Top Law Schools

If you want to practice IP law, but don't have a science/engineering background -- could you still do it? Is a science background necessary to practice IP law in the future?

In theory there are areas of intellectual property that could can practice without a science background, but in reality it's pretty rare. I think I only met one person who's doing that and he said he was just in the right place at the right time and fell into it.

.

Thanks for the great comments! I really appreciate it

[quote="Schang1"]If you want to practice IP law, but don't have a science/engineering background -- could you still do it? Is a science background necessary to practice IP law in the future?[/quote

Only the patent bar requires a science engineering background. Nothing else does. Without a science degree you can do anything except prosecute patents and litigate some patent cases.

paul34 wrote:. Also note that not all science and engineering backgrounds qualify for all patent law positions. .

That is something that a lot of people don't realize. Especially Computer Science people.

Also note that not all science and engineering backgrounds qualify for all patent law positions.

What science backgrounds do qualify?

FlyingReality wrote:

Also note that not all science and engineering backgrounds qualify for all patent law positions.

What science backgrounds do qualify?

Jedi science.

http://www.patentbarstudy.com/exam/qualifications.html

Will give you a list of majors

Theoretically, yes. Realistically, no. Most IP firms tend to only want people with a science background so they can do all types of IP work and not be restricted.

If you had plenty of candidates who could do all the possible work for your firm, why take a candidate who can only do 50% of it?

kalvano wrote:Theoretically, yes. Realistically, no. Most IP firms tend to only want people with a science background so they can do all types of IP work and not be restricted.

If you had plenty of candidates who could do all the possible work for your firm, why take a candidate who can only do 50% of it?

if you were right then all IP litigators would have science backgrounds. many don't, so your reasoning clearly doesn't hold up in real life. It is more accurately to say, theoretically no, but realistically yes if you want to do litigation.

c3pO4 wrote:

kalvano wrote:Theoretically, yes. Realistically, no. Most IP firms tend to only want people with a science background so they can do all types of IP work and not be restricted.

If you had plenty of candidates who could do all the possible work for your firm, why take a candidate who can only do 50% of it?

if you were right then all IP litigators would have science backgrounds. many don't, so your reasoning clearly doesn't hold up in real life. It is more accurately to say, theoretically no, but realistically yes if you want to do litigation.

Perhaps this is because there are not enough lawyers with science backgrounds to begin with?

c3pO4 wrote:

kalvano wrote:Theoretically, yes. Realistically, no. Most IP firms tend to only want people with a science background so they can do all types of IP work and not be restricted.

If you had plenty of candidates who could do all the possible work for your firm, why take a candidate who can only do 50% of it?

if you were right then all IP litigators would have science backgrounds. many don't, so your reasoning clearly doesn't hold up in real life. It is more accurately to say, theoretically no, but realistically yes if you want to do litigation.

How many of those IP litigators were hired recently? Most IP work seems to be moving towards specialized firms, and trying to get hired on now (not back when everything was peachy) is a very different story.

kalvano wrote:

c3pO4 wrote:

kalvano wrote:Theoretically, yes. Realistically, no. Most IP firms tend to only want people with a science background so they can do all types of IP work and not be restricted.

If you had plenty of candidates who could do all the possible work for your firm, why take a candidate who can only do 50% of it?

if you were right then all IP litigators would have science backgrounds. many don't, so your reasoning clearly doesn't hold up in real life. It is more accurately to say, theoretically no, but realistically yes if you want to do litigation.

How many of those IP litigators were hired recently? Most IP work seems to be moving towards specialized firms, and trying to get hired on now (not back when everything was peachy) is a very different story.

Actually IP is booming. Many IP litigators hired today don't have science backgrounds. Look it up. The conventional wisdom on this is so prevalent, and it's wrong. I encountered many science phd's and ma's who discouraged me from pursuing IP during 1L and they were very snooty about it. However, during my job search, I found the lay of the land to be completely different. If you have a persuasive story about why you are interested in IP litigation, you can do it with a political science BA. In fact, many IP litigators (i.e. Partners) will say that a science background is a detriment to explaining technical concepts to a lay person.

Don't scare people off it.

c3pO4 wrote: Actually IP is booming. Many IP litigators hired today don't have science backgrounds. Look it up. The conventional wisdom on this is so prevalent, and it's wrong. I encountered many science phd's and ma's who discouraged me from pursuing IP during 1L and they were very snooty about it. However, during my job search, I found the lay of the land to be completely different. If you have a persuasive story about why you are interested in IP litigation, you can do it with a political science BA. In fact, many IP litigators (i.e. Partners) will say that a science background is a detriment to explaining technical concepts to a lay person.

Don't scare people off it.

Every firm I applied to that worked with IP (both big and small, national and local) said they aren't interested in people who can't take the patent bar. Every single one.

kalvano wrote:

c3pO4 wrote: Actually IP is booming. Many IP litigators hired today don't have science backgrounds. Look it up. The conventional wisdom on this is so prevalent, and it's wrong. I encountered many science phd's and ma's who discouraged me from pursuing IP during 1L and they were very snooty about it. However, during my job search, I found the lay of the land to be completely different. If you have a persuasive story about why you are interested in IP litigation, you can do it with a political science BA. In fact, many IP litigators (i.e. Partners) will say that a science background is a detriment to explaining technical concepts to a lay person.

Don't scare people off it.

Every firm I applied to that worked with IP (both big and small, national and local) said they aren't interested in people who can't take the patent bar. Every single one.

OK, you must have applied to prosecution heavy boutiques. I think that says more about the firms you applied to than whether you can do IP litigation without a science background.

Look at the 1st and 2nd year associates in IP lit at Irell, Quinn, etc etc etc etc and tell me what their undergrad majors were.