Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LFDenver]

The question is, is it really worth it to give up engineering to be a patent agent?

I gave up a good EE job a couple of years ago (90K+/ 12 yrs exp) and switched to being a patent agent.  At the time I was told by a partner at the firm I'm at that making 100-150k a year is doable. I started at 60k.  After about a year and some months I'm at 75k.  The rules are, my salary can't exceed 30% of my billing. I'm looking at a 270K/yr billing requirement just to make my original salary, and that seems like a lot.  Lately I've been doing around 21k per month. 

Is this really worth it?

I was planning on applying to law school this year, but I'm not spending 100K before I really know that this is the right change.

Every day that goes by I'm less hire-able as an EE.  I keep wondering if this is the way to go.

Does anyone have exp. or suggestions?

[Lxw]

Which job do you like more?

Oh yea, on a side note (not meant to be interpreted as mocking you, just critical of how your law firm values you, which is suffice to say, rather poorly), your counterparts at the USPTO make more as new college graduates.

[LFDenver]

Well, it's hard to tell because they are both so different.  I spent most of my time as an EE consultant, and I also started and ran two engineering companies.  Needless to say, that experience is different than being a regular employee as an EE, which I did a year before I switched (and disliked).  With this job I have the freedom to work from home, etc., but it's also amazingly frustrating to start completely over again, skill wise.

Perhaps the answer to "which job do you like beter" is that I'm not sure yet.

[miner531]

My understading is that it takes a couple of years to develop the skill of drafting patent applications.  Since you are pretty close to that I would expect that your market value is GREATLY increased and moving to another firm may be your best bet.  EE patent agent with a couple years experience is still one of the highest in demand. Do a job search with your degree and experience and you will find salarys much higher than what you are currently making.  That said, you MAY have to give up the work from home life. 

As far as, if it is worth it?....well isn't that your call?  You have worked as an EE for several years and now you have worked as an agent for more than a year.  IMO this experience is more than most get that are new in the IP field. 

I am currently an EE (MSEE) with about 7 years experience studying for the patent bar.  My take on it is that the earning potential for patent law is far higher than an EE.  I make decent money now, but the cap on salaries for most EE design postions is around 100K.  There is always the dreaded management track, but the money is maybe 20K-40K more, takes several years to acheive, and could require an MBA.  I personally would find law school more interesting than classes focused on finance and theories of motivation.

I would be interested in hearing more about how you found your work from home patent agent job, because that is something I will be looking for in the near future. 

Good Luck

[LFDenver]

Yeah, the upside is arguably much better.  That's the same conclusion I came to.  As an EE, my salary would be around 100k a year, unless I really specialized. 

I also agree that a year + some months isn't near enough time to be good at or feel comfortable with the job.  The learning curve is steep, IMO.  There are definitely some writing skills that law school would have tought that I didn't have.  As an EE I was more social than most, but it doesn't mean I'm a fantastic writer or can identify important fact patterns in prior art.

Mostly likely I'll see how 2009 goes.  Hopefully my skills/billing will improve over the year and it will get easier and more enjoyable.  The firm is small and I like the partners.  I do get a lot of feedback on my office actions and patents, which is nice.

[LFDenver]

I would be interested in hearing more about how you found your work from home patent agent job, because that is something I will be looking for in the near future. 

Actually I go in most days, becuase it's easier to get OA's through the managing partner before I file.  So it's not really a work from home job, though I can work from home and vpn in when I want.

[cheesepep]

Patent agents do have an upper salary limit also.  I am guessing 140-160k and that is with 10+ years of experience.  You will overall make more money being an agent over a strict engineer baring any special circumstances.  However, as others have suggested, moving to another firm (or at least interviewing and try your luck) can show you that a higher salary is definitely possible.

[LFDenver]

Does anyone know typical billing to income ratios for a patent agent? 

[daven]

Does anyone know typical billing to income ratios for a patent agent? 

not sure but fwiw, overall average agent pay 25%/50%/75% is $70k/$90k/$110k

[ababab]

As I understand it, the 30% ratio you're working with is pretty standard.  I've heard of some ratios lower, and some a little higher (one-third, maybe as high as 40%).

But the devil is in the details.  Some firms only credit you for hours worked/billed AFTER the client pays for those hours... i.e., the firm's collection risk is on your head.  A less onerous but still problematic approach is to credit you only for "billed" hours, meaning that if the partner in charge of the account decides to write down your time (to keep a client happy, to include some of his own hours in the bill, or whatever), some of your time is in the trashcan.  The "right" way to do it is to give you credit for all legitimately billable time you log.  Then the partner's billing decisions and the client's willingness or ability to pay are risks borne by the firm, not by you.

IMO you'd be better off with 30% of billable time than with 40% of collections.  YMMV.

