Print

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

[Gatorbull84]

I was wondering if someone can help me out with a few questions I have? I have a BS in Bioengineering and a MS in Molecular Medicine, but I was unable to find a job. So, I went to law school with the plan of becoming a patent attorney. I am at a pretty good school with a good scholarship, but I still need to take out around $35,000 a year. I am in my first semester and I am killing it; the classes aren't hard and I did great on my midterms. I have already noticed a lot of people without engineering backgrounds trying to go into patent law. A friend works as a patent examiner and he makes a pretty good living and seems to love his job.

The reason I am writing here is because a few weeks ago I applied for a position as a patent examiner with the USPTO. Honestly I probably will not the position, but if I do I was going to leave school and start working.

I basically have two questions: 1) does anyone think staying in school for another 2.5 years and acquiring debt is worth it?, and 2) with my background will the USPTO even consider me for the patent examiner position?

[patentatt]

I was wondering if someone can help me out with a few questions I have? I have a BS in Bioengineering and a MS in Molecular Medicine, but I was unable to find a job. So, I went to law school with the plan of becoming a patent attorney. I am at a pretty good school with a good scholarship, but I still need to take out around $35,000 a year. I am in my first semester and I am killing it; the classes aren't hard and I did great on my midterms. I have already noticed a lot of people without engineering backgrounds trying to go into patent law. A friend works as a patent examiner and he makes a pretty good living and seems to love his job.

The reason I am writing here is because a few weeks ago I applied for a position as a patent examiner with the USPTO. Honestly I probably will not the position, but if I do I was going to leave school and start working.

I basically have two questions: 1) does anyone think staying in school for another 2.5 years and acquiring debt is worth it?, and 2) with my background will the USPTO even consider me for the patent examiner position?

1. what kind of law school has midterms?
2. get out now - you'll save yourself at least $70,000 - THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY
3. I don't see why the PTO wouldn't consider hiring you with your background.  But competition for bio/chem spots is much tougher (so I have heard).  I would apply to lots of other fed and government jobs that need someone with your background (i.e. lab work, FDA, etc.).

[Gatorbull84]

Thanks I appreciate the feedback.

1. Apparently mid-terms are a new thing, but they are still only worth 10-20%
2. I agree that is the driving force behind my decision
3. I just doubt I will get hired. For a year I couldn't get anything so I got a masters, then I couldn't get anything so I went to law school(stupid I know but I didn't have any other options)

Thanks again

[plex]

I know its unpalatable to have to go for a PhD, but that really seems like the primary way most people with a bio background get hired in the patent field.  Personally, if I had a bio background I would not go to the patent path if it meant not making a decent amount of money until well into my 30s.  The other way is to have exceptional grades, and I do not think it intelligent for anyone to have a plan relying on something with low odds of occurring.  Teaching and lab-work seem to be the primary forms of employment for people with masters or undergrads in the sciences.

[Gatorbull84]

What about the fact that I have a engineering background? Shouldn't that count for something in patent law?

[bleedingpen]

What about the fact that I have a engineering background? Shouldn't that count for something in patent law?

Yes it will.  I think you can slide by with your technical skills in patent law.  Keep doing well in your first and second year classes and you can parlay those into summer clerkships and then into associate positions. 

And don't drop out.  That's just silly with your resume.  Think of the cost-benefit analysis as this, with reference in time being made to now (year 1)

Drop out and go to the PTO (assume 70k a year salary, to make the math easy, you get no raises)
Year; Cumulative wealth
2; 35k (70k salary - 35k already accrued in student loans)
3; 105k
4; 175k
5; 245k
6; 315k
7; 390k

Stay in school (assume 125k a year salary, to make the math easy, you get no raises)
2; -70k
3; -105k
4; 20k
5; 145k
6; 270k
7; 400k

By year 7, you are already ahead (and this ignores the fact that your patent attorney raises are going to be a higher percentage than patent examiner raises).  Forecast the numbers out to 20 years and apply a multiple for earning capacity and you will see that, at least as far as money goes, dropping out would be stoopid. 

[patentatt]

What about the fact that I have a engineering background? Shouldn't that count for something in patent law?

Yes it will.  I think you can slide by with your technical skills in patent law.  Keep doing well in your first and second year classes and you can parlay those into summer clerkships and then into associate positions. 

And don't drop out.  That's just silly with your resume.  Think of the cost-benefit analysis as this, with reference in time being made to now (year 1)

Drop out and go to the PTO (assume 70k a year salary, to make the math easy, you get no raises)
Year; Cumulative wealth
2; 35k (70k salary - 35k already accrued in student loans)
3; 105k
4; 175k
5; 245k
6; 315k
7; 390k

Stay in school (assume 125k a year salary, to make the math easy, you get no raises)
2; -70k
3; -105k
4; 20k
5; 145k
6; 270k
7; 400k

By year 7, you are already ahead (and this ignores the fact that your patent attorney raises are going to be a higher percentage than patent examiner raises).  Forecast the numbers out to 20 years and apply a multiple for earning capacity and you will see that, at least as far as money goes, dropping out would be stoopid.

