Lateraling from IP lit to tech transactions Forum

[Anonymous User]

Currently a junior in IP/patent lit, but realizing I'm not interested in litigating and also don't really have the technical expertise to conduct patent infringement analyses. Eventual goal is to go in house and I'm thinking about switching to tech transactions. I'd have to lateral to do so. I helped with an ancillary question for IP diligence for one deal and liked it a lot more.

My question is would I need the same type of technical expertise in tech transactions? From what I understand about the practice, the answer is no (for example, I flat out don't understand some of the patents I'm working with.) And how can I best explain the transition without sounding too negative about litigation?

And if anyone has any insight about the current market for tech trans juniors in NYC, I'm all ears. I'd rather do more standalone work than deal support.

[Anonymous User]

No technical expertise is needed for tech trans, even less so than IP lit.

A lot of tech trans people are former IP litigators so it's a good transition from IP lit to tech trans and people perfectly understand the transition.

It's better to do tech trans in SV where almost all the tech companies are. Not sure if NYC has or does any tech trans. If geography is no issues and one has the biglaw credentials, s/he should have no problems being hired in SV for tech trans.

Personally, in tech trans, IP diligence is not fun but contract drafting is super fun.

[Anonymous User]

Agree with the above. Only adding that I think Skadden has tech transactions partners in NYC.

[Anonymous User]

No technical expertise is needed for tech trans, even less so than IP lit.

A lot of tech trans people are former IP litigators so it's a good transition from IP lit to tech trans and people perfectly understand the transition.

It's better to do tech trans in SV where almost all the tech companies are. Not sure if NYC has or does any tech trans. If geography is no issues and one has the biglaw credentials, s/he should have no problems being hired in SV for tech trans.

Personally, in tech trans, IP diligence is not fun but contract drafting is super fun.

OP here - Thanks, this is really helpful! Do you think there needs to be a retooling explanation beyond the fact that I just don't want to litigate? I'll need to stay in New York for the time being (if I can) for personal reasons, but wouldn't be opposed to moving to SV in the future. Do you think there's also a difference in the work between, say, v10/wall street firms and tech focused firms? I'm coming from a v10 and want to try to do as much standalone work as possible rather than just deal diligence, so I'm thinking that EC/tech firms may be the way to go.

[Anonymous User]

When one makes a transition to something (whether it be lateralling into a new firm, a new practice area of law, transferring to a new school, etc.), there are two vantage points she can make: (1) talking down the old place, aka negative, or (2) talking up the new place, aka positive. Talking about the former is a taboo, and should be stayed away from. Talking about the latter is kosher. Just focus on how much you like tech trans when you tried it out, and want to spend the rest of your life doing it, etc.

[antiworldly]

OP, retooling is definitely possible, and tech trans is an incredibly hot area right now for lateral hiring. I'm at Ropes doing tech trans work and would be happy to chat about the group and the work we do if you'd like to drop a PM. Probably 50% of our group is in Boston, but we've got a strong contingent (~30%) out of NYC if you're looking to stay there.

[Anonymous User]

OP, retooling is definitely possible, and tech trans is an incredibly hot area right now for lateral hiring. I'm at Ropes doing tech trans work and would be happy to chat about the group and the work we do if you'd like to drop a PM. Probably 50% of our group is in Boston, but we've got a strong contingent (~30%) out of NYC if you're looking to stay there.

[OP] Thanks for the offer! Just messaged you - I don't really know anyone in tech transactions so I'd love to hear your perspective.

[Anonymous User]

When one makes a transition to something (whether it be lateralling into a new firm, a new practice area of law, transferring to a new school, etc.), there are two vantage points she can make: (1) talking down the old place, aka negative, or (2) talking up the new place, aka positive. Talking about the former is a taboo, and should be stayed away from. Talking about the latter is kosher. Just focus on how much you like tech trans when you tried it out, and want to spend the rest of your life doing it, etc.

[OP] Definitely understand that. I'd never go into an interview and say I want to do tech trans because I hate litigation - I'd say something like I tried a tech trans assignment this year and felt like this was a logical step, I want to do more drafting and work with licenses etc. (without saying what I want to do less of.) Since I haven't done very much of the work I don't have a detailed pitch for why I want to do it, but I can give them the general IP spiel I gave when applying to IP lit jobs. I guess I was just wondering how specific I need to get, seeing as I haven't actually done much of the work yet.