Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=261042
Really? I thought major matters only when it comes to prosecution.tbird wrote:Yes, from what I can tell firms still prefer EE/CS majors, especially for litigation. Work experience is a plus but not having any isn't a deal breaker. Don't do terrible in law school and you should have no problem getting interviews.
Thanks for the reply, my major concern is whether a master degree in EE/CS without any working experience would suffice for a patent law career.tbird wrote:I would tend to agree that it might make a bigger difference for prosecution, but especially for life sciences where a Ph.D. seems to be required. But it still seems to be very important for lit. Perhaps in the golden days firms would just throw bodies at their patent lit. departments regardless of whether those bodies had technical backgrounds. Now I think firms are a little more selective about bringing in new associates, but that's just my opinion.
I had a few buddies that were EE or CS with good grades that had like 10 interviews at Loyola and got multiple summer offers. Trolling through LinkedIn and other places I still see preference for those majors. You should have lots of options if you do well.
Not in patent work myself but many of my good friends from law school are. Work experience is really not necessary from what I saw. 4/5 kids I knew with EE backgrounds didn't have any prior work experience, and are now all doing biglaw patent lit. What mattered most for these people weren't even their backgrounds, it was their school + their grades (as it is with pretty much everyone). Overall patent people have easier time finding jobs, but don't count on that entirely overshadowing the importance of getting into a good school and getting good grades.jrwhitedog wrote:
Thanks for the reply, my major concern is whether a master degree in EE/CS without any working experience would suffice for a patent law career.
It will suffice, but anybody with work experience will have a better shot at the job than you. Generally, most firms are looking for the ideal candidate to have 2-5 years work experience or a PhD. If you go the lit route, you don't need the work experience, but many firms still prefer work experience over K-JD. In lit, one big point to hiring a EE/CS is to get somebody who is fluent in the technologies used in industry. Somebody without work experience isn't filling that need. However, what usually happens is that the choice is between a candidate with an EE/CS background and a bunch of humanities majors, and the EE/CS wins 9.9/10 times.jrwhitedog wrote: Thanks for the reply, my major concern is whether a master degree in EE/CS without any working experience would suffice for a patent law career.
I do want to address this. A technical background isn't necessary for patent lit. I know patent litigators with humanities backgrounds. However, the firms are hiring the best candidate they can get, and so the more experience you have (to a reasonable extent), the better off you are. The question for OP is how competitive they want their resume to be. Does OP want to compete for the best patent jobs? If so, work experience is going to be more important. If OP is happy with any patent job, work experience is superfluous.Edit: People actually in patent law may disagree but I don't even necessarily think a masters degree is all that necessary in patent lit. So having one provides a boost in itself.
Thanks, well for a guy who's about to get into law school this year, there's nothing I can do about my zero working experience.Without the most competitive resume but a master degree in EE/CS, would it still be easier for me find a job in patent law? What about patent prosecution ?totesTheGoat wrote:It will suffice, but anybody with work experience will have a better shot at the job than you. Generally, most firms are looking for the ideal candidate to have 2-5 years work experience or a PhD. If you go the lit route, you don't need the work experience, but many firms still prefer work experience over K-JD. In lit, one big point to hiring a EE/CS is to get somebody who is fluent in the technologies used in industry. Somebody without work experience isn't filling that need. However, what usually happens is that the choice is between a candidate with an EE/CS background and a bunch of humanities majors, and the EE/CS wins 9.9/10 times.jrwhitedog wrote: Thanks for the reply, my major concern is whether a master degree in EE/CS without any working experience would suffice for a patent law career.
You'll probably find somebody to hire you, but you'd do your law prospects a big favor by working for a few years (or getting a PhD).
I do want to address this. A technical background isn't necessary for patent lit. I know patent litigators with humanities backgrounds. However, the firms are hiring the best candidate they can get, and so the more experience you have (to a reasonable extent), the better off you are. The question for OP is how competitive they want their resume to be. Does OP want to compete for the best patent jobs? If so, work experience is going to be more important. If OP is happy with any patent job, work experience is superfluous.Edit: People actually in patent law may disagree but I don't even necessarily think a masters degree is all that necessary in patent lit. So having one provides a boost in itself.
Not sure about circuit diagrams, but I'm an OCPJP(Java 1.6) and a CCNA, do these help ?patentlitigatrix wrote:Can you read and understand code and circuit diagrams? What languages do you know? Any or all of C++, Java/Javascript, SQL, PHP, Python?
Yes, assuming you do decently in law school (at or around median), you're going to be able to find a job. You just may be closed out of some of the "top" patent jobs.jrwhitedog wrote: Thanks, well for a guy who's about to get into law school this year, there's nothing I can do about my zero working experience.Without the most competitive resume but a master degree in EE/CS, would it still be easier for me find a job in patent law? What about patent prosecution ?
totes, could you elaborate on why it's better to take patent bar before lawl school? I was actually glad I took it in law school because (1) my firm paid for it and (2) I got independent study credit for taking the patent bar (didn't even need to pass, technically).totesTheGoat wrote:Yes, assuming you do decently in law school (at or around median), you're going to be able to find a job. You just may be closed out of some of the "top" patent jobs.jrwhitedog wrote: Thanks, well for a guy who's about to get into law school this year, there's nothing I can do about my zero working experience.Without the most competitive resume but a master degree in EE/CS, would it still be easier for me find a job in patent law? What about patent prosecution ?
Unsolicited advice: Take and pass the patent bar before you go to law school. You'll thank me in a few years.
