Patent Bar Eligibility with a BS in "Math with CS" Forum

[theenchantedhunters]

I'm currently in the middle of applying to law school and exploring different legal career paths, and have been curious about IP law but am not at all certain whether I would be eligible to sit the Patent Bar Exam (under Category B, Option 4). My undergrad degree is from MIT, which has a couple quirks that I'm struggling to understand as they relate to eligibility:

* P/D/F grading: The first semester at MIT has mandatory P/D/F grading, and in later semesters, students can opt to take additional P/D/F classes. This affects 4 credit hours each of Intro Bio and Physics I in my first semester, as well as 4 hours of Intro to Software Construction in my senior year. The USPTO guidelines (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/fil ... ED_GRB.pdf) say that P/F grading isn't accepted (page 7), but nothing about P/D/F grading. They also require grades to be C- or above (page 6), but I assume that should still be satisfiable with a P grade when there is a separate D option. Does anyone know with more certainty whether I ought to receive normal credit for these three classes?
* Also mentioned within the 'Non-Acceptable Course Work' section (page 7) "are courses that repeat, or which are substantially the same as, or are lesser-included courses for which credit has already been given". One of the required sequences for my major (and standard CS majors) is Intro to Algorithms, followed by the somewhat-more-advanced Design & Analysis of Algorithms. Is there a chance I would be only allowed credit for one of the two courses?
* Lastly, here is my actual list of courses I'm hoping to use for eligibility. Would appreciate any opinions or observations of glaring issues:

Course [Grade] (Qualifying Category according to page 6/7)
Physics I [P] (lab-based physics)
Physics II [A] (lab-based physics)
=8/8 hours

Intro Bio [P] (biology)
Intro Chemistry [A] (chemistry)
Intro to EECS I ( software methodology and engineering + lab-work)
Computation Structures [C] ( computer organization and architecture)
Intro to Software Construction [P] (software design with a laboratory)
Intro to Algorithms (basic coverage of algorithms, data structures)
Design & Analysis of Algorithms (basic[?] coverage of algorithms, data structures)
Intro to Machine Learning (artificial intelligence)
Computer Systems Engineering (networking)
User Interface Design [A] (less sure about this one, but it was focused around small labs + a large hands-on project)
=40/32 hours

Thanks in advance!

[nixy]

I can’t speak to most of these issues, but I’m sure that the algorithms classes would both be fine. I think if you took intro *after* you took the more advanced one you might have issues, but going from intro to advanced is just how the sequence works.

[dvlthndr]

A few thoughts:

1) I would double check that your degree is not ABET certified. That might be an easy way to sidestep this.

2) Call the USPTO OED or write them an email. You can find the contact info at https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/organiza ... ipline-oed. They will give you much more reliable advice than anybody on this forum can provide.

3) The P/D/F grading system might count. I think you have a decent argument, but you basically have to convince the OED. Call them, sort it out, and worst case they may force you to mail in some documents and argue your position. Same goes for the potentially redundant classes.

4) You may not need the patent bar. You can do patent litigation or tech transactions without passing the patent bar. It is only necessary for patent prosecution (i.e., writing new patents and dealing with the patent office). Many prosecution groups would toss your resume since you only have a B.S. in a wonky major. As a general rule, prosecution groups prefer people with graduate degrees. They will make exceptions (especially for people with a B.S in CS or EE), but it would be an uphill battle for you to get a prosecution job even if you passed the patent bar.

[Moabit]

If they want to be anal by the book, an argument can be made that P in P/D/F grading may potentially mean D+. But I do not know if they will be making one. What prevents you from finding out? (If you have your degree already.) Just file your application to take the Patent Bar and submit your transcripts. They will tell you quickly and you will see if you can persuade them without biting your nails for a couple of years. Sure, you are given a short window to take the exam (a few months), if you are eligible, but you do not need to take the exam right away. You could reapply when you are actually ready, and, I believe, you won't have to send in your transcripts again. (But you will have to pay the new application fee.)
As far as a graduate degree being an expectation, that is more the rule for biology applicants. EE folks definitely need no graduate degree and CS are not far behind. "Math in CS" is an unusual degree, but MIT is no Bolundo State. Personally, I would love to see more patent lawyers with applied math degrees in my firm, as many CS people have too little math proficiency in my view, but whether this scales to the broader world (or if we occupy a niche practice with less demand at large), I am not able to tell.

