Help me decide for hard IP Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm EE and undecided between patent prosecution and litigation. Ideally, I'd like to do both for a couple years. I think I would prefer litigation, but the exit options scare me (thanks DF). On the other hand, the work-life balance of prosecution appeals to me. I've narrowed my options to:

Alston & Bird, Baker Botts, Fish, and Finnegan. All Silicon Valley offices.

Still waiting to hear back from one of the above, but my deadline is quickly approaching. BB and Finnegan would likely allow for the flexibility I want. A&B and Fish will probably force me to pick either pros or lit at the end of next summer. Being small, IP-focused offices in the same region, the cultures felt pretty similar, and I liked everyone I met at all the firms.

I'm leaning one way, but I was just curious what everyone thought. All input is appreciated. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

I'm in a similar boat. I made the decision to go IP boutique rather than large GP firm. Personal choice, but helped me narrow down my firms.

Personally, I love Fish. But I know next to nothing about the Silicon Valley office. Finnegan is also a great option. Based on my personal preferences, I would probably choose Fish before any of the others and bite the bullet by choosing between prep and pros versus lit.

Congrats on all the offers.

[jhett]

Fish and Finnegan have the best reps for IP, and probably the most varied work.

As for practice area, I think the best plan is to start off in prosecution and transition to litigation. Litigation can support your increased billing rate as you get senior, whereas that is difficult with pros because of the tight budgets (you essentially have to become super efficient at high bill rates). That way, you'll have both pros and lit experience and be more attractive when looking to exit. So, whichever firm(s) give you more flexibility to plot your own career path is better, IMO.

[amb2189]

.

Fish and Finnegan have the best reps for IP, and probably the most varied work.

As for practice area, I think the best plan is to start off in prosecution and transition to litigation. Litigation can support your increased billing rate as you get senior, whereas that is difficult with pros because of the tight budgets (you essentially have to become super efficient at high bill rates). That way, you'll have both pros and lit experience and be more attractive when looking to exit. So, whichever firm(s) give you more flexibility to plot your own career path is better, IMO.

[ft8fc]

Go Fish!

[kcdc1]

3L here, sharing opinions based on prior experience in IP field as well as my own job search and SA.

I think there's a lot of value in exposing yourself to both prosecution and litigation. Prosecution is a more specialized skill, is desirable for in-house positions, and it builds a deeper understanding of the patent system. The trouble with prosecution is the margins are lower, so you can't support a biglaw mid-level salary doing prosecution alone, and the work is repetitive, so it's hard to remain efficient longterm.

Litigation work tends to be more interesting, but the skills you develop are not as specialized. It's easier to hit hours and be profitable for your firm, but you'll wind up stuck in the office till midnight, traveling, etc more often. You also develop expertise in the enforcement phase of the patent lifecycle. (A patent is worthless without the threat of litigation.)

For building your own value and marketability, I see a lot of upside in developing expertise in both areas. The ability to wear multiple hats will be valuable if you ever want to go in-house, and if you stay at a firm, clients will value your broad knowledge. There's something to be said for a patent prosecutor who can predict the issues that will arise during litigation, or a litigator who fully understands how and why decisions were made during prosecution. Likewise, effective advocacy in post-grant proceedings (IPR, PGR, CBM) requires a blend of prosecution and litigation skills.

I also think that blending your work might help to smooth out your hours a bit. There's a decent amount of flexibility to manage your docket in patent prosecution, so if your litigation work dips for a week or two, you can fill in with prosecution.

Given your description above, I'd go with Finnegan. Top-tier reputation, and you seem to think that you can expose yourself to both prosecution and litigation.

[Anonymous User]

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but can you explain what made you narrow to boutiques instead of GP? What are the pros/cons?

[Anonymous User]

Having to make the same decisions in the next few weeks. Personally, I am leaning boutique bc every GP pushes you hard toward lit for the reasons mentioned above. My experiences with these firms confirms your suspicions. Therefore, I would go Finnegan bc they are notorious for giving you a varied exposure for the first year or two. Conversely, my Fish non-SV CB is practice group specific. Baker Botts, according to Chambers, also allows for a varied practice, even in IP, early on. However, they are not nearly on the same level as Fish/Finnegan in terms of IP preftige. Alston hires directly into lit or pros after the summer based on needs.

