Intellectual Property Forums


    
      
        Intellectual Property Forums
        (http://www.intelproplaw.com/Forum/Forum.cgi)
      

        
        
(Message started by: CPLIP on Mar 30^th, 2007, 1:02pm)

Title: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by CPLIP on Mar 30^th, 2007, 1:02pm

Any advice for those participating in this program?

Employers:
1. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer, & Feld (Houston, TX)
2. Alston & Bird (Charlotte, NC)
3. Amster, Rothstein, & Ebenstein (New York, NY)
4. Armstrong Teasdale (St. Louis, MO)
5. Arnold & Porter (Washington, DC)
6. Baker & Daniels (Indianapolis, IN)
7. Baker & McKenzie (Dallas, TX)
8. Baker Botts (Various Locations)
9. Banner & Witcoff (Chicago, IL)
10. Barnes & Thornburg (Indianapolis, IN)
11. Bell, Boyd, & Lloyd (Chicago, IL)
12. Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor, & Zafman (Sunnyvale, CA)
13. Brinks, Hofer, Gilson, & Lione (Chicago, IL)
14. Brooks Kushman (Southfield, MI)
15. Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh, & Lindquist (Minneapolis, MN)
16. Connolly, Bove, Lodge, & Hutz (Wilmington, DE)
17. Cook, Alex, McFarron, Manzo, Cummings, & Mehler (Chicago, IL)
18. Cooley Godward Kronish (Palo Alto, CA)
19. Cox Smith Matthews Incorporated (San Antonio, TX)
20. Crowell & Moring (Washington, DC)
21. Darby & Darby, PC (New York, NY)
22. Day, Casebeer, Madrid, & Batchelder (Cupertino, CA)
23. Department of the Navy, Office of the General Counsel (Washington, DC)
24. Dewey BAllantine (Washington, DC)
25. Dickstein Shapiro (Washington, DC)
26. Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP (Cincinnati, OH)
27. Dorsey & Whitney (Minneapolis, MN)
28. Drinker Biddle Gardner Carton (Chicago, IL)
29. Dykema (Chicago, IL)
30. Faegre & Benson (Minneapolis, MN)
31. Fenwick & West (Mountain View, CA)
32. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, & Dunner (Washington, DC)
33. Fish & Richardson (San Diego, CA)
34. Fitch, Evan, Tabin, & Flannery (Chicago, IL)
35. Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper, & Scinto (New York, NY)
36. Fletcher Yoder (Houston, TX)
37. Fogg & Powers (Minneapolis, MN)
38. Foley & Lardner (Chicago, IL)
39. Foley & Lardner (Madison, WI)
40. Foley & Lardner (Milwaukee, WI)
41. Foley & Lardner (Washington, DC)
42. Foley Hoag (Boston, MA)
43. Fredrickson & Byron, PA (Minneapolis, MN)
44. Frommer, Lawrence, & Haug (New York, NY)
45. Fulbright & Jaworski (Dallas, TX)
46. Godfrey & Kahn, SC (Milwaukee, WI)
47. Goodwin Procter (Boston, MA)
48. Goodwin Procter (New York, NY)
49. Greenblum & Bernstein (Reston, VA)
50. Hamilton Brook Smith Reynolds (Concord, MA)

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by CPLIP on Mar 30^th, 2007, 1:03pm

