would think that the roles I have had on the IT side (and that I currently hold as a part-time student) would have been enough to convey my competency... You don't stay on at the places I've been if your no good...


That brings on a bunch of other questions such as "why aren't you doing that if you are so good?" They may not ask you outright, but we all know if your experience is that good, you are taking a paycut to work twice as much, it is a little hard to convince people that. I was not always successful in doing so myself.

kryptix
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby kryptix » Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:26 pm

r6_philly wrote:
kryptix wrote:
Yeah but I would think that the roles I have had on the IT side (and that I currently hold as a part-time student) would have been enough to convey my competency... You don't stay on at the places I've been if your no good...


That brings on a bunch of other questions such as "why aren't you doing that if you are so good?" They may not ask you outright, but we all know if your experience is that good, you are taking a paycut to work twice as much, it is a little hard to convince people that. I was not always successful in doing so myself.


Yeah the only real argument I had was that I felt that it would raise the glass ceiling for me because I wasn't founding the next Facebook and the path to CIO is worse than the path to partner...

User avatar
buddyt
Posts: 773
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby buddyt » Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:31 pm

kryptix wrote:
r6_philly wrote:
kryptix wrote:
Yeah but I would think that the roles I have had on the IT side (and that I currently hold as a part-time student) would have been enough to convey my competency... You don't stay on at the places I've been if your no good...


That brings on a bunch of other questions such as "why aren't you doing that if you are so good?" They may not ask you outright, but we all know if your experience is that good, you are taking a paycut to work twice as much, it is a little hard to convince people that. I was not always successful in doing so myself.


Yeah the only real argument I had was that I felt that it would raise the glass ceiling for me because I wasn't founding the next Facebook and the path to CIO is worse than the path to partner...

Interested in others' thoughts on this, as this is basically my argument for getting out of IT and into law.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:56 pm

buddytyler wrote:
kryptix wrote:
r6_philly wrote:
kryptix wrote:
Yeah but I would think that the roles I have had on the IT side (and that I currently hold as a part-time student) would have been enough to convey my competency... You don't stay on at the places I've been if your no good...


That brings on a bunch of other questions such as "why aren't you doing that if you are so good?" They may not ask you outright, but we all know if your experience is that good, you are taking a paycut to work twice as much, it is a little hard to convince people that. I was not always successful in doing so myself.


Yeah the only real argument I had was that I felt that it would raise the glass ceiling for me because I wasn't founding the next Facebook and the path to CIO is worse than the path to partner...

Interested in others' thoughts on this, as this is basically my argument for getting out of IT and into law.


I think it's a mistake to equate IT work with engineering backgrounds... Some IT work could pass as engineering (system design, virtual platform design, etc) but windows server setup and break/fix is a whole different story.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby r6_philly » Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:58 pm

kryptix wrote:
Yeah the only real argument I had was that I felt that it would raise the glass ceiling for me because I wasn't founding the next Facebook and the path to CIO is worse than the path to partner...


I can tell you that many interviewers had no stomach to hear second career 2Ls talking so ambitiously.

kryptix
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby kryptix » Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:33 am

r6_philly wrote:
kryptix wrote:
Yeah the only real argument I had was that I felt that it would raise the glass ceiling for me because I wasn't founding the next Facebook and the path to CIO is worse than the path to partner...


I can tell you that many interviewers had no stomach to hear second career 2Ls talking so ambitiously.


I didn't actually talk about gunning for partner and I'm not sure I will, I kinda like financial services and may end up swinging back. When I tried to come up with some higher motive it always kinda fell flat. I went from research to financial services for more money for my family once already. The phd heavy firms didn't like my motivations though...

Be humble but confident, especially as a second career candidate, they want to see that your willing to be the bitch again and do the grunt work that you got out of in your first career.

User avatar
Jsa725
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:20 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby Jsa725 » Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:41 am

.
Last edited by Jsa725 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nammertat
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby Nammertat » Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:01 pm

To get back to the original thread- Does anyone have additional insight for Chicago PLIP results based on a lack of patent bar eligibility?

target
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Chicago PLIP Question- Not Patent Bar Eligible

Postby target » Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:44 pm

I probably depends on how good your grades are and what you want to do. Most GP firms dont emphasize on pat bar eligibility for lit works.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.