IP Litigation question Forum

[risktaker]

How much does an IP litigation associate straight out of law school make? Also, is it a tremendous advantage to have a B.S. Science degree (biochemistry and cell biology) in order to get an IP Litigation job? Finally, is there a possibility of moving from IP Litigation into IP prosecution with only a B.S. science degree? I have been trying to find answers to these questions, but I have been having a lot of trouble. Any answers will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[wiseowl]

How much does an IP litigation associate straight out of law school make?

It varies tremendously depending on where you work and who you work for. Anywhere from $40,000 to $160,000.

Also, is it a tremendous advantage to have a B.S. Science degree (biochemistry and cell biology) in order to get an IP Litigation job?

If there is any benefit at all, it is slight. The only "tremendous" advantage would be to go to a top school and get top grades.

Finally, is there a possibility of moving from IP Litigation into IP prosecution with only a B.S. science degree? I have been trying to find answers to these questions, but I have been having a lot of trouble. Any answers will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

It's possible but very unlikely. For one, usually the path is the opposite. If you're doing any moving, its from prosecution to litigation, because as your billing rate increases each year, clients will be increasingly less willing to pay you to prosecute. Also working against you is that a B.S. is a pretty skimpy credential for bio/chem patent prosecution. There are so many candidates with M.S.s and Ph.D.s that you had better be 100% rockstar otherwise to stand out.

[risktaker]

Thanks a lot for that response. Guess I need to pray that I get into a T14 and maintain stellar grades.

[Anonymous User]

Is it possible to do IP litigation even if one has no science background at all?

What is the difference between IP litigation and just, well, "IP." Are they the same thing?

[underdawg]

Is it possible to do IP litigation even if one has no science background at all?

What is the difference between IP litigation and just, well, "IP." Are they the same thing?

ip prosecution is getting the patent in the first place. as far as i know, you need a degree for this. but ip lit is arguing over these patents, and according to where I SA'ed, a science background is not necessary. who knows if they were just sugarcoating things, but there are at least some patent lawyers there without tech degrees. and you might have a "science background" but not really relevant to what you are doing. there were some patent lawyers like that too. i think i've seen threads on TLS saying that YOU NEED SCIENCE BACKGROUND. i KNOW at least sometimes you don't. it's possible you just need to be wicked smart to make it work without the background, i dunno.

BUT a few years ago--and you can see this on ATL--quinn emanuel proposed paying electrical engineers more than other associates. it got shot down, but it shows that the science background certainly helps.

i have no idea what ip transactional is--maybe negotiating contracts about patents? in any case, in patent prosecution you argue in front of the patent office. in patent lit you argue in front of a judge or jury. big difference.

also you don't need any relevant background for "soft ip," which is copyright, trademark, and trade secrets.

[Zugzwang]

^^ above is true, but you have to realize that all the science degrees who are doing prosecution at a law firm (whether it is a boutique or a GP) will be doing litigation as well. They can and will do both, and they tend to gravitate towards litigation as they get older ( at least, until they get families and decide they want to stay in a more family-friendly practice area)

ip transactions = licensing agreements, valuations, etc.

[underdawg]

ok that makes sense. to shorten my post all i said was 1) science not necessary for ip lit; 2) science helps; 3) you might have science but work in a different fields; 4) EE's are hawt

[Bosque]

BUT a few years ago--and you can see this on ATL--quinn emanuel proposed paying electrical engineers more than other associates. it got shot down, but it shows that the science background certainly helps.

I say someone proposes it again. I want more money!

And I will concur with the above about a technical degree. For IP litigation (specifically Patent, as there are Trademark and some copyright litigations too) you do not strictly need an engineering or hard science degree. There are people out there working in the field without them. However, they are not working at the Boutiques, and there are a LOT less of them than people with hard science and engineering degrees. In my experience, I tend to see them more at large firms who have a small IP department, and they invariably also do something else. Or they are partners in a firm that has a large IP department now, but did not when they joined.

So yes, it is possible. There is technically nothing stopping you. But it is going to be a lot harder to get a job.

EDIT: Also, because I am curious: who is paying people 40k to do IP lit? I am sure you are right that there are people out there doing it for that much, but the lowest I have seen is the 60s or 70s (I assumed because they knew that anything bellow that and the engineers might as well go be engineers). Do you have an example?

[dood]

...

[paratactical]

.

[Zugzwang]

I don't know if this is just something weird that we do, but frequently patent prosecution people are not allowed to look at any of the patent litigation stuff. There are really strict walls as to what the prosecution people can see from litigations, so at least here, you don't do both.

That's a pretty bad practice, because patent litigation exposure makes better patent prosecutors.

[paratactical]

.

[Bosque]

I don't know if this is just something weird that we do, but frequently patent prosecution people are not allowed to look at any of the patent litigation stuff. There are really strict walls as to what the prosecution people can see from litigations, so at least here, you don't do both.

That's a pretty bad practice, because patent litigation exposure makes better patent prosecutors.

I'm a paralegal, so I'm not privy to all the details. I do know that some of the barriers are because of ITC orders and that we're at V50 firm, so... there's gotta be something to it.

I'm sure it is for Chinese Wall purposes, and not because the firm thinks that prosecution people just should not be allowed access to litigation matters as a rule. They probably want to make sure the prosecution people can still take work from anyone. If they are privy to the litigation matters, they cannot really work for any company the firm goes up against in litigation.