[QContinuum]

Many prosecution groups would toss your resume since you only have a B.S. in a wonky major. As a general rule, prosecution groups prefer people with graduate degrees. They will make exceptions (especially for people with a B.S in CS or EE), but it would be an uphill battle for you to get a prosecution job even if you passed the patent bar.

+1 to dvlthndr's excellent post above. Regarding the quoted portion specifically, prosecution groups effectively require a Ph.D. in the "life sciences," and prefer a B.S. with at least 2-3 years' full-time industry work experience for "engineering." I put "life sciences" and "engineering" in quotes because, of course, there are some majors that may fall into either bucket. The good news for OP is that, IMO, "math with CS," especially from MIT, will almost certainly be placed in the "engineering" bucket. The bad news is that if OP's never worked full-time as a computer scientist/engineer, they're unlikely to be an attractive candidate, even with the MIT degree. If OP's seriously interested in drafting patent applications, talking with inventors, and shepherding those applications through the USPTO, then they may want to seriously consider working as an engineer for a few years before law school.

Working as an engineer would also have the following additional benefits: 1) Testing OP's interest in law (they may find they are very happy working as an engineer!); 2) Making OP a stronger candidate for law school (law schools love STEM folks and especially those with legit STEM work experience; of course, undergrad GPA and LSAT are still king, but legit STEM work experience would give OP a real boost vs. applying as a K-JD); 3) Placing OP in a stronger financial position (assuming they manage their finances wisely while working); and 4) Making OP a stronger candidate - even for non-patent prosecution jobs - at 2L hiring during law school.

[dpcjsa]

I'm currently in the middle of applying to law school and exploring different legal career paths, and have been curious about IP law but am not at all certain whether I would be eligible to sit the Patent Bar Exam (under Category B, Option 4). My undergrad degree is from MIT, which has a couple quirks that I'm struggling to understand as they relate to eligibility:

* P/D/F grading: The first semester at MIT has mandatory P/D/F grading, and in later semesters, students can opt to take additional P/D/F classes. This affects 4 credit hours each of Intro Bio and Physics I in my first semester, as well as 4 hours of Intro to Software Construction in my senior year. The USPTO guidelines (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/fil ... ED_GRB.pdf) say that P/F grading isn't accepted (page 7), but nothing about P/D/F grading. They also require grades to be C- or above (page 6), but I assume that should still be satisfiable with a P grade when there is a separate D option. Does anyone know with more certainty whether I ought to receive normal credit for these three classes?
* Also mentioned within the 'Non-Acceptable Course Work' section (page 7) "are courses that repeat, or which are substantially the same as, or are lesser-included courses for which credit has already been given". One of the required sequences for my major (and standard CS majors) is Intro to Algorithms, followed by the somewhat-more-advanced Design & Analysis of Algorithms. Is there a chance I would be only allowed credit for one of the two courses?
* Lastly, here is my actual list of courses I'm hoping to use for eligibility. Would appreciate any opinions or observations of glaring issues:

Course [Grade] (Qualifying Category according to page 6/7)
Physics I [P] (lab-based physics)
Physics II [A] (lab-based physics)
=8/8 hours

Intro Bio [P] (biology)
Intro Chemistry [A] (chemistry)
Intro to EECS I ( software methodology and engineering + lab-work)
Computation Structures [C] ( computer organization and architecture)
Intro to Software Construction [P] (software design with a laboratory)
Intro to Algorithms (basic coverage of algorithms, data structures)
Design & Analysis of Algorithms (basic[?] coverage of algorithms, data structures)
Intro to Machine Learning (artificial intelligence)
Computer Systems Engineering (networking)
User Interface Design [A] (less sure about this one, but it was focused around small labs + a large hands-on project)
=40/32 hours

Thanks in advance!

If I were you, I would reach out to the nice people who run the Practicing Law Institute, headquartered in New York City, found at https://www.pli.edu .

Specifically, I would reach out to Mark Dighton, the Training Services Director. His LinkedIn link is here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-dighton-2716745/

Last I heard, Mark still worked for PLI, but the PLI website does not list him as being one of the staff, as of today (October 6, 2019).

The PLI staff can be seen here: https://www.pli.edu/about .

I recommend them because they'll give you excellent information, regardless of whether you ever sign up for their Patent Bar Prep course or not. They are great people. Attorney John White is top notch.

Best wishes to you, fren.