51. Harness, Dickey, & Pierce (Troy, MI)
52. Haynes & Boone, LLP (Dallas, TX)
53. Hickman, Palermo, Truong, & Becker (San Jose, CA)
54. Howrey, Simon, Arnold, & White (Chicago, IL)
55. Howrey, Simon, Arnold, & White (East Palo Alto, CA)
56. Howrey, Simon, Arnold, & White (Houston, TX)
57. Howrey, Simon, Arnold, & White (Irvine, CA)
58. Howrey, Simon, Arnold, & White (Washington, DC)
59. Hunton & Williams (Washington, DC)
60. Jenner & Block (Chicago, IL)
61. Jones Day (Chicago, IL)
62. Kaye Scholer (New York, NY)
63. Kenyon & Kenyon (New York, NY)
64. Kilpatrick Stockton LLP (Atlanta, GA)
65. King & Spalding (Atlanta, GA)
66. Kirkland & Ellis (Chicago, IL)
67. Kirkland & Ellis (Los Angeles, CA)
68. Kirkland & Ellis (New York, NY)
69. Kirkland & Ellis (San Francisco, CA)
70. Kirkland & Ellis (Washington, DC)
71. Klarquist Sparkman (Portland, OR)
72. Knobbe, Martens, Olson, & Bear, LLP (Irvine, CA)
73. Kramer, Levin, Naftalis, & Frankel (New York, NY)
74. Krieg DeVault (Indianapolis, IN)
75. Latham & Watkins (San Diego, CA)
76. Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz, Mentlik (Westfield, NJ)
77. Leydig, Voit, & Mayer (Chicago, IL)
78. Lowrie, Lando, & Anastasi (Cambridge, MA)
79. Marger, Johnson, & McCollom (Portland, OR)
80. Marshall, Gerstein, & Borun (Chicago, IL)
81. Mayer, Brown, Rowe, & Maw (Chicago, IL)
82. Mayer, Brown, Rowe, & Maw (Houston, TX)
83. McAndrews, Held, & Malloy (Chicago, IL)
84. McDermott, Will, & Emery (Chicago, IL)
85. McDermott, Will, & Emery (Palo Alto, CA)
86. McDermott, Will, & Emery (Washington, DC)
87. McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff (Chicago, IL)
88. Merchant & Gould (Minneapolis, MN)
89. Michael, Best, & Friedrich (Chicago, IL)
90. Michael, Best, & Friedrich (Madison, WI)
91. Michael, Best, & Friedrich (Milwaukee, WI)
92. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, & McCloy (New York, NY)
93. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, & Popeo (Boston, MA)
94. Morgan & Finnegan (New York, NY)
95. Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius (Washington, DC)
96. Morris, Nichols, Arsht, & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)
97. Morrison & Foerster (Los Angeles, CA)
98. Morrison & Foerster (San Diego, CA)
99. Needle & Rosenberg (Atlanta, GA)
100. Nixon Peabody (Boston, MA)
101. Novak, Druce, & Quigg (Houston, TX)
102. Nutter, McClennon, & Fish (Boston, MA)
103. O'Melveny & Myers (Newport Beach, CA)
104. Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier, Neustadt (Alexandria, VA)
105. Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe (Irvine, CA)
106. Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe (Menlo Park, CA)
107. Patterson, Thuente, Skaar, & Christensen, PA (Minneapolis, MN)
108. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, & Garrison, LLP (New York, NY)
109. Perkins Coie (Seattle, WA)
110. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, & Pittman (McLean, VA)
111. Polsinelli, Shalton, Flanigan, & Suelthaus, PC (Kansas City, MO)
112. Procter & Gamble Company - Intellectual Property (Cincinnati, OH)
113. Quarles & Brady (Milwaukee, WI)
114. Rader, Fishman, & Grauer (Bloomfield Hills, MI)
115. Ropes & Gray (Boston, MA)
116. Schulte, Roth, & Zabel (New York, NY)
117. Schwabe, Williamson, & Wyatt (Portland, OR)
118. Senninger Powers (St. Louis, MO)
119. Shook, Hardy, & Bacon, LLP (Kansas City, MO)
120. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom (Palo Alto, CA)
121. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom (Washington, DC)
122. Snell & Wilmer (Phoenix, AZ)
123. Sonnenschein, Nath, & Rosenthal (Chicago, IL)
124. Steptoe & Johnson (Washington, DC)
125. Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox (Washington, DC)
126. Sughrue Mion (Washington, DC)
127. Sutherland, Asbill, & Brennan, LLP (Atlanta, GA)
128. Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer, & Risley (Atlanta, GA)
129. Townsend and Townsend and Crew (San Francisco, CA)
130. TraskBritt (Salt Lake City, UT)
131. Van Dyke, Gardner, Linn, & Burkhart (Grand Rapids, MI)
132. Vedder. Price, Kaufman, & Kammholz, PC (Chicago, IL)
133. Weil, Gotshal, & Manges (New York, NY)
134. Westman, Champlin, & Kelly (Minneapolis, MN)
135. Willkie, Farr, & Gallagher LLP (New York, NY)
136. Wilmer Hale (Boston, MA)
137. Wilmer Hale (New York, NY)
138. Wilmer Hale (Washington, DC)
139. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice (Charlotte, NC)

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by Guest1234 on Mar 30^th, 2007, 1:39pm

Yeah,

Make sure either 1) you're at a top 14 school, where grades don't matter or either 2) your at a top 15 - 30 school, where grades matter a little bit.

