Patent Law Question Forum

[birdson102]

I am an undergrad student at a top 50 university. When I graduate, I will probably have a 3.85 gpa and lsat in 170's. I am interested in becoming a law professor and am also interested in patent. I'm majoring in history and was wondering whether getting a minor in physics (enough hours to take patent bar) would be better than majoring in biology if I wanted to get a prosecution job.

[birdson102]

bump

[Broscientist]

I am an undergrad student at a top 50 university. When I graduate, I will probably have a 3.85 gpa and lsat in 170's. I am interested in becoming a law professor and am also interested in patent. I'm majoring in history and was wondering whether getting a minor in physics (enough hours to take patent bar) would be better than majoring in biology if I wanted to get a prosecution job.

1) If you have a 3.85/170, you'll get into good enough schools that it'll be easy to find a patent job.

2) A bit about me:

I have a BS in bio with a minor in chem. I interviewed almost exclusively with IP boutiques, with some large GP firms' IP practice groups. The first thing you'll realize is that a lot of prep and pros happens at boutiques now. I would say (totally anecdotal evidence) that about 70% of pros is done by a boutique because of the lower (generally) hourly rate. I have rejected 4 of my boutique offers, and am keeping other doors open for now. My interest lies in litigation, but I would do prep and pros to fill my downtime.

3) Getting a job in the patent law field has become a bit easier over time. You will need to attend the Patent Law Interview Program hosted in July of every year. This program hosts the largest firms (Boutique and GP) and is where almost everyone interested in IP gets their first interviews. I would strongly suggest a major in biology over a mere minor. The patent field prefers hard sciences (non poli sci or psych). But realistically, some firms won't look at you unless you have an engineering degree or graduate work in a life science (I'm looking at you, Knobbe Martens). So you're taking a gamble either way. Law school grades will be paramount in this realm.

4) For a professor/academic, law review is essentially mandatory.

This is a disjointed post, but it's been a long day. PM me if I can answer more questions about my experiences or observations generally.

[birdson102]

ok thank you

[totesTheGoat]

In case you're still hanging around, or for the next person with this question, I'll respond as well.

I'm a 3rd year part-time law student who works at a large GP doing patent prep and pros during the day. I disagree with Broscientist on only one thing. I see much of the prep and pros work coming back to the large GPs because it costs more to have us fix Dewey, Screwup, and How-Bad's mistakes than paying the up-front premium and having us draft the app. Everything else Broscientist said is about right.

I would go stronger than saying that some firms won't look at you unless you have an engineering degree or grad work. Most decent sized firms are like that. Engineering and master's or 3+ years work experience is what the bigger boutiques and the GPs are looking for. Biology would have to be paired with a masters AND work experience or a Ph.D usually. A physics minor is going to get you in the door of the smallest boutiques, but not much more. Even a BS in Biology isn't going to get you too many looks.

Being patent bar eligible is an advantage, but they hire you because you're familiar (on some level) with the technology, not because you have a registration number. I have had technical questions about semiconductors asked on legal interviews. It's rare, but not unheard of. Merely having 15 hours of physics isn't going to prepare you to understand how charges flow in a latest-generation MOSFET or how a new enzyme inhibitor chemically interacts with a certain amino acid (i'm not a life sciences guy, so this example may make no sense).

[Broscientist]

I'm a 3rd year part-time law student who works at a large GP doing patent prep and pros during the day. I disagree with Broscientist on only one thing. I see much of the prep and pros work coming back to the large GPs because it costs more to have us fix Dewey, Screwup, and How-Bad's mistakes than paying the up-front premium and having us draft the app. Everything else Broscientist said is about right.

I agree that there is an overall flow between GP firms and boutiques. Sometimes GP is on the upswing, other times boutiques have the advantage. Right now the "bulk" of prep and pros sits in boutiques. However, that changes as corporation preferences change. One thing is almost universally certain in this debate: boutiques charge lower rates to file a patent application than large GP firms. Obviously some senior associates and partners outpace their GP counterparts, but on the whole it is less expensive to have a boutique file the same or similar application than a GP firm.

And while I agree with most of what TTG said, I do draw issue with the idea that a boutique's work is inferior to that of a GP firm. Obviously some GP firms are better than some boutiques. Some boutiques are better than some GP firms. But I think the characterization that GP firms are significantly better than boutiques is unsubstantiated.

Take Fish & Richardson, Knobbe Martens, or Sterne Kessler and place them against MoFo, Baker Botts, or Covington. On the prep and pros side, I would imagine the differences would be vanishingly small (to use one of my evidence professor's favorite phrases). Larger differences often arise when considering litigation practices. Obviously each firm has strengths and weaknesses. I would gladly bet on Covington's ITC practice before that of Rothwell Figg. But I would never choose Sidley's ITC group instead of Fish & Richardson. These are my perceptions and someone may disagree, but I think the sweeping generalization of GP > Boutique is misplaced.

