Top Law Schools

.

UCFtau wrote:I have read enough to know firms look for a background in engineering or a similar area of study. Pretty simple question, is this type of background required if trying to land a SA/job in IP? Or would 1L grades/class rank play just as important a factor? I am a 0L so this does not concern me in the immediate future but it would be nice to get some insight.

Generally you need a hard science background of some sort to land an SA position in IP. If you don't have that, you can start in general lit and work some soft IP cases for the firm as a way to backdoor into the field if you're really interested.

blurbz wrote:

UCFtau wrote:I have read enough to know firms look for a background in engineering or a similar area of study. Pretty simple question, is this type of background required if trying to land a SA/job in IP? Or would 1L grades/class rank play just as important a factor? I am a 0L so this does not concern me in the immediate future but it would be nice to get some insight.

Generally you need a hard science background of some sort to land an SA position in IP. If you don't have that, you can start in general lit and work some soft IP cases for the firm as a way to backdoor into the field if you're really interested.

Generally, yes but it's not a hard and fast rule. I'm summering in IP lit at a biglaw firm with no hard science degree. If you are a self-taught CS engineer or have substantive experience in startups that can work too.

It's helpful to have a hard science background for IP in general, but from lawyers I've spoken with I've gathered it's only needed for patent prosecution which involves actually getting a patent with the U.S. Government. Doing "soft" IP litigation doesn't require a science background. Some people say it's better to not have a technical background for some of the "soft" IP because it allows you to explain it to a jury and a judge in non-technical terms.

it really is an uphill battle if you don't have some kind of science degree. some firms require that you have a technical background to interview with their IP groups. you can say though that you're interested in soft IP.

Not absolutely required, no. Unfortunately, I think it's an extreme uphill battle without such a background.

I've found that you're basically locked out of IP boutiques without a technical background, assumedly because they expect people to do some patent prosecution as well. Biglaw is random. Some require the background, others don't. You get a sense for it when you look at their website--do the vast majority (or all) of their associates have tech backgrounds?

Dickstein Shapiro, for example, expects all IP candidates to have a science/engineering background. I recall at least one other firm requiring the same, though I can't recall which one at this time (Kirkland? Foley?). Even beyond that, it could very well be that firms that don't *require* a tech background could still prefer candidates with those backgrounds, so that if they had to choose between two candidates, the one with the tech background could still have an advantage.

It's certainly not impossible, it's just more difficult. Much more.

What if you want to focus on soft IP? Like media/copyright/trademark and stuff? Are there not enough firms that specialize to that degree or in that area?

chasgoose wrote:What if you want to focus on soft IP? Like media/copyright/trademark and stuff? Are there not enough firms that specialize to that degree or in that area?

There's 1 media/copyright/trademark job for every 50 patent jobs.

.

Rock Chalk wrote:Definitely varies by firm, so most of the people ITT are right to an extent. Many firms have realized hard science backgrounds do not make the best IP litigators, and the trend seems to be in that direction.

Regarding the second part of your question, you probably won't even get in the door without grades, so yes, they're as important.

a hard science background can compensate for crappy grades, but you still shouldn't be a straight B student.