patent-oriented clerkship calls? Forum

[vamedic03]

Here are GPA averages for clerkships for 2001-11 from one of the MVPs (I'm sure you can guess which one it is), broken down by state within some circuits:
1st Cir: 3.78
2d Cir: 3.79
3d Cir: 3.65
4th Cir
--Maryland: 3.83
--Virginia: 3.89
--South Carolina: 3.61
--West Virginia: 3.76
5th Cir
--Louisiana: 3.67
--Mississippi: 3.5
--Texas: 3.69
6th Cir
--Kentucky: 3.6
--Ohio: 3.78
--Tennessee: 3.64
7th Cir: 3.75
8th Cir: 3.6
9th Cir: 3.69
10th Cir
--Colorado: 3.68
--Kansas: 3.45
11th Cir: 3.73
DC Cir: 3.76
Fed Cir: 3.59

It's gotta be UVA so 3.33 median

Why?

VA:3.89 (Wilkinson?)
no Mich in 6th Cir. (Kethledge)

I'm not sure if this is UVA as it definitely does not match any of the data that I have.

[Anonymous User]

I'm outing GPA statistics from a password-protected website. Not sure outing myself is the best idea.
Is your position that Fed. Cir. is as selective as your run-of-the-mill COA? Is that really your position?
Do you also contend that it isn't easier to get big law with a tech background than without?

I'm sure you haven't been living under a rock, and know that anyone with an EE/ME degree can land big law with median from a t14. Not sure why the "equation" magically changes for the Federal Circuit, where all they do is patent law.

I'm just getting a bit tired of patent people making things appear more selective than they are - just because THEY achieved it. That might be self-serving to your ego, but its not very informative to your run of the mill patent law student who could be interested in exploring things like a clerkship.

Certain judges (I'm thinking Moore, Newman, Rader, Gajarsa, Linn) structure their clerkships by undergrad MAJOR. Think about the pool of applicants we're talking about here for each of these positions. Wish I could out myself or my source - but all I'll say is he or she is on the Federal Circuit right now.

And the source had this to say: "If you're an engineer with top third grades from a tier 1 law school, you're in the running. Only a few judges like Dyk and Bryson are grade-snobby. But the rest are very lax with law GPA standards. They care more about your interest in patents and your tech background. In fact, most judges specifically seek to fill their chambers with one clerk from each specialty."

[dresq]

In this thread: people who know very little about CAFC clerkships. In the past three or four years, hiring there has shifted DRASTICALLY towards hiring alums. Dyk and Bryson hire one or two a year each. Too early to tell about the new judges, but there might be 10 spots circuit-wide for students each year. I was told flat out that if I didn't have a 3.8 from my T14 (and I have close to it, plus very relevant PhD) that I shouldn't bother applying. It's incredibly selective. The hiring bonus from the CAFC is second only to SCOTUS. If you want a CAFC clerkship, you work a year or two at a firm with connections, then have a former clerk make a call to his or her judge. That, plus past practices, might account for the lower-than-average GPA. Honestly, I'm more competitive for other COA clerkships, and I'm a patent guy. People who think all it takes are decent grades and a tech background are retarded. Patents only make up 40% of the docket anyway.

[Anonymous User]

In this thread: people who know very little about CAFC clerkships. In the past three or four years, hiring there has shifted DRASTICALLY towards hiring alums. Dyk and Bryson hire one or two a year each. Too early to tell about the new judges, but there might be 10 spots circuit-wide for students each year. I was told flat out that if I didn't have a 3.8 from my T14 (and I have close to it, plus very relevant PhD) that I shouldn't bother applying. It's incredibly selective. The hiring bonus from the CAFC is second only to SCOTUS. If you want a CAFC clerkship, you work a year or two at a firm with connections, then have a former clerk make a call to his or her judge. That, plus past practices, might account for the lower-than-average GPA. Honestly, I'm more competitive for other COA clerkships, and I'm a patent guy. People who think all it takes are decent grades and a tech background are retarded. Patents only make up 40% of the docket anyway.

