Print

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

[Greg F.]

I would like some advice as to the best steps to take to get into the patent law profession.

Background: I recently graduated with a Bachelor's in biology, and I am now working as a Research technician in a biological research institution.

I am considering graduate programs in different biological disciplines, and I am trying to figure out what is the best option for me.

Question: Do you think I should pursue a PhD, or a masters? Have any of you heard of "Professional Masters of Science" (combines aspects of business and law with studies in practical biotechnology)?

Since ultimately my plan is to become a JD, I'd prefer not to waste time in a PhD, but I don't want to be at a significant disadvantage either.

After Graduate school, I would like to take the patent exam, and work as an agent to see if I truly like the profession (Also perhaps find a firm that would be willing to pay tuition for law school). My final step would be to go to law school to become a full-fledged attorney.

What do you think about this plan of action? Any suggestions?

[Wiscagent]

I suggest that you read some general background references on patents and patent law:  perhaps study the USPTO or WIPO web sites; read “Patent It Yourself” or a similar layman’s text; study a patent law book; and read the postings on this web site.  If you do all that, within a few months you will have a broad, general perspective on what patents are, how they work, and some of the issues associated with patents and the intellectual property law profession.

If you’re still interested at that point, you should study for and then take the patent bar exam.  Once you pass that hurdle, you’ll be a patent practitioner.  Then you can decide if you want to go to law school and into the practice of law.

In my opinion (and I know many others in this forum disagree) if you are not interested in pursuing a graduate degree in biology for its own sake, then you shouldn’t (in your words) “waste your time” in graduate school.  If you start law school next fall, it will be the year 2008, ’09, or later (full time/part time) before you graduate.  The employment data and opportunities in 2005 will be irrelevant.  Also, it is likely that your interests will change – just because you are interested in patent law now, does not mean that you will still be interested in that aspect of law in several years.

Best of luck.  By the way all this advice is from a guy who has neither a PhD nor a JD.


Richard Tanzer

[Greg F.]

Thank you for your advice.

Just as a clarification, I am still very interested in the sciences, but I do not want a career in academic research (the traditional career for a PhD).
Therefore, I would like to continue to study biology, but I would prefer not to spend 5-6 years in a PhD program if it is not necessary.

[Guest]

I suggest reviewing other posts on this topic - (and anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) but from what I've read most firms require a minimum of a PhD for patent agents and attorney in the biological sciences.  

[Patent Monk]

Since you seem to be a bit uncertain about whether you really want to go into the field, you might also try to get an internship or summer job at a patent firm as a patent engineer.  This would give you a chance to learn firsthand whether it is of interest.

It may be harder to find such a slot within the U.S.  I spent time overseas "teaching Inglis," which led to a job doing grammar editing on applications for a student's company.

[PiP]

As you probably know, graduate school is difficult and is a big time commitment.  I think that getting a PhD will give you a lot more that you can do and a lot more that you can understand about science.  I was in your position not long ago, myself, and chose to get a PhD only to now attend law school.  I reasoned that the PhD would separate me from my peers and I also really love science and wanted to "play" in the science world a bit longer.  At least if you are earning a PhD you will be getting paid.  But as you know it is a massive time and energy commitment.  If you want "science-lite," try to get a PhD in 3 years by joining a lab that pumps out students.  An MS is totally useless, imho.

[Jettjordan]

Hey:

I am in the same boat as you. I have Biomedical engineering degree from a well established school and I did research for a full year after graduation.  I am currently in law school at a large school and decent.

What I did was to combine the best of both worlds.  I worked out a dual degree program (Phd) with the department of molecular genetics.  It will take a long time, but to do patent prosecution in the biological world, you need a PhD.  I think both combined will take me about 6.5 years to finish.  If you need any further advice or have any questions, email me at jettjordan23@aol.com

[Anon]

An MS is totally useless, imho.

...to do patent prosecution in the biological world, you need a PhD.

I hear this advice all the time... almost always from a snot-nosed patent wannabe with a McPhD.

Well, I started a PhD program only to quickly realize that I was wasting my time.  I bailed with an MS and took a job at the PTO as a Patent Examiner in a biotech art unit.  While my former classmates were still in the lab breathing fumes, I was learning something truly useful.  And getting paid reasonably well for it, I might add.  Before any of my former classmates had graduated, I had already moved on to a learn firm making a six-figure income.

There are many paths.

[SciGuy]

I am a cell/molec PhD with post-doc experience and a year of work under by belt at a biotech company.  I decided to pursue a career in the patent field during my post-doc.  However, during the past few years it has been very difficult to break into this field...even with a PhD.  It would be even harder to break in with only a MS or BS.  The thing is that there are many PhDs looking for Scientific Advisor or Patent Agent-training positions, so why would a firm hire a MS or BS with so many highly qualified/experienced PhDs around?  For example, I interviewed at a major IP firm about 6 mo ago.  There were about 200 applicants, 40 of which were granted interviews...all PhD.  I got down to the final 5 but later found out the job was given to someone with prosecution experience.  Again, it is hard to break in!  That is not to say it can't be done with a BS or MS, but you'd probably have to have a JD.  For example, I personally know the head of IP at a med-large biotech company who left her PhD program with a MS.  Having only a MS didn't hurt her, but she also had been working as a scientist at the company where she now works (i.e. she had a connection).  If you want to go into patenting, I would suggest meeting with as many local IP professionals (lawyers, agents, people in TT at your university) you can find and drill them on how they got to where they are.  Not only will you learn more about the career path, but you will build connections.  With the market for newbies as tight as it is, networking is invaluable.  I've built up enough connections to where there are about 6 firms that have promised to call me when they have a need, but until then I'll be plugging away at the lab bench and saving up for law school starting this fall.  Good luck to all who are searching.