1. You are using gross salary.  There are two problems with this.  A big chunk goes to various taxes.
1.A.  Law school debt is not reduced by anything like taxes.  So the -$ values stay the same.  But the +$ values are reduced.  So it will take much longer than seven years to get ahead.
1.B. Because of progressive taxation, the $70k engineer pays less taxes.  This effect is not as big as 1.A., but still extends the "seven" year period longer.
2. If he is borrowing money, then he will pay back interest on that over 5-10 years (or more).  This further extends the seven years period.
3. Lots of engineers make way more than $70k.  Although many patent attorneys make more than $120k, there are also many recent law graduates in patent law who are unemployed or underemployed, doing contract work, required to bring in their own clients, etc.  It is difficult to get a fair estimate for total average salary, because so many "engineers" and "patent attorneys" are unemployed or underemployed.  But we do know that probably half or more recent law graduates do not find meaningful, legal, permanent employment paying $70k much less $120k.
4. The U.S. economy, like most economies in the west, is on a debt snowball headed for Greece.  Uncontroversial projections place the U.S. in a situation as bad as Greece in about two years.  Nobody knows exactly how this economic story will play out across the world.  Because of that, we can't assume that anyone will be making $70 or $120k in seven years.  We simply don't know what will happen, although it is likely that there will be a lot of economic volatility and a shift in the U.S. standard of living.

[plex]

My nitpick is that comparing salaries without the relevant pay raises is a very bad idea, because different jobs have different rates of pay increases, different pay ceilings, and different levels of stability (if you have to jump workplaces you may lose income during the gap). 

Engineering looks something like this:

$60k with 8% raises until about your 8th year or so, then you hit a pay wall and have to either go into management or get marginal pay increases after that, also, the raises aren't quite incremental year to year. 45-50/hrs.  Overtime rarely happens.  Telework impossible.  Decent job security

Examining looks like this:

$70k with 15% raises until your 10th year, then you hit a paywall and get NO raises at all aside from inflation and increasing your pension amount.  40 hrs, 100% telework very possible after 2 years.  Overtime is not rare, though it is shut off for long periods at a time.  Good job security.

Prosecution looks like this:

Pay ~$250k upfront in tuition and lost income to go this path.  Make $60-140k 1st year, 2nd year will be 125-145k, and after that, 2-4% raises until your 6-8th year.  Then you either become partner or  go in-house, where your pay will go up about 10-15% a year as long as you can stick with the same place (if at a firm you'll have to pull in clients, if in-house, you will have to become something like a VP) and you cap out around $300-400k 20-25 years in.  55-65 hrs, telework is mostly only on weekends possible or doing overflow work.  Overtime translates into high billables, usually meaning spending well over 60+ hrs, way past normal overtime.  Bad job security, but fairly easy to find a new position, but not necessarily nearby.


Pretty extremely different payscales, work hours, and working environments.  If you plan on a long career. and want to work a lot of hours and make a lot of money, patent prosecution looks great, but otherwise, it has a lot of downsides that are not compensated for until late in the career, after paying a lot of dues.  It is also a gigantic waste of money if you attempt to do it, fail, and then have to go back to an engineering/lab job.

[bleedingpen]

Sorry guys, won't bother with really crunching the numbers to take into consideration tax rates, student loan interest and deductions, salary raises, etc.  Way too many variables to get into that discussion.  It won't shift the break even time line more than a year or two in either direction and the net result is still going to be that the patent attorney has 2-3X the earning potential as an Examiner (he did ask about being an Examiner, not an engineer). 

[patentatt]

Sorry guys, won't bother with really crunching the numbers to take into consideration tax rates, student loan interest and deductions, salary raises, etc.  Way too many variables to get into that discussion.  It won't shift the break even time line more than a year or two in either direction and the net result is still going to be that the patent attorney has 2-3X the earning potential as an Examiner (he did ask about being an Examiner, not an engineer).

So basically you're perfectly confident that no variable will change enough in ten years so that you can predict what will happen ten years from now (at the outer bound)?  Come on.

And senior examiners with healthy use of overtime can make $110-120k (or more, examiners?).  That's not so different than the average patent attorney in the federal government or new patent attorney, but the examiner gets huge federal benefits and job security and greater quality of life.  Yes, senior patent attorneys can make much more, but it's really speculation to state, so confidently, that any one person will last long enough, and do well enough, in private patent law practice, to make $200k, $300k etc. so many years out.

Question: if patent attorney is such a better choice than patent examiner why do so many otherwise rational patent examiners with law degrees refuse to leave the PTO and enter private practice, or return to the PTO after trying private practice?  Stories of such examiners are LEGION?  Maybe the preference for private practice over the PTO is not so obvious at all?

