<p>Thank you!</p>
<p>It sucks how firms do not let you stay associates after a 7-8 years, but I guess that nobody would want to do associate level work into their late 30s anyways.</p>
<p>Actually there are a fair number of attorneys who for one reason or another do not/did not want to take on the extra work necessary to become partners but who were good attorneys with valuable skills. After firms began losing them they structured positions to keep some without forcing them into the extra work (lots of extra hours). Nowadays firms are looking to cut to save costs so unless these senior attorneys have a good book of their own business they are vulnerable.</p>
<p>It really is sad.</p>
<p>I found this article which answers a lot of questions for perspective lawyers. It was published in June 2007, so it doesn’t cover the current economic crisis, but is nevertheless useful.</p>
<p>[ABA</a> Law Practice Magazine | Making Partner – Or Not Is It In, Up or Over in the 21st Century?](<a href=“http://www.abanet.org/lpm/magazine/articles/v33/is4/an1.shtml]ABA”>http://www.abanet.org/lpm/magazine/articles/v33/is4/an1.shtml)</p>
<p>I was wondering if you had any experience with government work? Specifically how difficult it would be for an associate at the end of the partnership track to obtain a stable job working for the government? I would imagine that these people are not looked well upon after whoring themselves out to biglaw for so many years?</p>
<p>Thanks again</p>
<p>The article accurately represents the situation a couple of years ago, in more detail than I mentioned above. However, now in 2009 maximization of the per-partner-profit is even more important when business is slow. Otherwise the firm risks losing valuable partners who could migrate. So attorneys who are considered less than maximally profit-producing are cut, including many partners, so that the pie can be divided among fewer individuals. On the other hand, the alternatives to making partner in a law firm currently have dried up so those career options are not very available. They could return when things get rosier, but only slowly at best.</p>
<p>There are patent attorneys who work for government agencies, filign patent appplications on government-owned inventions and licensing them. They make a significantly lower salary than those in private practice. As to how the government hiring attorneys view associates from big law firms, it probably varies but they would expect disappointment with the salary. In the current job market such disappointment is unrealistic but due to human nature it will exist.</p>
<p>Hey dadofsam, tell me if this would work. </p>
<p>I’m looking to major in biomedical engineering, and I plan to take other engineering classes in college just for fun. I want to become an IP lawyer mainly doing work in patents. As a sophormore in high school, I already had 20 inventions. I would rather not pay an attorney to file patents, etc. for every single one, and this is what drove me to have an interest in patent law. </p>
<p>I think that I want to join a small firm out of law school so I can continue to work on my own stuff. Say I have financial support from past inventions to "wing it " coming out of school, could I set up a shop down the road to design, obtain patents, and push through products for aspiring inventors. Basically be a “Billy Mays” type but instead of commercials, I just do all the work behind the scenes to bring a product to market. Thanks for the great thread! :)</p>
<p>Well, you pose some interesting questions. Let me answer the last one first. Can you set up a practice to carry out all the work involved in bringing a product to market? Yes, there are such practices but there also are a number of invention developers who claim to have this ability but in truth dont. Many inventors have been bilked out of their hard-earned cash by such people, and some of these invention developers have been shut down by the authorities. So aspiring inventors with good common sense will want to know your track record in actually being able to commercialize inventions (whether your own or someone elses) before entrusting you with this effort.</p>
<p>So you might want to start your professional career by working for someone who has already shown success in doing that. You also might want to pick up a business degree along the way, but that might not be essential. However, you will have to develop a good head for business, especially in dealing with inventors because many of them are much better at inventing than at business.</p>
<p>Now back to your first question. Should you aim at becoming a patent attorney in order to patent your own inventions? Again I have a question: As an aspiring inventor would you want to trust the obtaining of valuable patents to an inexperienced attorney (i.e., yourself) just to save costs or would you rather work with one who knows his/her business? Many attorneys will agree to help the client save costs by having the client do a significant amount of the writing. But an inventor is almost always (and necessarily) focused on developing a specific product to fruition whereas the job of the patent attorney is to ensure that not only that product but alternate products, variations, etc., are well covered. In my experience this is a case of two heads usually being better than one at least until you have gained a lot of experience as a patent attorney so that you can see all aspects of the possible patent protection.</p>
