Print

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

[thebourbaki]

Hi everyone, thanks for taking the time to look at this inquiry.

I am a tenure track professor at a major US university who is seriously considering a dramatic career change to law, mostly due to my complete lack of control over where I live.

However, my speciality is not EE, rather STS (Science and Technology Studies - using various fields of the humanities to examine the sciences), although my area is rather technical (20th century physics and technology).  I have a PhD in an STS field from Harvard, have taught at Princeton, and also have BS degrees in physics and astronomy.  I read and speak German, read French and Spanish.  I research and write on matters of technical and social interactions extensively, as well as teach these to both UG and PhD students.

I mention all this because my basic question is one of qualification.  Am I under/well/over qualified to purse patent law?  I know I fulfill the USPTO requirement for the patent bar, but would any of the rest be seen as an advantage or disadvantage in modern patent law hiring or law admission?  Are there areas of patent law that I would be better suited for?

I appreciate any advice you may have.  Oh, and btw, my ultimate goal is not necessarily senior partner at BigLawFirm.  I have a family and would like to see them occasionally.

Cheers,

Nicholas Bourbaki

[plex]

You are likely well qualified to be a tech spec as you are now, and could easily become a patent agent.  Becoming a patent attorney would also be relatively simple, since you likely have the requisite minimum intelligence to get a decent LSAT score (the only other thing that matters is your undergrad/doctorate GPA, nothing else), and a pile of money to burn in exchange for the degree, if necessary. 

It is pretty hard to be over-qualified for the field, since firms/businesses tend to want the most experienced candidates they can get, however, actual patent prosecution/litigation/licensing experience is given much greater weight than technical experience, more technical experience simply makes getting into an entry level position easier.  A physics background with a good amount of experience shouldn't hurt you, but if you become a patent attorney, you will likely need to have a fairly good law gpa, since it does not sound like your technical background will open all doors simply by itself.  The language skills will be a small plus, but the most common foreign applications are in Chinese+Japanese, so it is not as big a plus as you would think.

That leaves the question of whether you really want to invest 3-4 years of lost income, and possibly pay six-figures in tuition, to start out at the entry level again.  Also, you may still need to move, it is extremely common for patent practitioners to have to switch firms every 3-5 years.  This often can involve a physical move as well unless the next opening happens to be in the same city, it is a pretty small field.

[thebourbaki]

You are likely well qualified to be a tech spec as you are now, and could easily become a patent agent.  Becoming a patent attorney would also be relatively simple, since you likely have the requisite minimum intelligence to get a decent LSAT score (the only other thing that matters is your undergrad/doctorate GPA, nothing else), and a pile of money to burn in exchange for the degree, if necessary. 

It is pretty hard to be over-qualified for the field, since firms/businesses tend to want the most experienced candidates they can get, however, actual patent prosecution/litigation/licensing experience is given much greater weight than technical experience, more technical experience simply makes getting into an entry level position easier.  A physics background with a good amount of experience shouldn't hurt you, but if you become a patent attorney, you will likely need to have a fairly good law gpa, since it does not sound like your technical background will open all doors simply by itself.  The language skills will be a small plus, but the most common foreign applications are in Chinese+Japanese, so it is not as big a plus as you would think.

Plex, thank you for your answer, I really appreciate it.

I have been doing lots of reading online in various forums on this topic, and have noticed a trend I would love comments on.

There are clearly lots of posts roughly similar to mine (I have XX technical PhD...how would I do) or (UG science degree only...how would I do).  To the first, many answers stress technical is good but you really need to be good at writing.  To the second, you really need better technical training.

How much do writing/communication matter for getting a job (as opposed to actually being able to do the job)?  I would consider this to be a very strong area for me.  How could I best emphasis this feature of my background?

Secondly, how much is one able to move around areas of technical specialization?  I would like to think my background would let me work on a variety of patent types rather than only say mobile phone protocols.  Is it possible to turn my generalized training into a positive?

Ideally, I would like to work in the bay area with cleantech and personaltech startup firms, but I am willing to work my way towards those goals as necessary.

Again, many thanks for whomever is willing to answer these questions. 

[plex]

For those with UG science degrees, when it is said, "you probably will need a higher degree," it goes without saying that they will also need to be able to write well (and like it).  Writing is an essential part of the job, but if that was it, it would be very much like other forms of legal writing.  Except it isn't like other forms of legal writing, because it requires a fairly broad sampling of technical knowledge to have any idea about what is being written.  You can emphasize your writing skills, but keep in mind they will focus more on what sort of technical work you have done, and take it for granted you can write well.

Specializations generally refer to general technical areas, such as bio/chem, electrical, and mechanical.  Those are essentially the main ones, and certain degrees tend to be pushed towards one of these areas (or they don't fall under any of them and are undesirable).  Physics is pushed into the electrical and mechanical piles.  Sometimes, a particular firm will get a LOT of a particular type of technology (e.g. analog circuits), and would prefer someone with a good amount of experience with it, but this isn't the case the majority of the time, because the firm will likely need the person to do other types of applications, and so place more weight on general technical ability.  Sometimes companies will want someone with a very particular background, but  nearly all in-house positions are not entry level positions, and generally instead of being requirements, the particularized list of background experience is closer to a wish list.

California is a big market, about on par with DC, but it is hard to stay in one very particular area unless almost any firm would want you (e.g. you have a lot of the experience they most want already).

[NJ Patent1]

Further to plex's post: The essence of technical writing - as practiced by a "resonably successful acadamecian" publishing in journals- is exposition and explanation.  IMO (as a former "academecian" of sorts - read research scientist) the essence of legal writing is argumention / advocacy.  Something I still wrestle with.  How clearly can you convey a complex technical issue to a "lay" person (e.g a federal judge w/ UG in history hearing a patet infringement case, or better the jury) in a manner that best supports your client's legal position?  No third-order non-linear differential equasions please!  IMO that skill rules.   

[thebourbaki]

How clearly can you convey a complex technical issue to a "lay" person (e.g a federal judge w/ UG in history hearing a patet infringement case, or better the jury) in a manner that best supports your client's legal position?  No third-order non-linear differential equasions please!  IMO that skill rules.   

Thanks NJ for your post.

It is actually precisely that manner of writing above that I am inquiring about.  I take often very technical scientific information and place its social, cultural, historical.... contexts so that non technical folks can understand the significance of technical matter X.  To me this sounds like a good skill for IP law.  How do I highlight this most effectively when considering entering the field, possibly as spec tech or agent before going to law school?

Cheers,