One more thing, DO NOT go to grad school for a PhD if your only purpose is to get a piece of paper.  It is hell unless you are dedicated to science.  Heck, it is hell if you are dedicated.  In the program I went through EVERYONE who was doing just that, and many others, dropped out within 2 years.

[Eliz]

I hear this advice all the time... almost always from a snot-nosed patent wannabe with a McPhD.

Well, I started a PhD program only to quickly realize that I was wasting my time.  I bailed with an MS and took a job at the PTO as a Patent Examiner in a biotech art unit.  While my former classmates were still in the lab breathing fumes, I was learning something truly useful.  And getting paid reasonably well for it, I might add.  Before any of my former classmates had graduated, I had already moved on to a learn firm making a six-figure income.

There are many paths.

Yes, there are many paths, but the fact is that there are a ton of people out there with Ph.D.s and J.D.s looking for jobs.  As an emoloyer, why on earth would you hire someone with a B.A. over someone with a Ph.D.?  (assuming same law school grades, law school rank, etc)  

I am only a 1L, but in my experience the Ph.D. has already helped me.  I don't have an offer yet, but I have had three interviews.  How many interviews has my classmate who has a BS in Biology had?  None.  I don't know what that person's grades are, but I got my interviews before 1st semester grades came out.  

One probably can get into biotech prosecution without a Ph.D., but I think it would be a lot harder.  I also think the masters is pretty useless--and might even hurt you since some will see it as a "consulation prize" and think that you got a masters because you couldn't cut it in your Ph.D. program.  A Ph.D. does take a long time--and it is *really* optimistic to think that it can be done in 3 years (PiP--did you mean three years in the lab, i.e. a total of 4 years when you account for a year of classes and rotations? I have a hard time imagining that 2 years in any lab is enough).  You might be able to find a lab where you can accomplish that, but I wouldn't count on it--often things in the lab take MUCH longer than you estimate.  And you are cheap labor, so the PI has an incentive to keep you there as long as possible.  Also, if you do go decide to go for the Ph.D., I wouldn't discount the imporance of finding a lab where you will be happy and where the PI will support your career goals.  Even three years is a long time to spend with someone who you don't like and/or who is not supportive.

Good luck!
Eliz

[Isaac]

I think the barriers to entry have changed some over time.  One of my classmates with a PhD in biology was doing prosecution during the day while attending law school at night.  His impression was that it was becoming more difficult for PhDs to enter the profession without attending law school because of the competition for jobs from PhDs with law degrees.

Further, my impression was that depending on the economic climate, the PTO often had plenty of PhD candidates vying for examiner openings.  

I don't know if a PhD is necessary, but it sure does not seem worthless.  

Caveat... I'm an engineer, and I have not experienced this aspect of the job market first hand.

[Greg F.]

I'd like to thank everyone for their excellent advice.
It seems like most people's experiences are different, and what works for one person may not work for another.
For instance, Sciguy's experiences are a little disheartening considering he has postdoc and professional experience, and it's still difficult for him to break into the patent world. Whereas Eliz's experience is very encouraging. Perhaps, I should go directly into law school, as it seems like agent positions are incredibly competitive, while Eliz has already had a few interviews.

To update, I applied to a variety of both PhD programs, as well as Masters programs. I also applied to two "Professional Science Masters" programs. These programs combine a little training in business and law with basic technicial scientific training. It seems like this degree could be useful (it's still very new) if companies/firms know about it. If any of you have experience with it, I'd be very interested to hear what you have to say.

I've been receiving letters from a lot of the PhD programs that I applied to, and I'll be going on my first interview next week. I am very excited about this, and I have to admit that the masters programs have become a bit of an afterthought. However, I still have to weigh all of my options very carefully, and you guys are definitely helping me make an informed decision.
Thanks for all of your help, and I'm still very interested in any more advice you may have.

[SciGuy]

To expand on Eliz's comments/experience in light of what I've been told by local firms:  Having a strong scientific background is often not sufficient to get a position with a firm given the tight market.  However, if you have a year of law school under your belt you are suddently a much more attractive candidate.  Why?  Because now you have the necessary training to do legal research for the firm.  Throw that on top of your ability to handle the science and you are twice as useful.  Remember, firms are not simply looking at what you have done...they are primarily interested in WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR THEM.

[BFG2000]

SciGuy, do you also post XOXOHTH? How are your law school applications coming along?

[SciGuy]

No, no aliases for me...just plain ol' SciGuy.  Not very creative given that my 1st name is Bill.  I was accepted into law school last year but had to defer until 2006.  Until school starts I'm studying for the pat bar...and keeping my eyes open for law jobs.