I would go stronger than saying that some firms won't look at you unless you have an engineering degree or grad work. Most decent sized firms are like that. Engineering and master's or 3+ years work experience is what the bigger boutiques and the GPs are looking for. Biology would have to be paired with a masters AND work experience or a Ph.D usually. A physics minor is going to get you in the door of the smallest boutiques, but not much more. Even a BS in Biology isn't going to get you too many looks.

Being patent bar eligible is an advantage, but they hire you because you're familiar (on some level) with the technology, not because you have a registration number. I have had technical questions about semiconductors asked on legal interviews. It's rare, but not unheard of. Merely having 15 hours of physics isn't going to prepare you to understand how charges flow in a latest-generation MOSFET or how a new enzyme inhibitor chemically interacts with a certain amino acid (i'm not a life sciences guy, so this example may make no sense).

This cannot be understated. Knobbe Martens will not look at a bio/chem person without a PhD (I know PhD for bio, but maybe a MS in chem?). The actual patent bar qualifications look nice, but remember: UNDERSTANDING THE TECHNOLOGY SEPARATES GOOD PATENT ATTORNEYS FROM BAD ONES. Just because you know how to calculate the number of moles of chocolate in a chocolate chip cookie isn't helpful when litigating about state-of-the-art technologies.

At the end of the day, you'll hear a bunch of conflicting information from countless sources. You should do what is right for you.

Good luck.

[totesTheGoat]

I do draw issue with the idea that a boutique's work is inferior to that of a GP firm. Obviously some GP firms are better than some boutiques. Some boutiques are better than some GP firms. But I think the characterization that GP firms are significantly better than boutiques is unsubstantiated.

Yeah, I don't want to give that impression. However, there are certainly tiers of boutiques and tiers of GP firms. If you're looking to save money, you're not moving from a top tier GP to a top tier boutique (they charge about the same for prep and pros). You're going from a top tier GP/boutique to a 2nd or 3rd tier firm.

One of my clients has us doing pros work on a bunch of poorly written apps from a 2nd or 3rd tier GP. Why? Because we're one of the few firms that can maybe make lemonade out of these lemons. They've learned their lesson, and now we get significant prep work from them.

I will say that my personal experience in top tier GP and top tier boutiques gives a slight edge in quality to the GP firms. They're also doing litigation work, so there is a bit more institutional knowledge built in regarding what flies and what doesn't in front of the PTAB or district court. However, that's just my impression based on 3 firms, and I certainly don't have enough experience to draw a line in the sand on that.

[dood]

you won't be able to do bio prosecution. <- period

physics minor = highly unlikely get you interviews (at all) for pros at the boutiques. combined with good grades will get you into GP, but you'll do only commodity pros., which is measured in quantity vs. substance.

[dood]

Just because you know how to calculate the number of moles of chocolate in a chocolate chip cookie isn't helpful when litigating about state-of-the-art technologies.

i lol'd

[Broscientist]

Just because you know how to calculate the number of moles of chocolate in a chocolate chip cookie isn't helpful when litigating about state-of-the-art technologies.

i lol'd

That was my goal haha. I actually don't remember calculating moles in m physics classes, but it definitely made me chuckle.

I think people who choose boutiques will say boutiques are better, just like those who choose GP firms will advocate for that group. I chose boutiques, so I have my own biases.

One big negative that I forgot to mention about boutiques though just came to mind. Boutiques are more susceptible to clients leaving. Case in point: Kenyon & Kenyon. They lost a MASSIVE chunk of their lit group when Teva went to Goodwin. Quote from one of their third year associates: "Yeah. I just made hours for the first time this year. It depends on how your cases are staffed. But it is tough."

I don't think GP firms are as rocked when a client leaves. Obviously the firm is impacted, but Kenyon lost about 20-30% of the entire firm and about half of the litigation practice. It's grim.

I would be interested to learn how the GP firms fare in that type of situation, but this was a major reason I didn't even consider an offer from them.

[Desert Fox]

[Broscientist]

That's what I imagined. Just as more information regarding the effects of losing a major client in a boutique: over the past few years, K&K has laid off a huge amount of its administrative support staff. Fewer secretaries, paralegals, etc. According to many associates I talked to at the firm, secretaries are largely meaningless. I was told "I don't really know what secretaries do to fill their days."

So, just my experience with them. Don't know how this would impact performance, if at all, but I found it interesting.