So I am coming at this from the perspective of a litigator with an EECS background (including work experience). What we really care about for someone with a EECS background is if someone can read code/understand the technology and then explain it those on the team without a technical background. So certifications are nice, but most people won't know what those are. But even humanities ppl who do patent lit will have heard of Java though, for example.jrwhitedog wrote:Not sure about circuit diagrams, but I'm an OCPJP(Java 1.6) and a CCNA, do these help ?patentlitigatrix wrote:Can you read and understand code and circuit diagrams? What languages do you know? Any or all of C++, Java/Javascript, SQL, PHP, Python?
I agree, especially if the OP has the time to study and take it before law school. The spring/summer before law school was the perfect time to study for and take the exam. During law school (including summers), it would have been a pain to fit in patent bar prep with everything else going on (studying, working, interviewing, extra curriculars). Not to mention the benefits to Loyola/OCI you mentioned above. The extra money spent is worth it, but that's just my opinion.checkers wrote:Regarding the patent bar and when to take it, if at all possible you should have it done before you do Loyola/OCI. Some people are mentioning how the firm reimbursement saved them a few hundred dollars, but that's really peanuts when you consider the big picture. Ask yourself, how much would you pay to have every IP interviewer say "I see you passed the patent bar. That's impressive to have done it so early." It gives you instant credibility that you are serious about IP, and by extension serious about working for X firm that does IP. This advice applies to both lit and pros. Considering how much money you'll be paying for tuition, don't put off taking the patent bar just so you can save some money. That would be extremely penny-wise pound-foolish.
I didn't read the above posts closely, so forgive me if I'm arguing against a straw man here. I just don't want 0Ls to get the wrong idea that passing the exam is on par with saving a few dollars.
Spartan_Alum_12 wrote: The spring/summer before law school was the perfect time to study for and take the exam. During law school (including summers), it would have been a pain to fit in patent bar prep with everything else going on (studying, working, interviewing, extra curriculars).
I never meant to suggest that the $$$ should be a reason to hold off on getting a Reg #. Rather, my impression from talking to local attorneys was that a Reg # was a nice-to-have, but not that big of a consideration for hiring in the grand scheme of things.checkers wrote:Regarding the patent bar and when to take it, if at all possible you should have it done before you do Loyola/OCI. Some people are mentioning how the firm reimbursement saved them a few hundred dollars, but that's really peanuts when you consider the big picture. Ask yourself, how much would you pay to have every IP interviewer say "I see you passed the patent bar. That's impressive to have done it so early." It gives you instant credibility that you are serious about IP, and by extension serious about working for X firm that does IP. This advice applies to both lit and pros. Considering how much money you'll be paying for tuition, don't put off taking the patent bar just so you can save some money. That would be extremely penny-wise pound-foolish.
I didn't read the above posts closely, so forgive me if I'm arguing against a straw man here. I just don't want 0Ls to get the wrong idea that passing the exam is on par with saving a few dollars.
I have applied to UIUC, George Mason,UC hastings and American U cause I love DC.patentlitigatrix wrote:So I am coming at this from the perspective of a litigator with an EECS background (including work experience). What we really care about for someone with a EECS background is if someone can read code/understand the technology and then explain it those on the team without a technical background. So certifications are nice, but most people won't know what those are. But even humanities ppl who do patent lit will have heard of Java though, for example.jrwhitedog wrote:Not sure about circuit diagrams, but I'm an OCPJP(Java 1.6) and a CCNA, do these help ?patentlitigatrix wrote:Can you read and understand code and circuit diagrams? What languages do you know? Any or all of C++, Java/Javascript, SQL, PHP, Python?
Can you share what law school you are going to, or a range?
Well I'm pretty sure I don't want to be an engineer, but thanks for the advice any wayhurldes wrote:I think you should work for a year or two as an engineer before going to law school. It isn't necessary to get a job but it will help a lot and it can't hurt you. It'll also help you figure out if maybe you like being an engineer before you take three years off to go to law school. I went straight from EE undergrad to law school and I think it was a mistake not to work as an engineer for at least a year.
.jrwhitedog wrote:Well I'm pretty sure I don't want to be an engineer, but thanks for the advice any wayhurldes wrote:I think you should work for a year or two as an engineer before going to law school. It isn't necessary to get a job but it will help a lot and it can't hurt you. It'll also help you figure out if maybe you like being an engineer before you take three years off to go to law school. I went straight from EE undergrad to law school and I think it was a mistake not to work as an engineer for at least a year.
Well I'd say I'm not really the engineer type of person, and seems some of my engineer friends who make around 120k still work close to 50 hours a week.Abbie Doobie wrote:jrwhitedog wrote:Well I'm pretty sure I don't want to be an engineer, but thanks for the advice any wayhurldes wrote:I think you should work for a year or two as an engineer before going to law school. It isn't necessary to get a job but it will help a lot and it can't hurt you. It'll also help you figure out if maybe you like being an engineer before you take three years off to go to law school. I went straight from EE undergrad to law school and I think it was a mistake not to work as an engineer for at least a year.
why not? you don't like the idea of making a decent amount of money for relatively little hours?
That doesn't sound bad at all. Are you saying that 120k isn't a lot of money or that 50 hours a week is a lot of hours, or both? In law, 50 hours a week will be near the low end of what you work, and there's a sizable probability that you won't even make 120k doing that.jrwhitedog wrote:Well I'd say I'm not really the engineer type of person, and seems some of my engineer friends who make around 120k still work close to 50 hours a week.