Top Law Schools

I have a minor in physics from undergrad, and a masters in math. I think I took enough physics courses to meet the requirements for taking the patent bar exam, but without a degree in engineering would I stand a chance at getting a job in this field? I know people say you can still do litigation, but would my quantitative background not enable me to do more in the eyes of prospective employers?

doubt it. There is a scarcity of lawyers with scientific background. It does not need to be an engineering degree as long as you can take the patent bar you'll be fine, it can be chemistry or physics. However, I've heard on TLS that you have an advantage getting a phD or Masters so your firm can sell you as Dr. X rather than Mr. X. which makes sense too me

thegor1987 wrote:doubt it. There is a scarcity of lawyers with scientific background. It does not need to be an engineering degree as long as you can take the patent bar you'll be fine, it can be chemistry or physics. However, I've heard on TLS that you have an advantage getting a phD or Masters so your firm can sell you as Dr. X rather than Mr. X. which makes sense too me

+1 based on my limited experience at my firm in the Boston area. (I'm on the life sciences side of the practice, but observe that several on the "hi-tech" side of the practice do NOT in fact have an engineering degree.) Unless you want to go into chemistry or biology patent law, a PhD is not likely going to help you that much, unless you want to work at one of those few firms where they really care about advanced degrees.

I'm actually going to attempt to finish my chemistry coursework during law school which has severely complicated the process. I really want to use the law to advance human innovation and foster technological advancement

wow thats pretty good to here. it seemed like everyone on here had been saying if u dont have a masters or at least a bachelors in engineering u might as well forget it.

ninjagirl wrote:

thegor1987 wrote:doubt it. There is a scarcity of lawyers with scientific background. It does not need to be an engineering degree as long as you can take the patent bar you'll be fine, it can be chemistry or physics. However, I've heard on TLS that you have an advantage getting a phD or Masters so your firm can sell you as Dr. X rather than Mr. X. which makes sense too me

+1 based on my limited experience at my firm in the Boston area. (I'm on the life sciences side of the practice, but observe that several on the "hi-tech" side of the practice do NOT in fact have an engineering degree.) Unless you want to go into chemistry or biology patent law, a PhD is not likely going to help you that much, unless you want to work at one of those few firms where they really care about advanced degrees.

thegor1987 wrote:It does not need to be an engineering degree as long as you can take the patent bar you'll be fine, it can be chemistry or physics. However, I've heard on TLS that you have an advantage getting a phD or Masters so your firm can sell you as Dr. X rather than Mr. X. which makes sense too me

Read the OP. He doesn't just not have an engineering degree, I don't think he even has a science degree. Saying that he'll be find as long as he can take the patent bar is like saying Seton Hall grads are fine for getting biglaw because they can sit for the NY Bar. Just think about why a firm would want to hire someone without a science or engineering degree when they can hire someone just as good who has one.

It's an uphill battle, and if you want to pursue it then that's your prerogative.

OP-- you took enough physics courses to sit for the patent bar. You are aware that there are other course requirements in addition to physics, right?

It's more about actually going through design processes of making shit and the theory behind making shit... how does quantitative skill factor into patents?

shadowfrost000 wrote:It's more about actually going through design processes of making shit and the theory behind making shit... how does quantitative skill factor into patents?

Don't you remember, science and engineering is all math!!!!!!

Lxw wrote:

thegor1987 wrote:It does not need to be an engineering degree as long as you can take the patent bar you'll be fine, it can be chemistry or physics. However, I've heard on TLS that you have an advantage getting a phD or Masters so your firm can sell you as Dr. X rather than Mr. X. which makes sense too me

Read the OP. He doesn't just not have an engineering degree, I don't think he even has a science degree. Saying that he'll be find as long as he can take the patent bar is like saying Seton Hall grads are fine for getting biglaw because they can sit for the NY Bar. Just think about why a firm would want to hire someone without a science or engineering degree when they can hire someone just as good who has one.

It's an uphill battle, and if you want to pursue it then that's your prerogative.

OP-- you took enough physics courses to sit for the patent bar. You are aware that there are other course requirements in addition to physics, right?