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but the decision is not nearly as clean cut as you make it.

[bleedingpen]

Question: if patent attorney is such a better choice than patent examiner why do so many otherwise rational patent examiners with law degrees refuse to leave the PTO and enter private practice, or return to the PTO after trying private practice?  Stories of such examiners are LEGION?  Maybe the preference for private practice over the PTO is not so obvious at all?

That's a byproduct of the current economy.  The OP could end up being swallowed up by this poor economy also, but I doubt it based on his information- good school with (so far) good grades and a masters degree coupled with an engineering undergrad.  Chances are that he is going to graduate and make 125k +-20k with 10k a year raises from there.

And again, from a financial standpoint, it is a no-brainer to stay in school.  Sure Examiners have some perks (better quality of life-I suppose, fed benefits-that could be cut anyday, etc), but I was just focusing in on the financial stuff. 

[klaviernista]

Question: if patent attorney is such a better choice than patent examiner why do so many otherwise rational patent examiners with law degrees refuse to leave the PTO and enter private practice, or return to the PTO after trying private practice?  Stories of such examiners are LEGION?  Maybe the preference for private practice over the PTO is not so obvious at all?

It is not a matter of which job is better.  Rather, why a particular individual chooses a particular career path is (often) a matter of personal choice.  Having been a patent examiner and a patent attorney, I can say with confidence that both jobs have their respective ups and downs.  The big differentiators that I see between the two jobs are diversity of work (favors patent attorney) and work life balance (favors patent examining).  While there is significantly more earning potential in the practice of law, many patent attorneys cap out salary wise at a level that is not too much higher than a GS-14 or GS15 examiner (particularly when work-life balance is taken into consideration).

In the end, a person needs to do what makes them happy.  Everyone wants to beleive that their job is "better" than some alternative option that another person might pursue.  But the fact of the matter is that such beliefs are rarely true once you take into account "human" factors that differ from individual to individual.

FWIW, I am jealous as hell of my brother, despite the fact that he makes $100k less than I do per year.  But that is a story for another day.

 

[Cronous]

And senior examiners with healthy use of overtime can make $110-120k (or more, examiners?).  That's not so different than the average patent attorney in the federal government or new patent attorney, but the examiner gets huge federal benefits and job security and greater quality of life.  Yes, senior patent attorneys can make much more, but it's really speculation to state, so confidently, that any one person will last long enough, and do well enough, in private patent law practice, to make $200k, $300k etc. so many years out.

A senior examiner who just hit primary status (GS-14 step 1) will make $112,647 without any overtime.  His base salary will then increase as he goes up in steps (automatic increases for seniority) capping out at $146,438.  With overtime a primary at any step can hit the federal pay cap of $155,500 (a primary with high step is thus limited to how much overtime he can do, and one with a low step must do more over time to compensate for his lower base salary).  If you are crazy enough to do all the bonuses (which are not worth it) you can theoretically hit around $171,000.

[Cronous]

Question: if patent attorney is such a better choice than patent examiner why do so many otherwise rational patent examiners with law degrees refuse to leave the PTO and enter private practice, or return to the PTO after trying private practice?  Stories of such examiners are LEGION?  Maybe the preference for private practice over the PTO is not so obvious at all?

It is not a matter of which job is better.  Rather, why a particular individual chooses a particular career path is (often) a matter of personal choice.  Having been a patent examiner and a patent attorney, I can say with confidence that both jobs have their respective ups and downs.  The big differentiators that I see between the two jobs are diversity of work (favors patent attorney) and work life balance (favors patent examining).  While there is significantly more earning potential in the practice of law, many patent attorneys cap out salary wise at a level that is not too much higher than a GS-14 or GS15 examiner (particularly when work-life balance is taken into consideration).

In the end, a person needs to do what makes them happy.  Everyone wants to beleive that their job is "better" than some alternative option that another person might pursue.  But the fact of the matter is that such beliefs are rarely true once you take into account "human" factors that differ from individual to individual.

FWIW, I am jealous as hell of my brother, despite the fact that he makes $100k less than I do per year.  But that is a story for another day.

 

Any idea on how much does a average senior patent attorney makes? 

[Cronous]

Sorry guys, won't bother with really crunching the numbers to take into consideration tax rates, student loan interest and deductions, salary raises, etc.  Way too many variables to get into that discussion.  It won't shift the break even time line more than a year or two in either direction and the net result is still going to be that the patent attorney has 2-3X the earning potential as an Examiner (he did ask about being an Examiner, not an engineer). 

Except that are innumerable presumptions in your calculations.  While there certainly is a high earning potential for a select few, the vast majority do not appear to make that much more then a senior examiner.  It really does boil down to whether you find prosecution a better fit to your personality then examining.