Print

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

[horsechute]

just my 2 cents, but it would be a good time to start law school, since in 3 - 4 years, the economy should be better. Having a PhD in these areas is very impressive to me, and while there may currently be more people going into patent law having these credentials, for someone who wants to work hard and is interested in the subject, there will be certainly be good opportunities. Also, pharma patent law is in my opinion the most interesting area of the subject, although frankly, from what I have seen, the pharma companies have sometimes (lately) used the patent system in some rather unetical ways.

[UVAgal4]

For the IP course here in France that I am currently taking, they said that they have seen a large increase in PhD applicants. I guess they are screened more carefully before admittance, as in "Do you really want to do Law or you just can't find a job in research/teaching/etc?"

I don't know about France, but if people in the US were screened out of law school just b/c they're doing it for some other reason than they have a burning desire to be the next Clarence Darrow... there would be, like, 7-8 patent attorneys in the entire country. 

so if it's not the law in and of itself, what is it? It can't be the money only? Prestige?
Would be interested to see everyone's top reasons for doing what they are doing- ex/ money, prestige, family pressure to be a lawyer, enjoy law school, didn't know what else to do, desire to have 100+K debt, etc.

[bartmans]

To me (and I am biotech) the thought that a PhD would be better for a patent attorney is strange. At least in my country a PhD (again in biotech) is nothing more than doing 4+ years research on a very specialized topic and writing a booklet about it. It only increases your scientific knowledge on the specific topic that is worked on, and in a later patent attorney practice you will frequently work on application that are not or only superficially related to your dissertation.
Personally I do not have a PhD, but I have a Masters in Biology and a legal Masters (which combination is quite rare here). Many of my colleagues in the biggest law firm in my country are also not PhD's and there is no difference in those who are and those who aren't. Nearly none of my colleagues have a university legal training; the only legal training they have received is on the legal stuff needed to obtain the national and European patent attorney title.

[virus_guy]

I don't know if having a PhD would be better for a patent attorney, as I know many attorneys (here in the US, that is) who don't have PhD's but are excellent patent attorneys. I agree, I don't believe having a PhD makes a better patent attorney, but I also don't think that a PhD is simply "doing 4+ years research on a very specialized topic and writing a booklet about it". I mean, nobody really wakes up one day and decides "gee..I'm going to do 4+ years research on a very specialized topic and write a booklet about it", not to mention living like a pauper during those years. It's a serious undertaking and it takes dedication and perseverance and a burning desire to uncover something the world doesn't yet know about. I might be exaggerating a bit, but nonetheless, it's certainly not a small feat by any stretch of the imagination.

So back to the topic, I think firms like to have PhDs for biotech work because PhDs have been in the trenches, working on the nitty gritty of the hands-on work. Taking your position, anyone with a degree, be it BS or MS, can read a scientific paper and understand the experiment and the results. But being able to read between the lines and know why did they do this and why did they do that and why they did it this way, those details might not be apparent to someone who has not spent 4+ years eating and breathing research. We're in the business of distinguishing this thing from that thing and small details may turn out to make a huge difference.

[Enchanted Forest]

just my 2 cents, but it would be a good time to start law school, since in 3 - 4 years, the economy should be better. Having a PhD in these areas is very impressive to me, and while there may currently be more people going into patent law having these credentials, for someone who wants to work hard and is interested in the subject, there will be certainly be good opportunities.

I feel that in 3-4 years even if the economy improves, only exceptional PhD/JDs will be able to find good jobs. There will likely be many graduates of 2011 and 2012 still looking for work or looking for a better job at that time, and there will not be enough of an increase in patent filings to warrant hiring a whole bunch of new PhDs. I am guessing that a large firm with a large IP department may hire 3-4 biotech patent prosecutors (since they usually go into prosecution only) in a very good year. I doubt there will be enough positions to absorb all the graduates. 

I guess the reason that PhDs go to law school, in addition to the prestige and money, is that they feel it will guarantee them a job. In science, you sometimes have postdocs that have been working for five years without finding a job, so most PhD students don't want to end up in that boat. However, if there is no longer that guarantee of employment, it seems to be that law school may not be worth it. Especially when you consider that having a law degree does not necessarily open the same doors for a PhD as compared to a non-PhD law student. Once prospective employers see that you have a Ph.D. they will either assume that you will only want to go into IP law or will have some bias against hiring PhDs for other areas of law. So, whereas law graduates can normally apply to family law, securities law, environmental law, regulatory law, etc. positions, PhD/JDs can apply but are really only ever seriously considered for IP jobs.  In some ways, it would seem preferable to only have a JD degree if you want to keep your options open to practise in an area other than IP.

