With STEM/Patent Bar interest, does t14/BL% matter as much? Forum

[James.K.Polk]

I've been curious about this. I have fairly significant (though non-PhD) research experience in medicinal/biochemistry, and would like to practice in patent/IP law. Whether that's litigation or prosecution, I'm not entirely sure.

Everyone I've talked to, from 2/3Ls to practicing attorneys, the consensus is that patent law jobs are easier to come by - but this is coming, of course, from people who have them (or have them lined up). What I'm wondering is, especially within the t14, does it matter as much where I go? Am I better off paying more $$$ for a higher BL% (as it seems the normal TLS advice would say), or is a lower-end t14 "good enough" considering my background?

Thanks for the help!

[lymenheimer]

What I'm wondering is, especially within the t14, does it matter as much where I go? Am I better off paying more $$$ for a higher BL% (as it seems the normal TLS advice would say), or is a lower-end t14 "good enough" considering my background?

I've never seen anybody say what you regard as the bolded, if you're IP.

[James.K.Polk]

What I'm wondering is, especially within the t14, does it matter as much where I go? Am I better off paying more $$$ for a higher BL% (as it seems the normal TLS advice would say), or is a lower-end t14 "good enough" considering my background?

I've never seen anybody say what you regard as the bolded, if you're IP.

Well that's certainly I didn't know - and is helpful. Is there any compilation of IP-related employment numbers that you know of?

[lymenheimer]

What I'm wondering is, especially within the t14, does it matter as much where I go? Am I better off paying more $$$ for a higher BL% (as it seems the normal TLS advice would say), or is a lower-end t14 "good enough" considering my background?

I've never seen anybody say what you regard as the bolded, if you're IP.

Well that's certainly I didn't know - and is helpful. Is there any compilation of IP-related employment numbers that you know of?

I don't know any actual numbers for IP employment. To what I have seen, IP-secure has gone down, but is still somewhat reliable. Obviously your ability to get it/prospects are going to be better as the BL numbers go up, but that doesn't mean you have to go T14. A bunch of people have been encouraged to go BC/BU, GMU (or was it GWU?), and other regional schools with decent BL numbers if they are IP and hoping to work it.

[boslaw56]

Post Removed.

[zozo1717]

0L as well, but anecdotally (from talking to some IP attorneys that I know) - seems like to do litigation, you don't even need to be patent bar eligible, but a science or tech background helps. For prosecution - its almost an unspoken rule that life sciences folks need an advanced degree. I would also somewhat consider markets - seems like different markets may have patent work in different areas (tech, life sciences, oil& gas) so considering a school that places well in that market isn't a bad idea either.

[James.K.Polk]

0L as well, but anecdotally (from talking to some IP attorneys that I know) - seems like to do litigation, you don't even need to be patent bar eligible, but a science or tech background helps. For prosecution - its almost an unspoken rule that life sciences folks need an advanced degree. I would also somewhat consider markets - seems like different markets may have patent work in different areas (tech, life sciences, oil& gas) so considering a school that places well in that market isn't a bad idea either.

Again, 0L here, too, but that's what I've heard. Though a STEM background can open doors at many firms, per my contacts.

As for the advanced degree, I think you're right. I'm fortunate to have some strong research (government) which *might* help, but I'm sure there are jobs that cannot be accessed without a PhD, at least in chem/biochem.

[NY_Sea]

0L as well, but anecdotally (from talking to some IP attorneys that I know) - seems like to do litigation, you don't even need to be patent bar eligible, but a science or tech background helps. For prosecution - its almost an unspoken rule that life sciences folks need an advanced degree. I would also somewhat consider markets - seems like different markets may have patent work in different areas (tech, life sciences, oil& gas) so considering a school that places well in that market isn't a bad idea either.

Again, 0L here, too, but that's what I've heard. Though a STEM background can open doors at many firms, per my contacts.

As for the advanced degree, I think you're right. I'm fortunate to have some strong research (government) which *might* help, but I'm sure there are jobs that cannot be accessed without a PhD, at least in chem/biochem.

First year full-time in house counsel doing prosecution... I think the main thing that firms like when it comes to Lit is either technical knowledge (STEM degree, preferably a PhD, not just a BS) or prosecution experience, but probably want both. The logic is that most (if not all) lit you're going to be doing is either enforcement or trying to invalidate a patent (sometimes both in the same lit)... The best people for invalidating or enforcing patents are people who understand the prosecution side of things.

Just throwing that out there... While it's true that you don't need to sit for the Patent Bar to litigate, I know of very few good Patent Lit attorneys who don't fall into one of the two categories referenced above. You need to really know the subject matter of the patent(s) you're working with in order to be of any service in Lit. You need to become an expert in an area of tech REALLY quickly and I don't know of many attorneys who can do that without the requisite experience or knowledge.

YMMV, but just speaking from experience/observation

[totesTheGoat]

I think the main thing that firms like when it comes to Lit is either technical knowledge (STEM degree, preferably a PhD, not just a BS) or prosecution experience, but probably want both.

This^^.

You need to become an expert in an area of tech REALLY quickly and I don't know of many attorneys who can do that without the requisite experience or knowledge.

This, too. I worked in telecom for 3 years prior to law school, and even some telecom cases take me a few hours to understand. When you have 15 different communications standards interacting along with novel parts of the invention, sometimes it's hard for experts to keep up, let alone somebody who needs the extra time to learn what the difference between what TCP and UDP are.

As for the advanced degree, I think you're right. I'm fortunate to have some strong research (government) which *might* help, but I'm sure there are jobs that cannot be accessed without a PhD, at least in chem/biochem.

Generally, R&D work experience is interchangeable with advanced degrees in the minds of hiring attorneys. It has to be significant work experience (3+ years), but you can overcome not having a graduate degree through R&D work. Of course, this is all just general info... not every firm treats it similarly.