Ugh. Thanks for the misleading 40% cite - guy in the know. You're conning us as much as the people who say that C.D.Cal. is the heaviest patent docket because of number of filings. You're technically correct, but you very well know how you're spinning this. Why don't you try breaking that down in terms of number of pages for opinions? Or number of time spent by Fed. Cir. clerks on patent cases versus non-patent cases? That 40% will go out the window just like that. Nearly as misleading as saying Oblon Spivak is the best patent prosecution firm because of # of patents filed. Or that Mark Lemley's the greatest legal scholar out there in general law given his # of citations.

I never disputed that Fed. Cir. has shifted toward alums in the last 3 years. That doesn't make this court more "selective."

Your 3.8 from a t14 (hope the 3.8 is not Northwestern, that wouldn't get you a N.D.Ill. clerkship) is not going to cut a court which hires alums. that doesn't mean the court is more selective in the way that other courts are more selective.

Just like big law, getting into this court is easier for people with tech bgs. They don't need elite law grades. They just need to do what's done for balding - wait a while. But patent litigators don't really go Fed. Cir. because they don't need it. Only people trying to lateral into Finnegan for that 70K bonus an above poster referred to.

Don't fight it man. Its just raw logic - patent people just picked the right major in college.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Fed Circuit judges generally hire two kinds of clerks:

1) top 10% people (mostly on flagship LRs) from t14s and
2) top 25% people from t14s with connections (i.e. a former clerk willing to make a recommendation).

Of course there are exceptions, but unless your Dad is a Federal Circuit judge himself or you have some other kind of ridiculous connection and/or luck, don't count on getting a Fed Circuit clerkship. Technical backgrounds help, but all COA judges want people with exception grades from exceptional law schools and, in most cases, would take someone from Stanford with great grades over someone with a PhD in biochem from a TTT. 2 years of work experience at a prestigious firm working on IP litigation cases will certainly help your chances, but you still probably have to be in the top 25% t14 category to have a legit shot and you better have some killer recommendations.

[Anonymous User]

Fed Circuit judges generally hire two kinds of clerks:

1) top 10% people (mostly on flagship LRs) from t14s and
2) top 25% people from t14s with connections (i.e. a former clerk willing to make a recommendation).

Of course there are exceptions, but unless your Dad is a Federal Circuit judge himself or you have some other kind of ridiculous connection and/or luck, don't count on getting a Fed Circuit clerkship. Technical backgrounds help, but all COA judges want people with exception grades from exceptional law schools and, in most cases, would take someone from Stanford with great grades over someone with a PhD in biochem from a TTT. 2 years of work experience at a prestigious firm working on IP litigation cases will certainly help your chances, but you still probably have to be in the top 25% t14 category to have a legit shot and you better have some killer recommendations.

+1

And category #2 is much more frequent at CAFC than #1. And #2 landing any other COA clerkship is a bizarro event. Top 25% people from lower t14s don't even land district court clerks. Heck, I'd go so far as to say that top 25% at HYS aren't landing d.ct. clerkships this cycle.

Think about why Fed. Cir. judges want alums. Think about what a patent appeal involves. The record is extremely complex for Fed. Cir. appeals compared to other circuits. And a law graduate who hasn't done discovery as a junior patent associate is most likely not equipped to handle what some CAFC judges ask of their candidates. (Look for the Rader interview on what he expects of his clerks on Google Video, I believe its the only link). CAFC judges value clerk's ability to wade through the complex record handed to them on appeal. Junior associates who basically make the record from scratch start with a great handicap.

This has nothing to do with "law school grades." If anything, CAFC judges hire more out of law FIRMS than law schools. Go to a good patent litigation group.

[dresq]

Fed Circuit judges generally hire two kinds of clerks:

1) top 10% people (mostly on flagship LRs) from t14s and
2) top 25% people from t14s with connections (i.e. a former clerk willing to make a recommendation).

Of course there are exceptions, but unless your Dad is a Federal Circuit judge himself or you have some other kind of ridiculous connection and/or luck, don't count on getting a Fed Circuit clerkship. Technical backgrounds help, but all COA judges want people with exception grades from exceptional law schools and, in most cases, would take someone from Stanford with great grades over someone with a PhD in biochem from a TTT. 2 years of work experience at a prestigious firm working on IP litigation cases will certainly help your chances, but you still probably have to be in the top 25% t14 category to have a legit shot and you better have some killer recommendations.

+1

And category #2 is much more frequent at CAFC than #1. And #2 landing any other COA clerkship is a bizarro event. Top 25% people from lower t14s don't even land district court clerks. Heck, I'd go so far as to say that top 25% at HYS aren't landing d.ct. clerkships this cycle.