<p>So your idea for a practice might work out, but before taking it up seriously you should first go through learning how to do all that. </p>
<p>Thats a long answer but the question is a good one.</p>
<p>Thanks for the feedback dadofsam, excellent advice! </p>
<p>I didn’t write in that I would like to work in another attorney’s office for a while to gain that valuable experience that you already mentioned. I would never want to rip people off, those con artists are disgusting! </p>
<p>I’ve heard of small companies (close to where I live) that take the inventor’s idea, “clean it up,” pay for patent attorneys, marketing, and production. The one catch: Inventors forfeit like 80%+ of the proffits. I would like to have an office like this (maybe this is where business classes come in handy) to help budding inventors because I think that it is so fun! </p>
<p>My mom’s background is in business so she can advise me on how many classes to take, but how many years of working with experieced patent attorneys do you deem “usual” before people set-up shop on their own? Thanks for the help! :)</p>
<p>hello, dadofsam.</p>
<p>i have been reading your posts for a while, and would like your feedback on my situation because i really don’t know anyone with my background that are practicing patent law:</p>
<p>am 27, have a b.s in chemistry, did research internships during the academic year and my summers during undergrad, presented my research at a number of scientific conferences and i have been published in a scientific journal. i became interested in patent law during a workshop while conducting summer research. i have worked as a chemist and a licensing specialist in industry. i am in the process of applying/entering law school, but am really REALLY re-considering how i can best position myself with excellent job possibilies as a patent attorney(because i do not want to get stuck with practicing other types of law because i don’t have ‘enough of a technical background’). i have been thinking about earning my masters in either bioinformatics or regulatory affairs because i am believing that either degree would be an excellent addition to my technical, employment and experience profiles (but not really doing tons of lab work which is what i despised with Ph.D programs) and i can continue working full-time.</p>
<p>My questions/concerns that i pose to you are:
- does it matter what TYPE of scientific graduate degree one earns? would either the masters in bioinformatics or regulatory affairs be frowned upon, based on your experience, when compared to a masters in chemistry, biochemistry,etc?
- i noticed that some schools offer an LL.M in Intellectual Property/Patent Law specifically for lawyers. I am interested in this program, and do you think this masters program would be a repeat of the masters in regulatory affaris? regardless, i would like a masters before i matriculate into law school.
- also, is it just me or does the law curriculum in most law schools barely touch on IP/patent law?? </p>
<p>your opinions, thoughts, comments, suggestions are greatly appreciated!</p>
<p>Sorry to be late in responding but I have been out of town for some time.</p>
<p>Big Dreamer: If you want to be able to provide quality services to inventors, I would suggest you have between three and five years experience, at least. If possible that should include some experience with technology transfer or licensing.</p>
<p>Da_jewel: No, those degrees are not equivalent. A master’s in bioinformatics may be helpful in building up your credentials in patent law but regulatory affairs is a different subject entirely and a degree in that will not add to your credentials. Unfortunately a B.S. in chemistry will not make you competitive fior patent law.</p>
<p>Hey dadofsam, I thought of a new question to ask you. BTW, thanks again for this awesome thread! :)</p>
<p>Since I am looking to major in biomedical engineering, is this an attractive major to law schools? I’ve heard that undergrad BME is ‘useless’ (unless from JHU) without majoring in MechE, ChemE, EE, etc. Is this true? Especially for going into patent law?</p>
<p>I’m still young, but I want to get through law school on the quickest track possible. I already know what type of business I want to run and where I can find the exact job I want after law school (assuming the place doesn’t shut down); basically assist inventors design a finished product, obtain patents, and market the invention.</p>
<p>Is a masters in BME necessary for me to be attractive to law schools? I don’t mind getting the masters (although more expensive), but could I minor in mechanical engineering (which I enjoy as well) instead?</p>
<p>Hope that you can answer this question, dadofsam, you respond with excellent advice everytime-don’t fail me now!!! ;)</p>
<p>Sorry but I am not familiar with current law school admissions practices to answer your question. My guess is that law schools will be more interested in your grades than your major and whether or not you have a master’s degree. For patent law, the more advanced degree you have the more competitive you will be for the first job or two.</p>
<p>Post your question as a new thread on the board for better answers.</p>
<p>thanks so much for responding, dadofsam!!</p>
