Knowing what you know about patent litigation... Forum

[Anonymous User]

Would you take a job that seems like your dream job in every way if it meant you’d be doing patent litigation with zero patent lit experience?

For more detail, I’m a mid level wanting to leave biglaw. This patent shop that I’m considering has no billable hour requirement, excellent culture, short commute, great pay, and in the city we want to live in. My hesitation stems from the fact that I have no patent litigation experience so I don’t know 1) if I can hack it, or 2) whether I’d actually enjoy it.

Any advice?

[Anonymous User]

Please do not take this personally, but it's a bit of a red flag that this firm (presumably an IP boutique from your description) is willing to hire a mid-level with no patent experience of any sort to do patent work. They'd essentially have to train you from scratch because patent litigation is pretty complicated depending on the issues and the technology at hand - and it's even worse right now because so many things in patent law have been changing, and litigators need to straddle the pre-AIA and post-AIA worlds. I would be curious as to why they are unable to get anyone with patent lit experience, because patent litigations are no longer in short supply. Also, as I'm sure you know, just because a firm has no formal billable hour requirement doesn't mean that there isn't one unofficially. And if you move to a boutique, you run the risk of billing far below this amount if there's ever a lull, since you won't be able to hop on any other non-IP matters or pro bono matters (as most IP boutiques don't have a strong pro bono practice)

[Anonymous User]

Please do not take this personally, but it's a bit of a red flag that this firm (presumably an IP boutique from your description) is willing to hire a mid-level with no patent experience of any sort to do patent work. They'd essentially have to train you from scratch because patent litigation is pretty complicated depending on the issues and the technology at hand - and it's even worse right now because so many things in patent law have been changing, and litigators need to straddle the pre-AIA and post-AIA worlds. I would be curious as to why they are unable to get anyone with patent lit experience, because patent litigations are no longer in short supply. Also, as I'm sure you know, just because a firm has no formal billable hour requirement doesn't mean that there isn't one unofficially. And if you move to a boutique, you run the risk of billing far below this amount if there's ever a lull, since you won't be able to hop on any other non-IP matters or pro bono matters (as most IP boutiques don't have a strong pro bono practice)

Good points all around. It is a reputable patent boutique and the folks I've talked to say that it's a huge improvement from biglaw. The no-billables thing isn't a "bill as much as possible and we won't tell you how much" kind of thing. From what I've been told, people leave the office around 5 and generally don't work weekends unless it's absolutely necessary. As to why they aren't hiring someone WITH IP experience, I cannot answer that but now I am rather curious. Given the highly technical nature of patent work, would you say I'm setting myself up to fail given my lack of experience in this space? Of course, it's POSSIBLE that they are the best mentors and trainers ever and they'll put in the time to train me, but assuming they don't do that, would you say that it's so difficult that this might be a bad decision?

[Anonymous User]

Please do not take this personally, but it's a bit of a red flag that this firm (presumably an IP boutique from your description) is willing to hire a mid-level with no patent experience of any sort to do patent work. They'd essentially have to train you from scratch because patent litigation is pretty complicated depending on the issues and the technology at hand - and it's even worse right now because so many things in patent law have been changing, and litigators need to straddle the pre-AIA and post-AIA worlds. I would be curious as to why they are unable to get anyone with patent lit experience, because patent litigations are no longer in short supply. Also, as I'm sure you know, just because a firm has no formal billable hour requirement doesn't mean that there isn't one unofficially. And if you move to a boutique, you run the risk of billing far below this amount if there's ever a lull, since you won't be able to hop on any other non-IP matters or pro bono matters (as most IP boutiques don't have a strong pro bono practice)

Good points all around. It is a reputable patent boutique and the folks I've talked to say that it's a huge improvement from biglaw. The no-billables thing isn't a "bill as much as possible and we won't tell you how much" kind of thing. From what I've been told, people leave the office around 5 and generally don't work weekends unless it's absolutely necessary. As to why they aren't hiring someone WITH IP experience, I cannot answer that but now I am rather curious. Given the highly technical nature of patent work, would you say I'm setting myself up to fail given my lack of experience in this space? Of course, it's POSSIBLE that they are the best mentors and trainers ever and they'll put in the time to train me, but assuming they don't do that, would you say that it's so difficult that this might be a bad decision?