* 24 hrs physics

-or-

* 8 hrs chemistry or 8 hrs physics (must be sequential and include a lab) + 24 hrs of biology, botany, microbiology or molecular biology

-or-

* 30 hrs of chemistry

-or-

* 8 hrs of chemistry or 8 hrs of physics (must be sequential and include a lab) + 32 hrs of chemistry, physics, biology, botany, microbiology, molecular biology and engineering

Oh, that's right. I must have gotten confused with the course requirements for being hired at the pto or something.

Look children, The only people getting IP jobs are people with a B.S. in EE (NOT including CS majors. CS is the kiss of death if you want a patent job. There are literally thousands of unemployed CS majors wandering into law school looking to go into patent law and there just aren't nearly as many software patents being sought as there are semiconductor/hardcore EE patents), B.S. (and usually M.S.) in ChemE, and PhD in EVERYTHING ELSE.

NO ONE ELSE IS GETTING HIRED TO DO PATENT PROSECUTION WORK.

Sure, you might be qualified for a patent litigation, trademark, or other kind of biglaw IP job. But then you're competing with all the liberal arts majors which means you'll have to be in the top 10% of your class in law school (unless you go to a t14). And if you're in the top 10%, you can probably get a job in whatever field you want.

OP: Don't limit yourself to IP. You might be setting yourself up for epic fail.

CE2JD wrote:Look children, The only people getting IP jobs are people with a B.S. in EE (NOT including CS majors. CS is the kiss of death if you want a patent job. There are literally thousands of unemployed CS majors wandering into law school looking to go into patent law and there just aren't nearly as many software patents being sought as there are semiconductor/hardcore EE patents), B.S. (and usually M.S.) in ChemE, and PhD in EVERYTHING ELSE.

NO ONE ELSE IS GETTING HIRED TO DO PATENT PROSECUTION WORK.

Sure, you might be qualified for a patent litigation, trademark, or other kind of biglaw IP job. But then you're competing with all the liberal arts majors which means you'll have to be in the top 10% of your class in law school (unless you go to a t14). And if you're in the top 10%, you can probably get a job in whatever field you want.

OP: Don't limit yourself to IP. You might be setting yourself up for epic fail.

How is the outlook in your experience for BSEE patent law. I'm assuming you're already in law school or have some experience with this since you're posting. Are their people looking for this at your school's OCI and how do their grades have to be compared to people that don't have this kind of background? I'm asking because I'm graduating from Georgia Tech with a BSEE this spring and I'm going to law school. Also what is the approximate rank of your school if you don't mind. (I already have multiple T30 acceptances but I think I should be able to swing UT/Vandy or low T14 by the end of the cycle)

jerjon2 wrote:

CE2JD wrote:Look children, The only people getting IP jobs are people with a B.S. in EE (NOT including CS majors. CS is the kiss of death if you want a patent job. There are literally thousands of unemployed CS majors wandering into law school looking to go into patent law and there just aren't nearly as many software patents being sought as there are semiconductor/hardcore EE patents), B.S. (and usually M.S.) in ChemE, and PhD in EVERYTHING ELSE.

NO ONE ELSE IS GETTING HIRED TO DO PATENT PROSECUTION WORK.

Sure, you might be qualified for a patent litigation, trademark, or other kind of biglaw IP job. But then you're competing with all the liberal arts majors which means you'll have to be in the top 10% of your class in law school (unless you go to a t14). And if you're in the top 10%, you can probably get a job in whatever field you want.

OP: Don't limit yourself to IP. You might be setting yourself up for epic fail.

How is the outlook in your experience for BSEE patent law. I'm assuming you're already in law school or have some experience with this since you're posting. Are their people looking for this at your school's OCI and how do their grades have to be compared to people that don't have this kind of background? I'm asking because I'm graduating from Georgia Tech with a BSEE this spring and I'm going to law school. Also what is the approximate rank of your school if you don't mind. (I already have multiple T30 acceptances but I think I should be able to swing UT/Vandy or low T14 by the end of the cycle)

I go to a T10.

All of the 2Ls I know with BSEE degrees have found jobs in patent law (if that's what they were shooting for).