<p>do you think a masters in biotechnology would be better if i am to go into patent law? i more interested in biotech/pharma and not in meche, cheme, ee (because i struggled to even get a B and B+ in my physics courses in undergrad and don’t want to go through that again). i am starting to think my experience in regulatory affairs is non-transfereable to patent law…oh gosh…</p>
<p>Hi dadofsam, than you so much for getting back to me. This thread rules, and your knowledge is seemingly bottomless! :)</p>
<p>Da jewel: You really are ranging far and wide in your subject matter. At this point in your education, you need to decide where your interests lie. EE/mechE and the like involve very different interests and skills than chem/bio/pharma.</p>
<p>Any of those technologies could be useful in patent law. But since you will be working in a certain technological area, even if you eventually decide to go into patent law (which at this point is not definite) you need to be taking classes in subjects that you like and can do well in. Those are the main considerations in chosing your major.</p>
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I am over half way through a PhD in genetics. I already have an MS in bioinformatics. At this point I am examining possible career paths and am strongly considering leaving research once I obtain my doctorate. I truly enjoy the conceptual aspects of my field and patent law seems very intriguing. I am curious if my degrees, along with a strong lsat score, will make me competitive for admission into top tier law programs. If I were to take and pass the patent bar prior to my application, would that further strengthen my chances. I was wondering if you would be able to comment the availability of position in law firms compared to “in house” lawyers at biotech/pharma companies. Also, are the particular pros/cons to the either type of position.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Sorry, but as stated in the beginning I don’t have the knowledge to comment on admissibility to law school. Your degrees, however, once you finish the Ph.D., will provide excellent scientific credentials for biotech patent law.</p>
<p>At the present time, due to the economy and the fact that large pharmaceutical companies are shifting their strategies regarding combining with small biotech firms in various ways, a lot of in-house positions are on hold. That will change by the time you graduate from law school, but who can say in what respect?</p>
<p>Pros and cons. Law firms offer the opportunity of greater earnings, combined with working harder and longer hours, and the possibility, depending on the firm and its clients, of working in cutting-edge biotechnology, including advanced university research. In-house positions offer the possibilty of working closely with inventors, having a better knowledge of the value of the inventions and their relevance to the company’s business, possibly moving into the business side of the company, somewhat shorter hours (but not just 9-5), offset by somewhat lower pay, generally less variety of technology, spending time in meetings and other non-legal matters. What’s an advantage and what’s a disadvantage depends a lot on who you are and what you want to be doing.</p>
<p>Hi all, extremely helpful posts throughout –</p>
<p>I’m in a situation similar to what I read earlier in this post, I just finished my first year in law school and am interested in patent law but lack a technical degree. The academic dean has OK’d a ‘break’ in law school for me to complete this degree. My old bachelor’s was liberal arts, but I took a lot of science, math, etc, so I noticed a physics degree would take me a lot less time (55 semester hours) compared to the highly structured engineering path (75 hours). </p>
<p>My question is (though I’m sure I don’t have enough knowledge of the field of patent law in general to phrase it correctly): would the physics degree, on the whole, have the potential to provide enough technical knowledge sought after in the field of patent law to be substantially equivalent to the EE degree, such that the difference in credit hours makes the physics degree the better choice? </p>
<p>If I’m missing some glaring issues in presenting the question (almost a certainty), I’d appreciate hearing them, as well as general opinions of the strengths/weaknesses in comparing the 2 degrees in the field of patent law.</p>
<p>Thanks in advance,
B</p>
<p>Generally at this time a bachelor’s degree in EE is often sufficient to qualify one for an entry level position as a patent attorney, although there are candidates with master’s degrees. A degrer in physics is also suficient but I believe that there are a number of younger attorneys with advanced degrees in physics - more than in EE, but there is no way to tell for certain. That’s the best I can do.</p>
<p>Hi, I am currently en route to graduating from Berkeley with degrees in both Computer Science (BA) and Economics. However, before attending law school I want to help ease my undergraduate school debt by working as a software engineer for 2 years, but because of that I will not have the chance to pursue a Masters in Comp Sci. Do you think that I will still be eligible for a patent law job in the Bay Area? Also, is patent law applicable to the software field or is it mainly in electronics/biotech?</p>
<p>Your plan is fine. Patent attorneys can work in both hardware and software, and there are jobs in both in the Bay Area (though not as many as usual right now, due to the economy).</p>