It's not so much that you're being set up to fail (patent law is learnable, just difficult), it's just strange that the firm is willing to take on a mid-level and train them from the ground up. It's entirely possible that your previous experience (general lit?) will still be useful to the firm. And yes, there is also the concern that you won't like patent lit. Some people really like getting into the weeds on various technologies, and others find it dull. And if you're at a small boutique you won't be representing Apple or Samsung on patent infringement cases for the latest smartphone. One suggestion: look up the attorneys you'll be working for and see what types of cases they've taken on in the last few years - read the opinions, and see how you feel about it, both the legal issues and the level to which various technologies are described and differentiated.

Also you don't need a tech background to go into patent law but it helps - do you have one? If not, not only will you have to undergo a crash course in patent law, but also about the various technologies you'll be facing. And even for people with tech backgrounds, this can be hard - a person with a PhD in biology is going to struggle on a case involving computer chips; a person with a PhD in electrical engineering might struggle on a case involving genetic sequencing.

[Anonymous User]

Please do not take this personally, but it's a bit of a red flag that this firm (presumably an IP boutique from your description) is willing to hire a mid-level with no patent experience of any sort to do patent work. They'd essentially have to train you from scratch because patent litigation is pretty complicated depending on the issues and the technology at hand - and it's even worse right now because so many things in patent law have been changing, and litigators need to straddle the pre-AIA and post-AIA worlds. I would be curious as to why they are unable to get anyone with patent lit experience, because patent litigations are no longer in short supply. Also, as I'm sure you know, just because a firm has no formal billable hour requirement doesn't mean that there isn't one unofficially. And if you move to a boutique, you run the risk of billing far below this amount if there's ever a lull, since you won't be able to hop on any other non-IP matters or pro bono matters (as most IP boutiques don't have a strong pro bono practice)

Good points all around. It is a reputable patent boutique and the folks I've talked to say that it's a huge improvement from biglaw. The no-billables thing isn't a "bill as much as possible and we won't tell you how much" kind of thing. From what I've been told, people leave the office around 5 and generally don't work weekends unless it's absolutely necessary. As to why they aren't hiring someone WITH IP experience, I cannot answer that but now I am rather curious. Given the highly technical nature of patent work, would you say I'm setting myself up to fail given my lack of experience in this space? Of course, it's POSSIBLE that they are the best mentors and trainers ever and they'll put in the time to train me, but assuming they don't do that, would you say that it's so difficult that this might be a bad decision?

It's not so much that you're being set up to fail (patent law is learnable, just difficult), it's just strange that the firm is willing to take on a mid-level and train them from the ground up. It's entirely possible that your previous experience (general lit?) will still be useful to the firm. And yes, there is also the concern that you won't like patent lit. Some people really like getting into the weeds on various technologies, and others find it dull. And if you're at a small boutique you won't be representing Apple or Samsung on patent infringement cases for the latest smartphone. One suggestion: look up the attorneys you'll be working for and see what types of cases they've taken on in the last few years - read the opinions, and see how you feel about it, both the legal issues and the level to which various technologies are described and differentiated.

Also you don't need a tech background to go into patent law but it helps - do you have one? If not, not only will you have to undergo a crash course in patent law, but also about the various technologies you'll be facing. And even for people with tech backgrounds, this can be hard - a person with a PhD in biology is going to struggle on a case involving computer chips; a person with a PhD in electrical engineering might struggle on a case involving genetic sequencing.

Looking up opinions from cases the attorneys have worked on is a fantastic idea. I will definitely do that. I do have some concern that I won't enjoy it and then I'll be stuck. I don't have a tech background, not even close actually.

[Usernameisanon]

I would be hesitant about doing patent lit without patent experience. It takes a while to firmly grasp 103 and 101 among other issues such as inventorship and licenses.

Is this for a firm in DC?

[Anonymous User]

I would be hesitant about doing patent lit without patent experience. It takes a while to firmly grasp 103 and 101 among other issues such as inventorship and licenses.

Is this for a firm in DC?

It is not but they have two offices in other major markets.

[integralx2]

As someone has already mentioned, I would be very cautious about taking a patent litigation position at an IP boutique when you have no experience with patent law. Just ask yourself, why would an IP boutique hire someone without any technical background and zero patent litigation experience and is a mid-level? I would do some investigating about the firm.

Given my experience with patent litigators, you will struggle immensely without a technical background. For example how would you be able to determine if a particular software infringes patent claims when you don’t know software, the terminology, etc. From a client prospective, I wouldn’t want someone on the case who has no experience in the particular technology. Just my 2 cents. Best of luck though if you proceed.