FWIW, some prosecution-only shops do offer billing ratio compensation arrangements to their patent attorney associates, too.  The nice thing about that is that, as an attorney instead of an agent, your billing rate typically starts higher and grows to a higher level.  The not-so-nice thing about it is that if you do a lot of work for clients with low flat fees or caps, your higher billable rate means you get less allotted time for the same amount of work, which can cause a lot of stress and/or uncompensated time.

[smgsmc]

Hi.  I’m in a similar situation and have a related post in the Patent Agent/Lawyers Career Forum (“Do law firms adjust billable rates for degree of difficulty?”).  That post got disrupted by some petty squabbling between two posters, but if you filter that out, there’s valuable info there.  My background:  PhD physicist, 20+ yrs in corporate R&D.  Just finished 2 yrs as a patent agent in a small IP boutique.  Currently deciding whether to stay a patent agent (no intention of law school) or return to R&D before my tech skills get too out of date.  Sound familiar?  My take.

(a)  You are a patent agent trying to decide whether to go to law school or return to engineering.  From a financial perspective, there can be (and usually is) a big difference in compensation between an atty and agent.  So don’t base your financial decisions on your current status as an agent.  Also, in terms of growth potential, again, a huge difference.  As an atty, you can do litigation, licensng, etc.  As an agent, you can’t (other than assisting an atty).  As an atty you can become a partner.  As an agent, you can’t.

(b)  I took a huge cut in $.  But that was to be expected, since I went from an expert to a rookie.  But at least I didn’t have to shell out $$ for law school.  Unless I catch a lucky break (or game the system, see below), I’ll never get back to the same $ level as I had in R&D.

(c)  The compensation structure in law firms is arcane.  With different billable rates, flat rates, minimum billables, and bonuses...difficult to compare compensation.  Unlike in engineering, bonuses can be a substantial part of your compensation.  And it’s hard again to do a proper comparision.  Sometimes, bonuses are non-linear:  that is if you exceed your minimum hrs by 100 hrs, you get $X, but if you exceed it by 200 hrs, you get more than $X for the second 100 hrs.

(d)  As a general rule, in any job, once you stay in the same position for more than ~ 5 yrs, your salary will start to saturate; certainly after 10 yrs, you’re flat except for inflation offsets.  R&D seems to saturate more gradually than line or field engineers.  So, if $ is your major concern, you’ll need to move to a managerial position anyway.  Some corps have started a “dual-ladder” system so engineers can advance without shifting to management.  But the numbers that are promoted along that track are very low.  I was fortunate enough to be on that track.  From what I can gather, the learning curve as a patent agent is nearly exponential.  If you’re competent, you go from newbie to 90+% proficiency in 3 yrs.  Which is why so many firms post a min of 3 yrs experience.  By 5 yrs, you’ve reached 99+%, and you reach saturation.  There’s further expertise with additional years, but incrementally small (as far as strictly patent prosecution is concerned).  No additional opportunities without becoming an atty.  Very general terms.  Always exceptions.

(c)  How to game the same system as a patent agent:  Work for a firm that does a large volume of flat rate cases for large corps who file quasi-nonsensical cases just for bragging rights.  The corps that say, “We are one of the most innovative corps in the world.  Hey, we filed over a 1000 patent applications last year.”   They are not overly concerned with quality, because the likelihood of any of the “inventions” amounting to anything marketable is near zero.  The trick here is to get all the easy ones on your docket.  So, as a rough example, assume you get $2500 flat rate/case.  And assume that translates to 40 billable hrs.  If you do in fact knock them off at one/wk, you make $10K/mo.  Not too shabby.  If you get real hard ones and take 80 hrs, you make $5K/mo.  NOT good.  BUT, if you get cinchy ones and crank them out at 20 hrs, you make a whopping $20K/mo.  That’s a lot of bucks.  So now the range is quite broad:  $60K - $240K/yr...before bonuses on the high end (no bonus on the low end of course).

(d)  Technical satisfaction is a different story, however.  If you stick to patent prosecution (and not move on to litigation), life as an atty is the same as life as an agent.  Once you get past the $ issues, your life as an agent will (very soon) tell you whether IP is right for you.  Here, your experience as a practicing engineer may actually hurt you.  Sounds strange.  But true.  The way to game the system is to do the rock bottom min work to get an acceptable application.  That’s how you can crank them out.  If you have been a practicing engineer, you tend to be more analytical, you try to understand the material, you try to get all the technical details correct.  And that all takes time, and your clock keeps ticking away.  On the other hand, if you got your degree in eng, decided you didn’t like it, and went straight to law school...you won’t likely get wrapped up in technical details (or won’t know enough to catch technical issues in the first place).  Hence, you can crank out those suckers.  You now have to decide if you can compromise your technical standards in order to make sufficient $. 

(e)  The usual disclaimer...there’s a wide range of situations, and blind luck is always a factor.