Think about why Fed. Cir. judges want alums. Think about what a patent appeal involves. The record is extremely complex for Fed. Cir. appeals compared to other circuits. And a law graduate who hasn't done discovery as a junior patent associate is most likely not equipped to handle what some CAFC judges ask of their candidates. (Look for the Rader interview on what he expects of his clerks on Google Video, I believe its the only link). CAFC judges value clerk's ability to wade through the complex record handed to them on appeal. Junior associates who basically make the record from scratch start with a great handicap.

This has nothing to do with "law school grades." If anything, CAFC judges hire more out of law FIRMS than law schools. Go to a good patent litigation group.

Exactly my point. And the fact that they hire so few students right out of school makes it incredibly competitive for those candidates.

[Anonymous User]

Fed Circuit judges generally hire two kinds of clerks:

1) top 10% people (mostly on flagship LRs) from t14s and
2) top 25% people from t14s with connections (i.e. a former clerk willing to make a recommendation).

Of course there are exceptions, but unless your Dad is a Federal Circuit judge himself or you have some other kind of ridiculous connection and/or luck, don't count on getting a Fed Circuit clerkship. Technical backgrounds help, but all COA judges want people with exception grades from exceptional law schools and, in most cases, would take someone from Stanford with great grades over someone with a PhD in biochem from a TTT. 2 years of work experience at a prestigious firm working on IP litigation cases will certainly help your chances, but you still probably have to be in the top 25% t14 category to have a legit shot and you better have some killer recommendations.

+1

And category #2 is much more frequent at CAFC than #1. And #2 landing any other COA clerkship is a bizarro event. Top 25% people from lower t14s don't even land district court clerks. Heck, I'd go so far as to say that top 25% at HYS aren't landing d.ct. clerkships this cycle.

Think about why Fed. Cir. judges want alums. Think about what a patent appeal involves. The record is extremely complex for Fed. Cir. appeals compared to other circuits. And a law graduate who hasn't done discovery as a junior patent associate is most likely not equipped to handle what some CAFC judges ask of their candidates. (Look for the Rader interview on what he expects of his clerks on Google Video, I believe its the only link). CAFC judges value clerk's ability to wade through the complex record handed to them on appeal. Junior associates who basically make the record from scratch start with a great handicap.

This has nothing to do with "law school grades." If anything, CAFC judges hire more out of law FIRMS than law schools. Go to a good patent litigation group.

Exactly my point. And the fact that they hire so few students right out of school makes it incredibly competitive for those candidates.

Ok. Agreed. For candidates "right out of law school" - yeah, its tough. But they just have to go chill at a law firm and earn a quarter million - and then apply. You just can't do that on your average COA. So the end result is that its overall selectivity as a court is less than several district courts, let alone other COAs. Which is why people shouldn't just eliminate Fed. Cir. if they're say top third + tech bg. That's all I'm saying.

But I'm pretty sure you can't just go work for like NY big law for a few years and then go clerk on the 2nd Circuit, or Chicago big law for a few years and then go clerk for the 7th.

[dolores]

But other courts of appeals and district courts value experience too -- at my summer firm (V5) there were many second or third year associates who were able to get much better clerkships than they would have gotten out of school. I do agree that the Federal Circuit values a different type of experience -- the link that someone submitted earlier included a former clerk who was a patent examiner before law school, which is not a particularly difficult job, but involves having some credential that is impossible to duplicate once you actually begin law school.

I do not think that getting a Federal Circuit clerkship is as difficult as getting 2/D.C. But it is definitely as difficult as getting a flyover circuit -- 6th or 10th (most judges, not feeders) or a coastal district court (this is based on the interview offers received).

[Anonymous User]

anyone hear from the district courts in Delaware? They have very heavy patent dockets

[Anonymous User]

In this thread: people who know very little about CAFC clerkships. In the past three or four years, hiring there has shifted DRASTICALLY towards hiring alums. Dyk and Bryson hire one or two a year each. Too early to tell about the new judges, but there might be 10 spots circuit-wide for students each year. I was told flat out that if I didn't have a 3.8 from my T14 (and I have close to it, plus very relevant PhD) that I shouldn't bother applying. It's incredibly selective. The hiring bonus from the CAFC is second only to SCOTUS. If you want a CAFC clerkship, you work a year or two at a firm with connections, then have a former clerk make a call to his or her judge. That, plus past practices, might account for the lower-than-average GPA. Honestly, I'm more competitive for other COA clerkships, and I'm a patent guy. People who think all it takes are decent grades and a tech background are retarded. Patents only make up 40% of the docket anyway.