Otherwise, for every other school, make sure you're either 1) and EE in the top 25 percent or 2) any other engineer in the top 15 percent

Good Luck

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by plex on Mar 30^th, 2007, 2:55pm

A PhD in a life science going to law school would also do well, not exactly sure what grades you would need from any of the non-top schools. Also, you need a technical degree of some sort to do most of the major IP work, even if you are from a top school.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by CPLIP on Apr 4^th, 2007, 10:52am

Can anyone find the thread from last year's program. I tried, but the search function on this site blows. I think I remember reading some really helpful posts back then...

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by daven on Apr 4^th, 2007, 1:02pm

on 03/30/07 at 13:39:26, Guest1234 wrote:

Would be a waste of time for an ME to attend the college of william and mary? They ranked 27th in '07 but dropped to 31 in '08. I'm considering W&M mainly due to location. I would study hard but wouldn't expect to graduate in the top 15%, given all the liberal arts grads who've had more than 2-3 undergrad writing courses..

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by forest on Apr 4^th, 2007, 1:57pm

on 04/04/07 at 13:02:45, daven wrote:

a 4 spot drop in rankings is insignificant. it's still a good school.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by Isaac on Apr 4^th, 2007, 4:18pm

on 04/04/07 at 13:02:45, daven wrote:

I would study hard but wouldn't expect to graduate in the top 15%, given all the liberal arts grads who've had more than 2-3 undergrad writing courses..

My experience in law school was that the liberal arts grads enjoyed no particular advantage over their more mathematically inclined peers.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by JAYC on Apr 4^th, 2007, 5:11pm

on 04/04/07 at 13:02:45, daven wrote:

I think W&M is a good school. I would say top 25% at that school would be a shoe in for a patent firm. And as Isaac mentioned, I don't think liberal arts majors have any advantage over engineers. In fact, I find that the people who do well in law school are those that pay attention to all the little details of the law (mentioned in the casebooks/classes), remember those details, and then apply them on the exam. I guess engineers are good at this skill, but don't discount liberal arts majors either.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by plex on Apr 4^th, 2007, 5:22pm

Engineers are also used to having competitive curves and tests that can make or break their grade, at least, that's how it was like for me for all my classes as an EE. They are also used to having a ridiculous amount of homework as well, even if law is memorizing reams of text for a test, rather than pages of formulas.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by daven on Apr 5^th, 2007, 1:34pm

on 04/04/07 at 17:22:17, plex wrote:

Yea, that makes sense. I used to get to school by 7am every week day and didn't leave until 5-6pm. After awhile, word got out that I always worked all of the homework problems and got decent grades.. I had to schedule one of the library study rooms to hide from all the guys roaming the library at the last second before class looking for someone to copy homework from.:( I don't mind working problems WITH someone but I'm not going to work hard for hours and let someone copy my work.

Believe me, if I go back to law school full time I'll maintain a similar study schedule. It's just tough to give up full time engineering pay when you're not *positive* three years of studying very hard will get you a better paying job. I made right around $100k w/overtime the last two out of three years, so the risk or opportunity cost is way up there. I'm sure many of the people on here have similar concerns.

I might drive to W&M and ask the law school employment/placement office for more detailed hiring data for engineers. I would feel much better if they could tell me they had **** engineers graduate law school and xx% started out making $****. You'll run a race harder if you know what's at the finish line.:)

BTW, here's W&M's employment info:
http://www.wm.edu/law/careerservices/grad_profile.shtml

$110/yr median looks good but $35k/yr-135k/yr is a huge range. If I could study hard and expect to be at or above the median I'd probably do it..

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by plex on Apr 5^th, 2007, 6:28pm

It is going to be at the upper end of that median range for sure, as long as you do alright in school and have an appropriate technical degree (even among the technical degrees, not all of them are viewed equally). IP law is the most lucrative of the fields, and probably the most interesting too, it just has really high barriers for entry compared to all the other areas.

I cringe for other law students who may read about IP law when they first enter a law school, be told by the school that anyone can do it, go into an IP concentration, then find out that their poli sci or english degree isn't go to allow them to do anything more than copyrights/trademarks.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by daven on Apr 5^th, 2007, 7:12pm

Is a BSME appropriate enough to get a job? ??? I had nearly two years of electronics training in the military but switched to mechanical when I went back to college. From what I understand, firms assign ME's to litigation if they only have openings for electrical or computer people in prosecution. I would be happy either way.

thanks for the helpful info.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by plex on Apr 5^th, 2007, 8:44pm

ME's don't have it too bad, it will probably take more effort, since there would be fewer job postings, and a bit higher law gpa compared to the electrical/computer or PhD bios might be needed. I haven't really heard of a lot of ME's needing going back to get an EE degree, which wouldn't take them all that long to get, at least compared to most other majors, a lot of classes would transfer.

