Big law with Patent Eligibility

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 325952
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote: I currently work in biglaw patent pros. There's sort of an unspoken rule that pros attorneys don't have to bill 2000 hours. I've done it, but it's very tough to do without hour inflation. A patent pros business unit inside a biglaw firm is often used by IP groups as a way to get a foot in the door to get litigation work. It can be very effective because as a pros attorney, you have some access to the client's patent portfolio, and can spot potential issues, develop a trusting relationship, etc. IMO while pros isn't exactly known for raking in the billiables, some pros attorneys do rake it in, and importantly biglaw pros associates get paid the same as their litigation counterparts. I think pros is more of a necessary evil for some biglaw firms. No need for the doom and gloom of biglaw pros going way in X years - people have been saying that for a long time, and while the pros business models have shifted, there is still demand due to such a low supply of prosecution attorneys...


Between Patent Litigation and Patent Prosecution, which of the two has a more strict hiring criteria? I know litigation has more hours and typically more money but does that also mean it is more difficult to find a position to do litigation? Also does passing the patent bar weigh less on litigation positions as opposed to prosecution positions? Thanks

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby ballouttacontrol » Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:10 pm

Strict in different ways. Patent lit will be more along the lines of typical law school biglaw hiring. Patent pros will care more about industry experience, then UG major, maybe UG grades, demonstrated exp in patent law, research, etc in about that order.

Patent bar is only really for pros but it could give u a small boost in lit, as long as you'r resume doesn't otherwise scream pros

Anonymous User
Posts: 325952
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: I currently work in biglaw patent pros. There's sort of an unspoken rule that pros attorneys don't have to bill 2000 hours. I've done it, but it's very tough to do without hour inflation. A patent pros business unit inside a biglaw firm is often used by IP groups as a way to get a foot in the door to get litigation work. It can be very effective because as a pros attorney, you have some access to the client's patent portfolio, and can spot potential issues, develop a trusting relationship, etc. IMO while pros isn't exactly known for raking in the billiables, some pros attorneys do rake it in, and importantly biglaw pros associates get paid the same as their litigation counterparts. I think pros is more of a necessary evil for some biglaw firms. No need for the doom and gloom of biglaw pros going way in X years - people have been saying that for a long time, and while the pros business models have shifted, there is still demand due to such a low supply of prosecution attorneys...


Between Patent Litigation and Patent Prosecution, which of the two has a more strict hiring criteria? I know litigation has more hours and typically more money but does that also mean it is more difficult to find a position to do litigation? Also does passing the patent bar weigh less on litigation positions as opposed to prosecution positions? Thanks


Lit cares more about general lit experience/ability. A science background is desired, but I don't think it's likely that a candidate would be passed over just for having a ME degree when the firm's main client is EE. I've seen people who can't operate their computers lead litigations of software patents. Patent bar may show interest but is neither required for the job or for hiring, as far as I've seen.

Pros cares a lot more about technical expertise; they're going to care a lot about where you got your science degree, in what, what you've done with the degree, etc. Your lit summer associate position won't mean much to them. You can get away with no patent bar if you're not an attorney at some places, but you may be required to take it before being hired as an associate.

I'd stress that the two jobs are extremely different, even though they are both patent-related careers. There are a lot of skills learned in one that won't be relevant at all to the other, or that will be valued by one and not by the other, and vice-versa. Be sure you know what a pros attorney does, versus what a lit attorney does. It'll help you get a job, but it'll also answer questions like this.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325952
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:56 pm

Agreed. IME patent pros hiring is much more lenient than lit because you are competing with such a smaller pool of applicants (i.e., only those who have and/or can pass the USPTO bar). Undergrad stuff (degree level, institutions, grades, etc.) matters more for pros. and in many cases trumps law school pedigree.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325952
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:03 pm

Now that post grant proceedings are the hot ticket, litigation firms ARE more likely to look for hires who are eligible to take the Patent Office's Registration Exam.

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby ballouttacontrol » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Now that post grant proceedings are the hot ticket, litigation firms ARE more likely to look for hires who are eligible to take the Patent Office's Registration Exam.