[MrProhibition]

Ha, I feel like this is a thread full of people who have never spent any time in the Silicon Valley area..

[rpupkin]

Ha, I feel like this is a thread full of people who have never spent any time in the Silicon Valley area..

Agreed. I'm not a hard IP guy, but my sense is that Fish is significantly stronger than Finnegan in SV, at least for lit.

[SplitMyPants]

Ha, I feel like this is a thread full of people who have never spent any time in the Silicon Valley area..

If you have, care to clarify any misconceptions being spread ITT?

[Anonymous User]

Ha, I feel like this is a thread full of people who have never spent any time in the Silicon Valley area..

I mean... you asked a general forum about IP perceptions of firms. The chances you're going to find someone with in-depth experiences in a niche field in a niche market decrease drastically. Further, if you're making a decision based on the top law school forum, you probably shouldn't be qualified to work in IP at all.

However, you've gotten decent responses from what I see. Looking at NALP, it doesn't seem as though the offices you mentioned are notoriously large. The GP firms also have smaller IP departments.

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but can you explain what made you narrow to boutiques instead of GP? What are the pros/cons?

From what I've heard (anecdotal evidence), GP firms do less and less pros. Boutiques are more able to handle the smaller budgets and maintain a lower billing rate for it. You also are doing IP only. All the time. That's it. People have indicated that GP firms push you into a more varied type of work (outside of IP). This is a pro or con depending on your personal preferences. I have little/no desire to do health or environmental law, nor much in regards to aerospace (both of which seem to be the "extra work" piled into an IP schedule).

[Anonymous User]

Don't go to Alston SV office. It has only boring LED patent litigations.

[Anonymous User]

Agent at a bigtique (Finnegan, Kenyon, etc.) and also in law school with other Agents. Thought I'd weigh in from my experience.

Working at a boutique has its perks compared to a traditional Biglaw firm, but of course there are disadvantages. All of what's been mentioned here is true - at a boutique you won't get the feeling like you're at an "elite" corporate firm. You probably won't get to experience fancy dinners, and expensive social gatherings like you may be at a top GP Firm. You also probably won't get the "wow" factor when you mention your firm to people outside of IP. Meaning, within the entire legal profession, your firm brand name will not as be recognizable even though you're a IP heavy weight. That might seem pretty superficial and vain you might think, but a significant portion of law students approach employment opportunities in such a manner. If you're unsure about a long-term IP career, then this is also something to consider.

However, the upside is probably dealing with less bureacracy and having less structure impeding your professional development. For example, in the two years I've been with my firm, I've handled patent matters at all levels from prep to pros to post-grant to lit. I've brought in some business with new clients, counseled startups on strategic considerations, provided input on portfolio strategies, and regularly interact with in-house without partner supervision. I would've probably been less likely to receive such experience at a GP firm given the rigid of structure of large firms. Not saying it's impossible, but probably more unlikely to happen compared to a boutique. Another thing is that, like others have mentioned, not all offices within the same firm have the same culture. In some instances, a smaller office of GP firm may be more flexible than the HQ office of a boutique firm.

Another point is that, sure you'll be limited to IP practitioners only, but that's not necessarily a disadvantage. Law students tend to think that being at a GP firm means you'll be interacting with practitioners from various fields, but that's rarely the case. Whether you're IP, or antitrust, or white collar, you'll usually be interacting mostly with other practitioners within your practice group - be it at a boutique or GP firm. The difference is that, because boutiques have such a narrow focus on a particular field of law, you'll have a more "fluid" experience because you're working on many sorts of different matters within that field, whereas at a GP firm you're likely to be focusing on certain types of matters specifically delegated to you based on the structure of the overall firm for all practice groups. In an IP context (specifically patent prosecution), this is important because prosecutors often do many things and GP firms are too expensive to let you do all of those things without sacrificing profitability. This is less of a problem in boutiques. Likewise, if your IP department of the GP firm is limited to certain clients/practices, you'll only be exposed to those specific aspects of IP (while not really gaining all that much in other fields of law). GP firms only practicing lit and not pros is a perfect example of this.

[SplitMyPants]

To the previous anon: What market?

Also, thanks a ton for the insight.

[Anonymous User]

DC

[Desert Fox]

DF Thread