Top Law Schools

I recently posted on the law school admissions part of the forum. It was titled "Do I have a reasonable shot (at a good school)" for those of you who are interested. To summarize my situation I had a 3.8 at the end of my freshmen year, then I developed a mental illness and currently have a 3.05. I defiantly want to work in patent law but I don't know which road I should take. I am majoring in computer engineering and have some extra curricular activities. I was wondering if it would be better for me to just become a patent agent rather than a patent attorney. Do patent agents work less hours than biglaw attorneys? I can only imagine that there would be less stress in a purely patent prosecution environment than a litigation environment. And what are the chances of an attorney who does graduate from a good law school getting to be partner?

I am relatively new in the pre-law crowd, so I don't know much about what law school entails. But I do love technical writing and I have developed an interest in jurisprudence. So I'm thinking that with my background the patent industry would be right for me.

PittGuy21 wrote:I recently posted on the law school admissions part of the forum. It was titled "Do I have a reasonable shot (at a good school)" for those of you who are interested. To summarize my situation I had a 3.8 at the end of my freshmen year, then I developed a mental illness and currently have a 3.05. I defiantly want to work in patent law but I don't know which road I should take. I am majoring in computer engineering and have some extra curricular activities. I was wondering if it would be better for me to just become a patent agent rather than a patent attorney. Do patent agents work less hours than biglaw attorneys? I can only imagine that there would be less stress in a purely patent prosecution environment than a litigation environment. And what are the chances of an attorney who does graduate from a good law school getting to be partner?

I am relatively new in the pre-law crowd, so I don't know much about what law school entails. But I do love technical writing and I have developed an interest in jurisprudence. So I'm thinking that with my background the patent industry would be right for me.

The answer to a lot of your questions is "it depends". Depends on your final GPA, your LSAT score, where you get into law school, whether you were referring to being a patent agent at a big IP law firm, how large the firm is for becoming a partner. Far too many outstanding variables.

In my limited (8 months or so) experience, prosecution does seem to be less stressful than litigation, though advanced technical degrees may be more helpful (though often not necessary for engineering) for the prosecution side, which it sounds like you won't have. Also, electrical engineering is more helpful for securing an IP job than computer engineering, though engineering in general has the best prospects of any science degree.

Your GPA is your GPA, unfortunately. Extenuating circumstances may slightly mitigate fallout for admissions purposes, but by no means sizeably.

Take my answer with a grain of salt: I work in a very small IP firm, with a minor in biology, and have yet to start law school, but those are my impressions thus far.

I was wondering if it would be better for me to just become a patent agent rather than a patent attorney.

what do you want to do in life, where do you see yourself in 5-10 years? there's not really an objective "better" answer to your question without knowing your end goal.

Do patent agents work less hours than biglaw attorneys?

generally, yes.

And what are the chances of an attorney who does graduate from a good law school getting to be partner?

statistically speaking, worse than a grad from a bad law school. see here -- http://abovethelaw.com/2012/03/are-grad ... or-biglaw/
or read a gladwell book. once your foot in the door, maybe 10-20% of associates at most.

You'll never do well if you defiantly want to work in patent law.

In my experience there are not a lot of jobs for patent agents who lack advanced degrees. The job of "patent agent" is often more of a science advisor. They are also generally paid less and there is little room for advancement, your hope would be to eventually get on board with a small tech startup helping manage their patent prosecution portfolio.

Attorneys are generally paid more and there are more jobs for patent attorneys without advanced degrees. You have upward mobility. You also run some risk taking on a lot of debt and whiffing on a big firm job (or alternatively going the no debt route but running a very high risk of whiffing on a big firm job).

What year are you now? If you're definitely committed to this route you should take some steps immediately. You should prep hard for the LSAT and take it in October. That number alone will help inform your decision. At the same time you should probably apply to masters/phd programs. If your LSAT score is too low you can plan to start grad school and, in the meantime, study for the patent bar and pass that. If you do well on the LSAT and get into a top school with a scholarship then you can just say no thanks to grad school. Should probably still go ahead and do the patent bar though.

If you want to do patent work without the long hours and stress:

http://careers.uspto.gov/Pages/PEPositions/

If you want to do patent work without the long hours and stress:

http://careers.uspto.gov/Pages/PEPositions/

I have heard from friends in the USPTO that there have been very few new patent examiner jobs since the sequester (in the chemical sciences, for example, there haven't been any openings since 2012--although with engineering YMMV), and the ones that are there are typically not entry level, and since they can be picky, they prefer people with advanced degrees. It seems like it's a great place to work and to get your feet wet in patent work, but it has gotten considerably harder to get hired.

erythromycin wrote:

If you want to do patent work without the long hours and stress:

http://careers.uspto.gov/Pages/PEPositions/

I have heard from friends in the USPTO that there have been very few new patent examiner jobs since the sequester (in the chemical sciences, for example, there haven't been any openings since 2012--although with engineering YMMV), and the ones that are there are typically not entry level, and since they can be picky, they prefer people with advanced degrees. It seems like it's a great place to work and to get your feet wet in patent work, but it has gotten considerably harder to get hired.

^^ Lot of the stuff here is wrong. Might apply to non-EE/CS areas. Also, the sequester didn't end up affecting the PTO, but that's a long story about how the PTO gets its fee money from Congress. Go here (link)

The PTO isn't competitive, but if you drop below a 3.0, they cannot hire you. Thanks to grade inflation/economy, they no longer hire GS-5s (i.e., B.S. with GPA less than 3.0).

Regarding the whole agent/attorney thing, being an agent for a couple of years is a great way to figure out if you will enjoy/tolerate patent prosecution without shelling out $250k for law school. I highly recommend it. I got paid 60-70% of what our first year associates got paid. We had some ballers in biotech who never went to law school and were pulling in mad money, but that's definitely the exception and not the rule.

Patent examining requires a very different skill set from what you will need during patent prosecution. To the extent that firms like it, its probably only because some clients are impressed when they see that someone was an examiner.

You don't need to pass the patent bar to work in a law firm as a technology specialist/advisor, but with that GPA you might. Unless you're going graduate from MIT or something.

Also, what Androstan said.

Patent examining requires a very different skill set from what you will need during patent prosecution.

Respectfully disagree with this. Having worked on both sides, the required skills are 99% the same.

kcdc1 wrote:

Patent examining requires a very different skill set from what you will need during patent prosecution.

Respectfully disagree with this. Having worked on both sides, the required skills are 99% the same.

Me too. 99% seems like a bit of stretch given that searching is one your core functions as an examiner and that drafting an application is not something working at the PTO really prepares you for.