JSonnabend

[GW EE]

Throwing in my two cents. EE patent agent here.

Regarding EE
One attorney at my firm has a bachelors degree in chemical engineering and a masters degree in electrical engineering so it is possible to go directly to a masters program.  As a result, I recommend directly going into a masters in EE program.  If you are unsure about the math, then take a couple math classes before hand.  You will save time (2 years for MS vs 4 years for BS) and, thus, money.  Plus a masters would likely look better on a resume.

Regarding a masters in organic chemistry
Seems like you would need a PhD in this field to be competitive.  Someone please correct me if I am wrong.  That said, if willing to get a PhD then could be a viable alternative to EE and may be better if you are interested in the subject matter.

Regarding a masters in biomedical engineering
Don't think this would add much for it is limited in subject matter and can be performed by mechanical and even electrical engineers. I have done some med device patents. 

[Nate]

Neuroscience guy,

Since I am graduate student in Molecular Biology and don't have the experience that many fourm members have, so please correct me if I am wrong. Based my experiences talking with law firms that have patent prosecution groups in the life sciences, I get the impression that the minimal academic credentials are:

1) JD/PhD
2) JD/MS
3) PhD

This is different from IP groups that work in the engineering fields since there is a glut of doctoral students in low paid academic positions. There doesn't seem to be anyway to bridge this gap with scientific work experience other than getting a PhD. The engineering groups are littered with BS/MS EE guys working as agents. The quickest way for the scientist with a BS/MS might be going to law school and kicking butt. The law degree from a solid school seems to trump the science degree.

What I don't understand about this mindset is why a hiring partner think there is a direct correlation between degree level obtained and level/depth of expertise w/o consideration of the application of one's education through research experience?

I like to use the example of the MS scientist who won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for inventing MALDI-TOF. Would this guy actually be considered for an agent position given this hiring trend versus a newly minted PhD who would not have the same level of experience?

I would say a PhD is the minimal degree for an agent position in the life sciences.

[AA123]

For those familiar with firm hiring practices:

Is there any preference for EE patent attorney who got a BS EE before law school than someone who got an MS EE after law school?  I don't see why there would be such a bias or preference but I would be interested in hearing the opinions of those familiar with firm hiring preferences. 

[DogDayPM]

What I don't understand about this mindset is why a hiring partner think there is a direct correlation between [the life sciences] degree level obtained and level/depth of expertise w/o consideration of the application of one's education through research experience?

Nate,

I'm not in life sciences so I may be off track, but do have an opinion based on some limited experience.  Take it for what it costs.

I think the issue is driven by that glut of life science PhDs mentioned elsewhere in your post.  I worked in a company having various RDE divisions supported by various patent attorneys.  One of the RDE divisions was focused on medical testing devices and procedures, lateral flow assays, etc. and was staffed and managed almost entirely by PhD scientists except the occasional MS who got in via nepotism.  The other divisions focused more on polymers, routine chemistries and material/mechanical sciences, product designs, etc.  These were staffed by a "normal" distribution of BS/MS/PhD scientists and engineers (say, 80/10/10% ratio).

When we needed to hire a new patent attorney for the first RDE group, the Veep in charge and all her directors pitched a fit each time we suggested any patent attorney candidate who did not have a PhD.  By Gawd, they were all PhDs and surely no one but another PhD could fully understand them.  This despite the fact that during the year+ it took us to finally find the idiot they found acceptable, BS or MS chemists and chemical engineers were doing their patent apps, university research agreements, etc. in a fully satisfactory fashion.

So, back to your question.  I suspect a lot of the issue is driven by the glut.  Clients in the life sciences industries have a glut of PhDs from which to staff, so they do so.  In turn, many of the life sciences inventions being sent to firms for drafting are coming from PhDs managed by PhDs who expect that their patent attorney durn well should also be a PhD.

So the hiring partner at the firm - what's his or her choice?  S/he doesn't have the option of considering the work experiences of the non-PhD; the only choice is to staff with PhD patent attorneys, or else.

Just my 2 cents.

[klaviernista]

For those familiar with firm hiring practices:

Is there any preference for EE patent attorney who got a BS EE before law school than someone who got an MS EE after law school?  I don't see why there would be such a bias or preference but I would be interested in hearing the opinions of those familiar with firm hiring preferences. 

Depends on what legal work the patent attorney who obtained his MS EE after attending law school did.  If they took 2 years off from the legal field to pursue the MS EE, then there is a strong likelihood that their legal skills have gone stale.  In such a case, I would definitely favor the prospect who obtained the BS EE before law school.

I guess my point is that while patent attorney's deal with technical subject matter, they are an attorney first and a scientist second.

[ChrisWhewell]

For those familiar with firm hiring practices:

Is there any preference for EE patent attorney who got a BS EE before law school than someone who got an MS EE after law school?  I don't see why there would be such a bias or preference but I would be interested in hearing the opinions of those familiar with firm hiring preferences. 