I would guess as time goes on though, it is going to grow more difficult for ME's to gain initial entry, as the number of mechanical inventions dwindle into obscurity. It really isn't at that point yet though.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by Ayan Afridi on Apr 10^th, 2007, 9:41pm

I went to the 2006 Patent Law Interview Program - I only had one interview there, and I took the interview, got a call back, and got the job.

I am from a law school that is like #70 something on the U.S. News ranking bs, with a GPA that is a low 3.

I had an B.S. in Comp E and EE, and have been working as a programmer for the past 4 yrs while in law school earning 100k.

The law job i was offered offered me 135k.

So yeah the lesson is- apply ANYWAY people!!!!

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by ritara on Apr 12^th, 2007, 8:26am

You are lucky!
I don't want to be pessimistic. But last year my friend, a U Mich law student, with a PhD degree and top 25% law school GPA, didn't get one callback after 15 interviews. His theory is those firms will come to the U Mich OCI later, so they want to evaluate him with the whole UM student pool.
I am still shocked...

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by forest on Apr 12^th, 2007, 10:53am

on 04/12/07 at 08:26:18, ritara wrote:

an alternate theory might be that he's not all that impressive of an interviewer ;)

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by plex on Apr 12^th, 2007, 3:40pm

Also, what did he have a BS and PhD in? If he was trying to go into IP with some sort of liberal arts degree, PhD or not, he was going to get denied by any employer looking for more than someone limited to copyrights/trademarks. It is isn't something you can just overcome with good grades, he would have to go back and get a useful degree.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by ritara on Apr 12^th, 2007, 8:00pm

chemistry. And he got an offer from a top law firm through OCI.
Maybe something wrong with his bidding strategy? Maybe it is not a good idea to bid those big firms with comprehensive practice areas in this program? Especially when they will come to you school's OCI later? Shall I focus on boutique firms instead?
I am a UM student too, with a MS in biotechnology. GPA is much less satisfying than his. His experience really makes me nervous.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by plex on Apr 12^th, 2007, 8:17pm

You'll be fine, the odds are heavily stacked in both your, and your friends, favor for finding the type of job you want. You both have decent technical backgrounds and a very good law background. Just keep up your efforts to get into the type of firm in which you are interested.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by patentsusa on Apr 13^th, 2007, 12:21am

Don't just look at starting salaries, the big money is in partnership and hopefully you will be a partner for a good part of your career. You should easily make 200k even at a small firm or as a solo. Also, don't just look at starting salaries when selecting a firm, you want to get a feel for average profit per partner. It could easily be worth it to get a lower split the first several years if you end up with a higher split while a partner.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by 1200firestarter_p on Apr 29^th, 2007, 9:02am

Hey just when someone mentioned that if u get into top 14 then u don't need much of a grade and if u get into top 15-30 then ur grade will be a little more of a concern.

"not much of a grade " meaning ? 2.5? 3.5?

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by lalala on Jun 2^nd, 2007, 12:48am

Bids results are up!!! :o

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by CPLIP on Jun 2^nd, 2007, 11:28am

Humbling to say the least...3 for 31 and not one Chicago firm. I have no idea what is normal, but that's just disappointing.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by Guest1040 on Jun 2^nd, 2007, 4:06pm

I think 3 is pretty good. The problem with the Chicago market is that there are not enough IP firms. There are prolly like 5 major ones (Banner, McAndrews, Marshall Gerstein Borun, Bell Boyd Lloyd, and Welsh and Katz). The other ones are smaller and hire much less. If you are able to land a summer internship at a firm outside of Chicago, then work there a couple of years then lateral into one of these 5 major ones in Chicago. Or, you just might love the part of the country you are working in, and won't want to lateral anyways. For example, D.C. can be a really fun area to live.

Does anyone know the chances of being picked for an interview after being put on the wait list?