CE2JD wrote:

jerjon2 wrote:

CE2JD wrote:Look children, The only people getting IP jobs are people with a B.S. in EE (NOT including CS majors. CS is the kiss of death if you want a patent job. There are literally thousands of unemployed CS majors wandering into law school looking to go into patent law and there just aren't nearly as many software patents being sought as there are semiconductor/hardcore EE patents), B.S. (and usually M.S.) in ChemE, and PhD in EVERYTHING ELSE.

NO ONE ELSE IS GETTING HIRED TO DO PATENT PROSECUTION WORK.

Sure, you might be qualified for a patent litigation, trademark, or other kind of biglaw IP job. But then you're competing with all the liberal arts majors which means you'll have to be in the top 10% of your class in law school (unless you go to a t14). And if you're in the top 10%, you can probably get a job in whatever field you want.

OP: Don't limit yourself to IP. You might be setting yourself up for epic fail.

How is the outlook in your experience for BSEE patent law. I'm assuming you're already in law school or have some experience with this since you're posting. Are their people looking for this at your school's OCI and how do their grades have to be compared to people that don't have this kind of background? I'm asking because I'm graduating from Georgia Tech with a BSEE this spring and I'm going to law school. Also what is the approximate rank of your school if you don't mind. (I already have multiple T30 acceptances but I think I should be able to swing UT/Vandy or low T14 by the end of the cycle)

I go to a T10.

All of the 2Ls I know with BSEE degrees have found jobs in patent law (if that's what they were shooting for).

Thats good to know but I can't really call myself a lock for a T10 (though I should have a shot). Thanks for your help.

Lxw wrote:

thegor1987 wrote:It does not need to be an engineering degree as long as you can take the patent bar you'll be fine, it can be chemistry or physics. However, I've heard on TLS that you have an advantage getting a phD or Masters so your firm can sell you as Dr. X rather than Mr. X. which makes sense too me

Read the OP. He doesn't just not have an engineering degree, I don't think he even has a science degree. Saying that he'll be find as long as he can take the patent bar is like saying Seton Hall grads are fine for getting biglaw because they can sit for the NY Bar. Just think about why a firm would want to hire someone without a science or engineering degree when they can hire someone just as good who has one.

It's an uphill battle, and if you want to pursue it then that's your prerogative.

OP-- you took enough physics courses to sit for the patent bar. You are aware that there are other course requirements in addition to physics, right?

Because lawyers with scientific backgrounds sufficient to sit for the patbar are scarce in general. If you can sit for the pat bar, your in a pretty good position

inuitsoar wrote:

Lxw wrote:

thegor1987 wrote:It does not need to be an engineering degree as long as you can take the patent bar you'll be fine, it can be chemistry or physics. However, I've heard on TLS that you have an advantage getting a phD or Masters so your firm can sell you as Dr. X rather than Mr. X. which makes sense too me

Read the OP. He doesn't just not have an engineering degree, I don't think he even has a science degree. Saying that he'll be find as long as he can take the patent bar is like saying Seton Hall grads are fine for getting biglaw because they can sit for the NY Bar. Just think about why a firm would want to hire someone without a science or engineering degree when they can hire someone just as good who has one.

It's an uphill battle, and if you want to pursue it then that's your prerogative.

OP-- you took enough physics courses to sit for the patent bar. You are aware that there are other course requirements in addition to physics, right?

* 24 hrs physics

-or-

* 8 hrs chemistry or 8 hrs physics (must be sequential and include a lab) + 24 hrs of biology, botany, microbiology or molecular biology

-or-

* 30 hrs of chemistry

-or-

* 8 hrs of chemistry or 8 hrs of physics (must be sequential and include a lab) + 32 hrs of chemistry, physics, biology, botany, microbiology, molecular biology and engineering

OP, where are you getting this specific credit hour data from? I believe you must have a B.S. science degree such as physics, chem. botany, etc...

thegor1987 wrote:Because lawyers with scientific backgrounds sufficient to sit for the patbar are scare in general. If you can sit for the pat bar, your in a pretty good position

That would be true were it not for the fact that there are plenty of law school graduates from Tier 1 schools with engineering or science degrees (~10% of the student body @T1 schools, in fact) looking for patent law jobs, and that ITE there is a surplus of those graduates in relation to the job openings, being able to sit for the patent bar is a pointless qualification, and furthermore, you don't even need a law degree to prosecute patent applications on behalf of your clients.

