Patent Prosecution in CA? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I was wondering if people had any thoughts on which of the following options is best for patent prosecution in the bay area? I'm looking primarily at quality of exit ops, and I would love to eventually exit into Tesla/Apple/Google/Facebook/Uber/Salesforce, etc.

I'm comfortable with either software or hardware work. Zero preference regarding living/working in SF vs SV.

Kilpatrick SF
MoFo SF
Fish SV
Finnegan SV
Perkins SV

[DuckDynasty]

Do you have offers from all five offices?

[Anonymous User]

Most of those types of companies hire anyone from anywhere, even solo practitioners and boutiques. Any of those firms you listed is fine. They have lots of frontline patent counsel roles and your specific firm matters less than personality, technical background, how you perform in an interview, and other factors. Tesla's other factors might be eccentric since their GC is Musk's divorce attorney...

For a company like Uber, I think that they've only recently started building out their patent group based the job listings I've been seeing. The firm that would offer you access to corporate/transactions type of work would be the best option for a smaller legal group like them. Patent prosecution + transactions experience is valuable for companies where patent counsel are not siloed. I'm not sure which one on your list would be best for that.

Fish and Finnegan seem like they might be difficult for prosecutors. Their associates seem like they interview around a lot. I think that they might be expected to move over to litigation so the ones that want to stay in prosecution move away. You should do some research on that and check it out yourself since I might be wrong. Heard some mean stories about MoFo SF. Out of that list, I've heard the least negative things about Perkins.

It's easier to go in-house earlier in hardware than software, but there are more software opportunities. Lots more competition in software, especially since a lot of it can be less technical. I would recommend that you get experience in both hardware and software to have more exit opportunities.

[Anonymous User]

Do you have offers from all five offices?

Luckily, yes.

Most of those types of companies hire anyone from anywhere, even solo practitioners and boutiques. Any of those firms you listed is fine. They have lots of frontline patent counsel roles and your specific firm matters less than personality, technical background, how you perform in an interview, and other factors. Tesla's other factors might be eccentric since their GC is Musk's divorce attorney...

For a company like Uber, I think that they've only recently started building out their patent group based the job listings I've been seeing. The firm that would offer you access to corporate/transactions type of work would be the best option for a smaller legal group like them. Patent prosecution + transactions experience is valuable for companies where patent counsel are not siloed. I'm not sure which one on your list would be best for that.

Fish and Finnegan seem like they might be difficult for prosecutors. Their associates seem like they interview around a lot. I think that they might be expected to move over to litigation so the ones that want to stay in prosecution move away. You should do some research on that and check it out yourself since I might be wrong. Heard some mean stories about MoFo SF. Out of that list, I've heard the least negative things about Perkins.

It's easier to go in-house earlier in hardware than software, but there are more software opportunities. Lots more competition in software, especially since a lot of it can be less technical. I would recommend that you get experience in both hardware and software to have more exit opportunities.

This is incredibly helpful, thank you so much! So it sounds like a particular firm's reputation doesn't matter so much and it's more relevant to consider the work environment/the type of work I'd be getting?