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by Mr. Bogus on Jun 4^th, 2007, 9:23am

I wrote a long response before but it got deleted to here is the (very) general abstract

1) Yes getting off the waitlist is easier than you think

2) For CPLIP: Are you a 2L or 3L? 3L's have had a very rough go of it this time around in my experience. I am a 3L and I have only ONE interview. This is about the median from the 10 or so people from the 3L's I have talked to. This is becuase firms are more interested in interviewing for Summer associates at this stage. The resons for this are meny, biut primarily rotate around the fact that these frims hire 80-90% of their newbies from their SA pool and, even if they DID have a need for an "outisde" new associate, they won't know it until they can fully evaluate their SA pool from this year.

Anyone else want to chime in?

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by attendee on Jun 4^th, 2007, 4:21pm

Could anyone give a sense of the best approach to the interview.

Will get 5-10 based on some alts but realistically the 2 day interviews means the firm gets to list 32 people, even the biggest probably only want a couple.

Seems like 2 choices: (1) take yourself very seriously in my case, "I know this, I worked on this, I have already passed the USPTO," remind me why you consider yourself a scientist, "oh, BBRC is peer-reviewed and microscopy was cutting edge in the 80s, uh-huh"

vs.

(2) look I know I don't have a chance, what types of wifes do patent attorneys get or does your firm have a library and could I get any old versions of "chisum on patents" it sells for like $3400 and I'm thinking about a solo practice??

any thoughts??

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by Guest1040 on Jun 4^th, 2007, 7:24pm

on 06/04/07 at 09:23:54, Mr. Bogus wrote:

Yea, I'm a 2L at a tier 2 school. The thing is that my grades were horrible my first semester, (prolly like bottom 3rd), so I left my gpa off my resume. I was surprised to get a bunch of interviews along with several alternates. I'm assuming the firms understand that leaving my GPA off the resume means that I did very poorly my first semester. We'll see....

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by Mr. Bogus on Jun 5^th, 2007, 8:56pm

Hey all-

I had one 'not invited' turn into a preselect.

Looks like the geniuses at symplicity did it again, so go check and I am sure the results will be better for you.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by attendee on Jun 5^th, 2007, 9:24pm

yeah, noticed new preselect today.

come on successful past PLIP goers-what's your advice for these 20 minute interviews?:

(1) conceited, aloof, indifference,

(2) bizarre practical approach-the "I want to join your profession and understand I more likely than not will not join your particular firm" or

(3) obsequious love and adoration of the firm.

??

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by Isaac on Jun 6^th, 2007, 6:27am

on 06/05/07 at 21:24:02, attendee wrote:

come on successful past PLIP goers-what's your advice for these 20 minute interviews?:

Am I missing a joke?

If you are getting a 20 minute interview why would you blow it being goofy? 20 minutes is enough to answer questions about yourself and to create an impression with your own questions.

The minimum you should accomplish in an interview is a honing of your interview skills. Don't rehearse being a flake.

The tough situations are those where you get a few seconds of face time to convince the interviewer that you deserve a real interview. Making an impression in 20 minutes given time to prepare ought to be a piece of cake.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by attendee on Jun 6^th, 2007, 5:30pm

Okay, thanks for your response.

It is not a joke. I just don't get talking to someone about science that themselves are not even a marginal scientist-just got a degree and that is it. It creates an odd vibe.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by Isaac on Jun 7^th, 2007, 6:44am

on 06/06/07 at 17:30:53, attendee wrote:

Many interviews for patent positions do not involve technical questions. I'd suggest doing an online search for law firm interviews and you'll get the kinds of things that are generally asked and even some guidance on the types of questions you might like to avoid.

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by asdfsadfsadfsad on Jun 9^th, 2007, 11:02am

what the hell is wrong with this message board????

I AM NOT TRYING TO POST ANY LINKS, STOP REJECTING MY MESSAGES AS SPAM!!!!

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by CPLIP on Jun 9^th, 2007, 11:08am

Mr. Bogus,
I'm a 2L at a T2, decent first semester grades first, registered patent agent, clerking at an IP firm, unless these firms want only the top percentages from the top schools, I don't know what's wrong.

I did have one "not invited" change to a preselect though.

Question for anyone:
Should I contact the employers I am interviewing with to give them an updated copy of my resume? My second semester grades were very good and I got on Moot Court. I feel this is something they should take into consideration even before I meet with them. Thoughts?

Title: Re: Chicago Patent Law Interview Program 2007
Post by JAYC on Jun 12^th, 2007, 10:28am

Something is screwed up with the CPLIP website. I originally was an alternate for one firm, which then scheduled me for an interview, and now for that firm it says i'm not invited with no scheduled interview. Is anyone else experiencing something like this?