If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this: Forum

kcdc1 · Post by **kcdc1** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:45 pm

Some people like pros. I can tell you that examining gets old pretty quickly. The problem is the lack of interaction with other human beings. From my experience on the atty side, there's slightly more human interaction, but it's still mostly an endless grind between you and your monitor.

fats provolone · Post by **fats provolone** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:46 pm

yea i prefer to interact via text if you couldn't tell

kcdc1 · Post by **kcdc1** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:50 pm

Then pros is perfect for you. Even better if you like inserting numerals on black-and-white line drawings.

fats provolone · Post by **fats provolone** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:56 pm

kcdc1 wrote:Then pros is perfect for you. Even better if you like inserting numerals on black-and-white line drawings.

fucking love that shit. how did i end up in lit?

84651846190 · Post by **84651846190** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:00 pm

Desert Fox wrote:biglawV20 outted himself as Quinn ITT right?

busted

84651846190 · Post by **84651846190** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:06 pm

fats provolone wrote:maybe I'll try to get on some iprs and transition into pros/IPR practice

credited

84651846190 · Post by **84651846190** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:09 pm

fats provolone wrote:i mean i have a bar # so its a possibility. dealing with examiners every day seems pretty shitty. but lawyers are~~n't much better~~ a million times worse. my firm doesn't do pros tho (besides iprs)

84651846190 · Post by **84651846190** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:16 pm

I don't think today's SCOTUS ruling on claim construction will matter that much. The justices said that they did not believe their opinion would apply to many patent cases, since judges do not often make factual findings during claim construction (since they mostly rely only on intrinsic evidence). It seems like judges could just say, "My ruling is only based on the claims, specification and prosecution history" and the standard of review would still be de novo on appeal.

fats provolone · Post by **fats provolone** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:17 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
fats provolone wrote:maybe I'll try to get on some iprs and transition into pros/IPR practice
credited

i don't think we do any pros atm though. rates are probably way too high.

Dr. Review · Post by **Dr. Review** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:22 pm

fats provolone wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
fats provolone wrote:maybe I'll try to get on some iprs and transition into pros/IPR practice
credited
i don't think we do any pros atm though. rates are probably way too high.

This is a problem with pros for most biglaw shops. A lot of companies won't pay >$400-$500/hr for pros work.

lacrossebrother · Post by **lacrossebrother** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:28 pm

$1 bet that September 2015 patent litigation filing numbers are above September 2014 numbers, which were lower than 2013 (per lex machina).

lacrossebrother · Post by **lacrossebrother** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:42 pm

Also for what it's worth, when we were getting IPR quotes this summer, the pros bros could do it at like 1/3d the price and said they're better bc they talk to examiners more. I can't see how the $500/hr firms could possibly compete by simply switching models, but whatever.

Dr. Review · Post by **Dr. Review** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:53 pm

lacrossebrother wrote:Also for what it's worth, when we were getting IPR quotes this summer, the pros bros could do it at like 1/3d the price and said they're better bc they talk to examiners more. I can't see how the $500/hr firms could possibly compete by simply switching models, but whatever.

This tracks. I don't do a whole lot of IPR work, but I would expect it to track more like prosecution work than like litigation work. The billing rate variance makes a big difference as well.

fats provolone · Post by **fats provolone** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:07 pm

we just do iprs in connection with litigation. in those cases it makes sense bc we've already done or are doing validity work in the litigation so it's probably cheaper overall despite the higher rate

gk101 · Post by **gk101** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:11 pm

Dr. Review wrote:
lacrossebrother wrote:Also for what it's worth, when we were getting IPR quotes this summer, the pros bros could do it at like 1/3d the price and said they're better bc they talk to examiners more. I can't see how the $500/hr firms could possibly compete by simply switching models, but whatever.
This tracks. I don't do a whole lot of IPR work, but I would expect it to track more like prosecution work than like litigation work. The billing rate variance makes a big difference as well.