I do not have anything close to a 3.8 from my t14. Nor do I have a "PhD" although I do have a tech bg. Nor do I have any work experience as an engineer. I have multiple Fed. Cir. interviews though, straight out of law school - through OSCAR. Only one actual ding from O'Malley who wants prior D.Ct. clerks.

Whoever told you to "not bother applying" is smoking crack and giving you some real funky advice. I kinda find it hard to believe someone from any ABA accredited law school actually told you that, given that my school has some kind of weird bandwagon mechanism in place where they tell everybody to apply for everything.

[Anonymous User]

anyone hear from the district courts in Delaware? They have very heavy patent dockets

I was invited to interview with J. Stark (D.Del.) -- call on Thursday for Tuesday (9/20) interviews.

[Anonymous User]

anyone hear from the district courts in Delaware? They have very heavy patent dockets

I was invited to interview with J. Stark (D.Del.) -- call on Thursday for Tuesday (9/20) interviews.

Congrats. Do you have a hard science background?

[Anonymous User]

anyone hear from the district courts in Delaware? They have very heavy patent dockets

I was invited to interview with J. Stark (D.Del.) -- call on Thursday for Tuesday (9/20) interviews.

Congrats. Do you have a hard science background?

Also, it sounds like you turned down the interview?

[Anonymous User]

Top 10% at T20, EE background.

Not even a nibble.

[Anonymous User]

I was invited to interview with J. Stark (D.Del.) -- call on Thursday for Tuesday (9/20) interviews.

Congrats. Do you have a hard science background?

Also, it sounds like you turned down the interview?

Thank you for the congratulations. I did turn down the interview, but I didn't want to say too much about myself because I talked to one of the clerks or interns while turning it down. I have a hard science background, and I turned it down because I have already accepted another clerkship. I am Top 10% (possibly top 5%, I have no idea), not LR, at a CCN.

[Anonymous User]

landed a fed. cir. clerkship this cycle, very excited. turned down two district offers in patent pilot districts.

[Anonymous User]

landed a fed. cir. clerkship this cycle, very excited. turned down two district offers in patent pilot districts.

stats?

[Anonymous User]

landed a fed. cir. clerkship this cycle, very excited. turned down two district offers in patent pilot districts.

stats?

top 2% t6 ee

[Anonymous User]

In this thread: people who know very little about CAFC clerkships. In the past three or four years, hiring there has shifted DRASTICALLY towards hiring alums. Dyk and Bryson hire one or two a year each. Too early to tell about the new judges, but there might be 10 spots circuit-wide for students each year. I was told flat out that if I didn't have a 3.8 from my T14 (and I have close to it, plus very relevant PhD) that I shouldn't bother applying. It's incredibly selective. The hiring bonus from the CAFC is second only to SCOTUS. If you want a CAFC clerkship, you work a year or two at a firm with connections, then have a former clerk make a call to his or her judge. That, plus past practices, might account for the lower-than-average GPA. Honestly, I'm more competitive for other COA clerkships, and I'm a patent guy. People who think all it takes are decent grades and a tech background are retarded. Patents only make up 40% of the docket anyway.

I do not have anything close to a 3.8 from my t14. Nor do I have a "PhD" although I do have a tech bg. Nor do I have any work experience as an engineer. I have multiple Fed. Cir. interviews though, straight out of law school - through OSCAR. Only one actual ding from O'Malley who wants prior D.Ct. clerks.

Whoever told you to "not bother applying" is smoking crack and giving you some real funky advice. I kinda find it hard to believe someone from any ABA accredited law school actually told you that, given that my school has some kind of weird bandwagon mechanism in place where they tell everybody to apply for everything.

This is only true if you have top 1% recommendations and recommenders who are willing to make calls. I have had no such luck with top 1/3 grades from CCN and an EE background.

[Anonymous User]

what % of judges go through OSCAR? what % of judges are "off plan"