NU vs Cornell vs GW for IP Forum

[rpupkin]

2-5 years experience as an engineer would probably make you even more competitive for IP jobs. Why not go that direction and save money before going to law school? That said, if your number one career goal has always been to become a lawyer and you must go now, take GW.

Where are you getting this experience needed stuff from? For someone with a terminal degree in engineering experience may matter a tiny bit for prosecution and probably not at all for lit.

As already stated, if patent prosecution, GW is fine.

If IP litigation, consider retaking for scholarship at T14.

For patent lit, work experience matters even less. Grades, class rank, law review, and school totally trump scientific background for lit. A terminal scientific degree for patent lit is considered a nice to have, but won't get you a job without the other factors being right. Thus, experience on top of the nice to have terminal degree for lit likely doesn't really matter at all.

Given these statements, I get the impression that technical work experience, in general, does NOT make one a better patent litigator; otherwise, firms would value it more.

Firms do value technical work experience. They just value law school and grades more. I'm not sure they value law review more, as another poster suggested. If a firm is looking at two patent lit candidates with equal grades from equally good law schools, and one has a tech background (but no law review) and the other has law review (but no tech background), I think the vast majority of firms will go with the former.

[rpupkin]

Is patent law a good idea given that the value of patents has been decreasing over the last 10 years?

Source?

School of hard knocks. Patent reform. Supreme court. Open your eyes.

My eyes are open. Despite predictions to the contrary, patent reform has yet to materialize. And Supreme Court decisions like Alice definitely had a short-term effect, but the trolls are now regrouping, asserting patents that aren't as vulnerable to 101 challenges.

Seeing as how you're the one casually throwing around career advice, why don't you explain what you learned in your "school of hard knocks"?

[L’Étranger]

2-5 years experience as an engineer would probably make you even more competitive for IP jobs. Why not go that direction and save money before going to law school? That said, if your number one career goal has always been to become a lawyer and you must go now, take GW.

Where are you getting this experience needed stuff from? For someone with a terminal degree in engineering experience may matter a tiny bit for prosecution and probably not at all for lit.

As already stated, if patent prosecution, GW is fine.

If IP litigation, consider retaking for scholarship at T14.

For patent lit, work experience matters even less. Grades, class rank, law review, and school totally trump scientific background for lit. A terminal scientific degree for patent lit is considered a nice to have, but won't get you a job without the other factors being right. Thus, experience on top of the nice to have terminal degree for lit likely doesn't really matter at all.

Given these statements, I get the impression that technical work experience, in general, does NOT make one a better patent litigator; otherwise, firms would value it more.

Firms do value technical work experience. They just value law school and grades more. I'm not sure they value law review more, as another poster suggested. If a firm is looking at two patent lit candidates with equal grades from equally good law schools, and one has a tech background (but no law review) and the other has law review (but no tech background), I think the vast majority of firms will go with the former.

Maybe. I honestly can't say what an employer would prefer in that extremely specific situation you described. Law review is a big boost for lit in general (as are clerkships which I negligently forgot to list).

[rpupkin]

Firms do value technical work experience. They just value law school and grades more. I'm not sure they value law review more, as another poster suggested. If a firm is looking at two patent lit candidates with equal grades from equally good law schools, and one has a tech background (but no law review) and the other has law review (but no tech background), I think the vast majority of firms will go with the former.

Maybe. I honestly can't say what an employer would prefer in that extremely specific situation you described. Law review is a big boost for lit in general (as are clerkships which I negligently forgot to list).

Well, the hypothetical is "extremely specific" to make the point that technical experience is more important than law review for a patent litigation candidate. I actually don't think it's even a close question. I can't think of a firm that does patent litigation--including general lit big law firms and boutiques--that would value law review experience over technical background. It would make no sense to do so.

Clerkships are an entirely different thing. For many firms, clerkships are a huge boost (or even a threshold credential). Law review experience is trivial by comparison.

[totesTheGoat]

I think the difference in our approaches is about whether the OP's goal is to have good IP opportunities or whether OP wants the option to choose the best IP opportunities. All of my classmates and coworkers who went K-BS?E-JD (even with an advanced engineering degree) have good job outcomes. They are (or will be) making market+ at stable boutiques and biglaw firms. The handful who have significant work experience (and/or PhDs) had those jobs offered to them before they were extended to our classmates and coworkers. I only know one guy who (only) has an MSEE, and he has significant work experience. Needless to say, the world is his oyster.

How do you distinguish "good" and "best"? Sounds like everyone in your example got market paying jobs in the end. What difference does it make if you got your job during 1L or at OCI?

Do you want offers from most of the market paying IP firms in your market, or do you just want one or two market paying offers to choose from? That's the difference. "Best" means being able to make your own choice after considering 5-10 competitive offers. "Good" means getting 1-2 competitive offers and a handful of below-market offers. "Best" also means that unicorns start showing up.

[orangered]

Do you want offers from most of the market paying IP firms in your market, or do you just want one or two market paying offers to choose from? That's the difference. "Best" means being able to make your own choice after considering 5-10 competitive offers. "Good" means getting 1-2 competitive offers and a handful of below-market offers. "Best" also means that unicorns start showing up.

It's a cost-benefit analysis. Is it really worth spending "2-5 years" of your life getting work experience in a field you won't pursue just to have more offers for your first associate position?

Market pay is market pay, regardless of the firm. And once you start working, the quality of your work, your substantive legal experience, and various other factors will have far more to do with your success than the particular firm that you start out at. The quality of your work product is not going to improve markedly as a result of tech work experience unless you're doing pros in the exact sub-field that you worked in. This isn't like law school where there are significant differences between schools; most market-paying patent firms are the same, or at least equivalent to the extent that differences between practice groups and partners within a firm are often bigger than differences between firms.

[kapenak]

Interesting ideas but I think all this has been a bit of a digression. I'm already set on law school next year... I just wanted to know what you guys think of my choices for law school to maximize my shot at a good paying ip job and success thereafter while minimizing debt.

[rpupkin]

Interesting ideas but I think all this has been a bit of a digression. I'm already set on law school next year... I just wanted to know what you guys think of my choices for law school to maximize my shot at a good paying ip job and success thereafter while minimizing debt.

LOL. If you want focused attention tailored exclusively to your immediate needs, hire a consultant. If you're going to ask questions on an internet message board, I'm afraid you'll have to tolerate "a bit of digression."

[kapenak]

Interesting ideas but I think all this has been a bit of a digression. I'm already set on law school next year... I just wanted to know what you guys think of my choices for law school to maximize my shot at a good paying ip job and success thereafter while minimizing debt.

LOL. If you want focused attention tailored exclusively to your immediate needs, hire a consultant. If you're going to ask questions on an internet message board, I'm afraid you'll have to tolerate "a bit of digression."

Dude I started this topic in the "choosing a law school" section asking for thoughts and advice on a rather specific question. If you got something relevant to say, then please do so and I will be more than happy to seriously consider what you have to say. If you want to discuss something else, there are other threads/sections or you can even start your own thread!

[rpupkin]

Wow. I have relevant experience in your field of interest and, as you saw up-thread, was happy to answer your questions and offer advice. Even though some of us were digressing a bit (as happens all the time on TLS), we would have continued to answer your questions. But seeing as how you're being such a dick about this, I'll leave you be.

[Nammertat]

Wow. I have relevant experience in your field of interest and, as you saw up-thread, was happy to answer your questions and offer advice. Even though some of us were digressing a bit (as happens all the time on TLS), we would have continued to answer your questions. But seeing as how you're being such a dick about this, I'll leave you be.

Saves me time.