U can pro hoc in tho

Anonymous User
Posts: 325952
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:23 pm

Bumped for more discussion on patent pros at a big firm with a sizable patent group (like Fish) v. IP boutique. Group size, hours requirements, work-life balance, etc. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Anonymous User
Posts: 325952
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Bumped for more discussion on patent pros at a big firm with a sizable patent group (like Fish) v. IP boutique. Group size, hours requirements, work-life balance, etc. Can anyone shed some light on this?


What specifically? That's a really broad range of topics.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325952
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Bumped for more discussion on patent pros at a big firm with a sizable patent group (like Fish) v. IP boutique. Group size, hours requirements, work-life balance, etc. Can anyone shed some light on this?


What specifically? That's a really broad range of topics.


Would the structure of Fish, or any other large firm with a very large IP practice, be more similar to any other V100 (or 50, whatever) with a large IP group or an IP boutique? Most of the discussion I've seen here seems to focus on a typical biglaw firm's small(er) IP group and the hours requirements (such as billable v. billed), pay structure, things like that. It seems to me that because Fish has such a large emphasis on IP, it may be a little bit different than a typical big firm.

I realize it's broad, and I apologize. Just looking for more of the same type of details as discussed above, just in a bit different firm setting.

Abbie Doobie

Silver
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby Abbie Doobie » Fri Jul 29, 2016 9:38 am

fish is an ip-based biglaw firm that behaves like a biglaw firm. it pays lockstep, has a minimum billable hour requirement, long partnership track, etc.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325952
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:04 pm

Abbie Doobie wrote:fish is an ip-based biglaw firm that behaves like a biglaw firm. it pays lockstep, has a minimum billable hour requirement, long partnership track, etc.



Thanks.

r6_philly

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

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby r6_philly » Sun Jul 31, 2016 12:24 am

Abbie Doobie wrote:fish is an ip-based biglaw firm that behaves like a biglaw firm. it pays lockstep, has a minimum billable hour requirement, long partnership track, etc.


I would add, based on personal experience, that a small IP group in a large firm enjoys more advantages than Fish. Small group in a large firm may not have to meet the same requirements as its general lit colleagues where as at Fish everyone has to meet the same expectations.

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby ballouttacontrol » Tue Sep 20, 2016 2:21 am

r6_philly wrote:
Abbie Doobie wrote:fish is an ip-based biglaw firm that behaves like a biglaw firm. it pays lockstep, has a minimum billable hour requirement, long partnership track, etc.


I would add, based on personal experience, that a small IP group in a large firm enjoys more advantages than Fish. Small group in a large firm may not have to meet the same requirements as its general lit colleagues where as at Fish everyone has to meet the same expectations.


OTOH multiple GP firms I've worked at have had the same hours req for ppl doing patent pros as Corp or wtv the fuck, despite the obvious disparity in difficulty

Abbie Doobie

Silver
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby Abbie Doobie » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:21 am

ballouttacontrol wrote:
r6_philly wrote:
Abbie Doobie wrote:fish is an ip-based biglaw firm that behaves like a biglaw firm. it pays lockstep, has a minimum billable hour requirement, long partnership track, etc.


I would add, based on personal experience, that a small IP group in a large firm enjoys more advantages than Fish. Small group in a large firm may not have to meet the same requirements as its general lit colleagues where as at Fish everyone has to meet the same expectations.


OTOH multiple GP firms I've worked at have had the same hours req for ppl doing patent pros as Corp or wtv the fuck, despite the obvious disparity in difficulty


i've worked in both an ip firm and a gp firm and they have had the same hour requirement across all practice groups at both places

r6_philly

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

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby r6_philly » Sun Sep 25, 2016 12:00 am

Let me clarify, the published requirement was the same, what you can get away with was not.

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Big law with Patent Eligibility

Postby ballouttacontrol » Sun Sep 25, 2016 2:13 am

I feel good if I hit 1800.. but that's not easy with these budgets smfh



Return to “Legal Employment�

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.