[Frustrated]

To me (and I am biotech) the thought that a PhD would be better for a patent attorney is strange. At least in my country a PhD (again in biotech) is nothing more than doing 4+ years research on a very specialized topic and writing a booklet about it. It only increases your scientific knowledge on the specific topic that is worked on, and in a later patent attorney practice you will frequently work on application that are not or only superficially related to your dissertation.
Personally I do not have a PhD, but I have a Masters in Biology and a legal Masters (which combination is quite rare here). Many of my colleagues in the biggest law firm in my country are also not PhD's and there is no difference in those who are and those who aren't. Nearly none of my colleagues have a university legal training; the only legal training they have received is on the legal stuff needed to obtain the national and European patent attorney title.

I understand what you mean. Not that anyone really is interested in Canada, but up here, we mostly only do associate patent prosecution, meaning we prosecute applications that usually have already been granted in the US and Europe. That largely involves fixing up formalities such as removing incorporation by reference, renumbering claims, etc. Sometimes we have to come up with our own arguments, but that depends on the client. If you don't think a PhD is needed to practice patent law in some countries, it sure isn't needed for this type of work.  It is only useful for those rare occasssions that you get to work with an inventor who also has a PhD, and even then, it is useful but not necessary.

[Tarah]

I was wondering whether, in addition to the slow econmy and the increased number of candidates, part of the decrease in demand for biotech PhD/JDs is that the "golden age" to use that term loosely is over. What I mean is that in the '90s, there were all these advances in terms of gene sequencing and genomic mapping. Now, there are definitely important advances being made, but maybe not everyone is so enamoured about biotech. It seems that important questions about patent law and biotech such as the patentability of gene sequences and higher life forms have already been answered. I could be wrong. One thing I do know is that there still seems to be a demand for organic chemistry PhDs, likely due to pharma.

I remember years ago one of the partners at my firm who has a background in physics was reviewing lawyer applications and she said to me something like "Is it really easy to get a PhD characterizing a gene? It seems like everyone's thesis is entitled "Characterization of the gene for...."

[scientist30]

To me (and I am biotech) the thought that a PhD would be better for a patent attorney is strange. At least in my country a PhD (again in biotech) is nothing more than doing 4+ years research on a very specialized topic and writing a booklet about it. It only increases your scientific knowledge on the specific topic that is worked on, and in a later patent attorney practice you will frequently work on application that are not or only superficially related to your dissertation.

Personally, Ph.D. program taught me lot more than writing a booklet.  In fact, the toughest part in a good Ph.D. thesis is coming up with the problem, not doing the experiments or writing a booklet. It is about understanding the whole field, identifying the gaps, improvements required and contributing to solve those.  I had colleagues who struggled for years, to come up with a proposal for research that is acceptable to the committees. Some of the greatest research articles I have read have little to no experiments done, but reanalysis and insights into existing data.  Doing this with people dedicated to this type of activity, well known professors, post docs and other graduate students is an education, that can hardly be characterized as writing a booklet. 

[stuffball]

For the IP course here in France that I am currently taking, they said that they have seen a large increase in PhD applicants. I guess they are screened more carefully before admittance, as in "Do you really want to do Law or you just can't find a job in research/teaching/etc?"

I don't know about France, but if people in the US were screened out of law school just b/c they're doing it for some other reason than they have a burning desire to be the next Clarence Darrow... there would be, like, 7-8 patent attorneys in the entire country. 

so if it's not the law in and of itself, what is it? It can't be the money only? Prestige?
Would be interested to see everyone's top reasons for doing what they are doing- ex/ money, prestige, family pressure to be a lawyer, enjoy law school, didn't know what else to do, desire to have 100+K debt, etc.

I speak only for myself, but for me it's the money.  I do enjoy writing and I like to argue.  I like the fact that I get to see all kinds of different technologies, whereas in research I was pigeon-holed into a very small subfield.   At the end of the day, though, it's the money and the relative job security.

[stuffball]

just my 2 cents, but it would be a good time to start law school, since in 3 - 4 years, the economy should be better. Having a PhD in these areas is very impressive to me, and while there may currently be more people going into patent law having these credentials, for someone who wants to work hard and is interested in the subject, there will be certainly be good opportunities.

I feel that in 3-4 years even if the economy improves, only exceptional PhD/JDs will be able to find good jobs. There will likely be many graduates of 2011 and 2012 still looking for work or looking for a better job at that time, and there will not be enough of an increase in patent filings to warrant hiring a whole bunch of new PhDs. I am guessing that a large firm with a large IP department may hire 3-4 biotech patent prosecutors (since they usually go into prosecution only) in a very good year. I doubt there will be enough positions to absorb all the graduates. 

