Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:I'm not sure why any of you would think patent litigation is a good idea at this point.
Lots of solid knowledge being dropped in this thread -- thanks for that.
Personally, I already know how to do pros. I've been an agent for years and done IPR/CBM work. However, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, IMO there's not really a future for biglaw prosecution. Midlaw prosecution can be the good life: interesting work and easy billing with a low rate and a low hour requirement. However, the pay is not that much different from an EE job in industry, which is kind of depressing when I think of the time and opportunity cost I'm spending going to law school. Still, I'm not interested in patent lit for the money; it's about trying to be the best, and in my experience prosecution doesn't reward being the best any more than it rewards being competent.
Thankfully, I will be going to a good school and I have an EE background, so I have two of checkboxes you mentioned as needed for being successful in lit. There are a lot more I want to check: getting good grades in law school, clerking at NDCA, CDCA, or CAFC, building useful skills, getting a reputation at my firm for producing good work, and getting a reputation in the patent lit community for being exceptional, and getting business. Who knows if I'll be able to check even one of those boxes. The point is I want to try.
If I fail, I can always go back to good ol' reliable prosecution, even if it's in a boutique. It's like riding a bicycle or swimming: once you learn you never forget.
So there's my long-winded, idealistic answer for why I want to try patent litigation. To be honest, I wrote this more for myself than anything. I want to look at this in 5 years (hell, seven months) and see how stupid -- or how motivated -- I was during 0L summer.