Lxw wrote:

thegor1987 wrote:Because lawyers with scientific backgrounds sufficient to sit for the patbar are scare in general. If you can sit for the pat bar, your in a pretty good position

That would be true were it not for the fact that there are plenty of law school graduates from Tier 1 schools with engineering or science degrees (~10% of the student body @T1 schools, in fact) looking for patent law jobs, and that ITE there is a surplus of those graduates in relation to the job openings, being able to sit for the patent bar is a pointless qualification, and furthermore, you don't even need a law degree to prosecute patent applications on behalf of your clients.

13% of my section is AE/EE/BME.

rayiner wrote:13% of my section is AE/EE/BME.

They probably stuck allyall freaks together

thegor1987 wrote:OP, where are you getting this specific credit hour data from? I believe you must have a B.S. science degree such as physics, chem. botany, etc...

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb.pdf

rayiner wrote:

Lxw wrote:

thegor1987 wrote:Because lawyers with scientific backgrounds sufficient to sit for the patbar are scare in general. If you can sit for the pat bar, your in a pretty good position

That would be true were it not for the fact that there are plenty of law school graduates from Tier 1 schools with engineering or science degrees (~10% of the student body @T1 schools, in fact) looking for patent law jobs, and that ITE there is a surplus of those graduates in relation to the job openings, being able to sit for the patent bar is a pointless qualification, and furthermore, you don't even need a law degree to prosecute patent applications on behalf of your clients.

13% of my section is AE/EE/BME.

Rayiner,

What does AE/EE/BME stand for? I recall from your earlier posts that you are some sort of aircraft engineer

thegor1987 wrote:

rayiner wrote:

Lxw wrote:

thegor1987 wrote:Because lawyers with scientific backgrounds sufficient to sit for the patbar are scare in general. If you can sit for the pat bar, your in a pretty good position

That would be true were it not for the fact that there are plenty of law school graduates from Tier 1 schools with engineering or science degrees (~10% of the student body @T1 schools, in fact) looking for patent law jobs, and that ITE there is a surplus of those graduates in relation to the job openings, being able to sit for the patent bar is a pointless qualification, and furthermore, you don't even need a law degree to prosecute patent applications on behalf of your clients.

13% of my section is AE/EE/BME.

Rayiner,

What does AE/EE/BME stand for? I recall from your earlier posts that you are some sort of aircraft engineer

AE = aerospace engineering;
EE = electrical engineering;
BME = bio medical engineering.

Lxw wrote:

thegor1987 wrote:OP, where are you getting this specific credit hour data from? I believe you must have a B.S. science degree such as physics, chem. botany, etc...

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb.pdf

It looks like the quantity of scientific coursework required under cat. B is basically equiv. to fulfilling a science degree listed in Cat. A. So I don't know if there would be any benefit to for OP to actually have a science degree from category A

I also remember an IP thread where Ken was talking about how in demand lawyers with science backgrounds are, and basically have it made. I just think of it this way, a firm might say, "oh, you have a science degree? With the LS you attend and your class rank we would hire you anyways w/o the science degree, but the fact that you can do patents is icing on the cake."

x

Big Shrimpin wrote:I agree. However, in relation to the overarching despair ITE w/r/t legal employment supply/demand--do you know/have information about patent law-related supply/demand relative to other areas? I would imagine that different practice areas that have diminished, paralleling various industry in the broader economy, at different rates of change. So, compared to other practice areas, how much worse/better/same is patent law? I hope that makes sense--as I'm trying to take a few minutes away from finals practice hypos in an attempt to reduce the operating temperature of my brain. (ref. I'm a 1L, BME, patent agent, non-t14)

Patent law is in far better shape than the rest of the legal market (people still looking to patent their inventions, the huge pto backlog notwithstanding), CSO at my school (T1) said IP-oriented (patents) students got like 4-6 times more interviews than non-IP students.