I'd wager that the person who can pump out the most work of high quality, consistently will be the best candidate.   Does an MS in EE turn someone who has a BS in EE into a super work pumper outer ?  What is it about an MS that might make someone able to bill more hours ?  Does any of the work for the MS degree discuss how a lawyer can be more productive ?  I know I ask pointy questions sometimes but assure you I don't intend to offend anyone.  I'm approaching the question from a purely business perspective.  If people focus more on what the firm really needs - billable hours - and convincingly put forth reasons why they can achieve more than the next guy, consistently, I think one gets more mileage from argument along those lines than they do by citing academic credentials, provided the minimum for entry are existent.  I don't think an MS v. BS matters much in the hiring decision, although it could in some cases mean getting in the door for an interview, but even with a lesser degree that can be gotten around and what it takes to get around it, weighs in one's favor.   Part of the convincingly referred to probably includes some track record of work ethic, competency in law, a pleasant demeanor, good communications, and a little bit of the magic human factor.   The human factor means you have made previous personal contact of some sort (written or verbal) with those interviewing you prior to your showing up.   

[stuffball]

One of the things that helps firms pump out more billable hours is attracting and keeping clients.  Certain clients will be very particular about the educational background of the agents/associates working on their applications.  Whether or not it's reasonable for them to be this way is another issue.  The point is that a Master's in EE may be seen as a plus (or even essential) by certain clients.  It's been my personal experience that firms seek out candidates with strong technical backgrounds and proudly waive their resumes in front of clients who care about such things.  We have many such clients. 

Long story short:  MS in EE will likely be a plus.  Whether the plus is worth the effort, time and expense is a stickier question.  Over the long term, particularly if you're having trouble finding work now, I think it might be.

[tech_spec]

One of the things that helps firms pump out more billable hours is attracting and keeping clients.  Certain clients will be very particular about the educational background of the agents/associates working on their applications.  Whether or not it's reasonable for them to be this way is another issue.  The point is that a Master's in EE may be seen as a plus (or even essential) by certain clients.  It's been my personal experience that firms seek out candidates with strong technical backgrounds and proudly waive their resumes in front of clients who care about such things.  We have many such clients. 

Long story short:  MS in EE will likely be a plus.  Whether the plus is worth the effort, time and expense is a stickier question.  Over the long term, particularly if you're having trouble finding work now, I think it might be.

I second that. This reasoning of "more degrees = better" goes all the way up the chain.  This often happens because the client (i.e., the patent counsel of the company) has to rationalize why he is hiring this or that firm to his GC, CTO, CEO or what not.  And it's a lot easier for him to say - well, this firm will have lawyers with EEs from Stanford working on our patents, so they are a lot less likely to mess up.  Of course, once the company starts getting the huge bills, they might rethink giving out the work to the big, expensive firms.  Similarly, it's easier for a firm to trumpet their super-duper associates when they are pitching a case.  It's just a battle of window dressings: "Oh, this and that associate, he is so smart and he went to the Super-Duper School of Engineering and got his Certificate of Intelligence from the Institute of Extra-Terrestrial Studies,  plus got he has JD from Harvard and clerked for Judge Ward, so we are definitely putting him on your case."  Been there, done that.

[DogDayPM]

It's been my personal experience that firms seek out candidates with strong technical backgrounds and proudly waive their resumes in front of clients who care about such things. 

DANG!  Made me snort my coffee.

[ChrisWhewell]

Absent considerations of reputation, service providers can differentiate based on price, or features.  Adding un-necessary features (including unnecessary hyphens) doesn't add much in the minds of some service seekers, including me.  I'd be focusing on how I could reduce client's costs, since most of these companies are hurting.  Unfortunately, there's a conflict in that, since firm goals are generally to increase revenues.  The best decision-makers have probably by now memorized chapter 13 in Porter's work.

 

[stuffball]

Absent considerations of reputation, service providers can differentiate based on price, or features.  Adding un-necessary features (including unnecessary hyphens) doesn't add much in the minds of some service seekers, including me.  I'd be focusing on how I could reduce client's costs, since most of these companies are hurting.  Unfortunately, there's a conflict in that, since firm goals are generally to increase revenues.  The best decision-makers have probably by now memorized chapter 13 in Porter's work.

 

Cost reduction is always a plus. 

I don't know why we're assuming, however, that a person with a master's in EE is going to have a higher billing rate than one with a BS in EE.  At my firm that isn't necessarily the case. 

The above notwithstanding, many companies are wary of the false economy of paying a cheaper service provider less to provide a poorer quality service.  Saving a few $k only to squander 100s of $ks of research on a worthless patent is pretty foolish.

[stuffball]

"I like to use the example of the MS scientist who won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for inventing MALDI-TOF. Would this guy actually be considered for an agent position given this hiring trend versus a newly minted PhD who would not have the same level of experience?"

Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, if you win the nobel prize, you should be able to find at least one law firm that would be willing to hire you as a technical specialist.  I think they'd probably pick you over a newly minted PhD.  I don't think they'd hire you for an agent position, however, until you passed the patent bar... nobel or no nobel.

I've known several technical specialists with MS and MSE degrees.  I've known one with a BS degree.  None of them has yet won the nobel prize.