I guess the reason that PhDs go to law school, in addition to the prestige and money, is that they feel it will guarantee them a job. In science, you sometimes have postdocs that have been working for five years without finding a job, so most PhD students don't want to end up in that boat. However, if there is no longer that guarantee of employment, it seems to be that law school may not be worth it. Especially when you consider that having a law degree does not necessarily open the same doors for a PhD as compared to a non-PhD law student. Once prospective employers see that you have a Ph.D. they will either assume that you will only want to go into IP law or will have some bias against hiring PhDs for other areas of law. So, whereas law graduates can normally apply to family law, securities law, environmental law, regulatory law, etc. positions, PhD/JDs can apply but are really only ever seriously considered for IP jobs.  In some ways, it would seem preferable to only have a JD degree if you want to keep your options open to practise in an area other than IP.

These are all interesting points and I'd like to hear the consensus on this.  I am a PhD IP attorney who never considered other options... but I do get the impression that people consider patent attorneys to be less than "real" attorneys.  That said, I see this bias applied somewhat uniformly to people who have passed the patent bar... not exclusively to lawyers with PhDs  in the sciences. 

[Sixes]

I remember years ago one of the partners at my firm who has a background in physics was reviewing lawyer applications and she said to me something like "Is it really easy to get a PhD characterizing a gene? It seems like everyone's thesis is entitled "Characterization of the gene for...."

This is probably just like the 70's and 80's when everyone's was titled "Characterization of an antibody that...".  It's just where the technology is today...molecular biology comes in a kit for the most part and genomics is no longer "cutting edge".  So for a while, it's going to be about gene discoveries being made using these more easily applicable methods.  Eventually the technology will advance again to the next big thing.  If I were to guess, I'd say it will be applications for epigenetics in human health, but who knows.  Regardless, I don't know anyone with a PhD that considered graduate school "easy" in any sense of the word. 

[ChiefJRoberts]

I was writing an article for a legal magazine to update and summarize careers in patent law. I looked into the admission statistics of several law schools, and I conducted interviews with the hiring personnel at several larger firms.  Basically, in at least a couple of schools, 10-15% of the incoming class had a Ph.D., and in some of the law firms receive dozens of applications from candidates having JD/PHD or LLB/Ph.D for a single position. Some IP firms will not accept applicants for biotech positions without the PhD (my own law firm is of that view). I should state that I am in Canada, so it may be different up here. My question is: is there still a demand for the dual degree or are there now an over-abundance of lawyers with that speciality? I guess the only thing worse than not having a job after law school is not having a job after doing both a PhD and law school.

are you talking about just science PhDs? Some people could have PhDs in government or economics and that would be totally useless to a law firm.

[horsechute]

"So, whereas law graduates can normally apply to family law, securities law, environmental law, regulatory law, etc. positions, PhD/JDs can apply but are really only ever seriously considered for IP jobs"

Not true. People with PhD's sometimes later go into environmental law, especially when their specialty is in the life sciences. They can sometimes be found doing things like securities law as well. A degree in physics is sort of like a piece of paper that says "I am smart." For PhD's, there just are not many tenured positions going around, nor have there ever been. Sometimes people with these degrees become "quants", often on Wall Street. Admissions officers in law schools have said that people with physics degrees usually do well in law school.

Nobody knows how the job market for new hires will play out over the next few years, and right now things are distorted by the fact that we are now leaving behind the dusty trail of a very deep recession. But I still maintain that someone with a PhD in physics, chemistry, engineering, or in the life sciences should do well, especially if they go in with an attitude that they are going to be dedicated to IP.  And like I said before, I am always impressed when I see people with these degrees, because I know how hard they are to get, unless they are from a really second-rate institution.

[Aqua00]

Becoming a patent agent may be a lucrative career option for a PhD ...however if too many PhDs go this path, there won't be any good Phds left to actually do the innovations and which thereby means that there won't be any patents and hence no jobs  

[biomedlaw]

Ya, I agree that belt-tightening in pharma probably affects IP jobs in the area. There aren't alot IP opportunities these days and if there are, they all seem to want experience. I think PhDs who might be displaced from pharma or who don't want to do research anymore might want to pursue a JD with the idea that this will synergize with their PhD if they decide to get into patents, particularly in biotech. I don't know anyone who went to grad school to get a Phd thinking it will be a stepping stone to patent law. That would just be crazy to me. I certainly didn't have that idea going into grad school.

I grew up wanting to get a PhD. My interest in law school grew throughout undergrad; by the time I was applying to grad school, I knew that I wanted to go to law school afterward. I'm quite happy to have dipped my toe into research, but I didn't want to jump in.