I don't get this. Is talking to examiners somehow a benefit in IPR work? The cost thing makes sense because pros shops have lower billing rates and see a huge potential for growth in IPRs. But companies will pay the $500/hour firms if the patents at stake are important enough the same way they do now

fwiw, I have done a lot of pros and lit work, and worked on a couple of IPRs. I thought IPRs were much more like quasi-litigation than pros work

Dr. Review · Post by **Dr. Review** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:19 pm

I don't think that communication with examiners helps anyone, except maybe to move a single case forward. Most interviews are based on a (mis)interpretation of a reference or claim. Very little to do with the law.

wiseowl · Post by **wiseowl** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:56 pm

"Talking to examiners" has zero to do with IPR practice, so if that's the pros bro sales pitch, best of luck to them. Literally the only benefit is that you might know where the building containing the PTAB hearing rooms is.

IPRs are way more about working with experts, quickly IDing and analyzing prior art, and producing mountains of work product on short notice. Those skills are more litigation than pros.

Desert Fox · Post by **Desert Fox** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:07 pm

Is there a patent attorney SUPERPAC?

84651846190 · Post by **84651846190** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:21 pm

wiseowl wrote:"Talking to examiners" has zero to do with IPR practice, so if that's the pros bro sales pitch, best of luck to them. Literally the only benefit is that you might know where the building containing the PTAB hearing rooms is.

IPRs are way more about working with experts, quickly IDing and analyzing prior art, and producing mountains of work product on short notice. Those skills are more litigation than pros.

Hasn't there only been one live hearing associated with post-grant petitions? I think almost every single one has been decided without oral argument.

84651846190 · Post by **84651846190** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:22 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Is there a patent attorney SUPERPAC?

*files away as business idea*

fats provolone · Post by **fats provolone** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:30 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Is there a patent attorney SUPERPAC?
*files away as business idea*

*patents it*

df explain high tech trade secrets. based on your description i am prepared to drop everything and enter that field immediately. how do i go about this

Desert Fox · Post by **Desert Fox** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:49 pm

fats provolone wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Is there a patent attorney SUPERPAC?
*files away as business idea*
*patents it*

df explain high tech trade secrets. based on your description i am prepared to drop everything and enter that field immediately. how do i go about this

Seems like firms just have their patent bros do a the tech work and their general lit groups do the rest. The cases make crazy money for the firm because its a shitshow of facts and tech. It's like if patent law didn't have claims.

But I guess I don't know how many cases there are. Who is repping Tmo vs. Hawuaii.

lacrossebrother · Post by **lacrossebrother** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:29 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
wiseowl wrote:"Talking to examiners" has zero to do with IPR practice, so if that's the pros bro sales pitch, best of luck to them. Literally the only benefit is that you might know where the building containing the PTAB hearing rooms is.

IPRs are way more about working with experts, quickly IDing and analyzing prior art, and producing mountains of work product on short notice. Those skills are more litigation than pros.
Hasn't there only been one live hearing associated with post-grant petitions? I think almost every single one has been decided without oral argument.

Ok I'll rephrase bc I don't know what I'm talking about. The pros bros said the skills are more pros than lit and they're better at it. Not sure if that's true. Would be interested to see yall discuss that though and ignore the talk to examiners part

I really meant more like, deal with the Office.

Also, we saw no real advantage in letting the litigation counsel handle the IPR despite their pitch bc their price wasn't any less despite being already familiar with the patents. Plus these lit firms don't have a leg up on the cheaper pros boutique bros because it's all so new and shit.

Ultimately, I guess my point is id think that small boutiques should and will capture most of the IPR business because it doesn't make sense to pay biglit rates for it. Same as pros in general.

fats provolone · Post by **fats provolone** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:37 pm

yea i guess if you win the IPR there is less work in the litigation so it goes both ways. i wonder why ppl don't just hire a pros firm to do validity reports actually.

Desert Fox · Post by **Desert Fox** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:41 pm

God bless ARE E.D Texas heroes who refuse to stay ARE cases.

If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this: Forum

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Register for access!

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Register now!

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Register now, it's still FREE!

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Re: If you're thinking about a career in patent law, read this:

Seriously? What are you waiting for?