Print

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

[HITMANVQ35]

Hello all

Is it a smart move to take advantage of this?

I'll have to spend another it'll be 2 years before i'm qualified and then 4 years at the school while working and then another 1.5 or so working so total about 8 years at the USPTO

Assuming they'll have the budget...

What's the reason that Firms don't like to hire people who worked for USPTO for more than 3 years?

[bald & chained]

Assuming you ultimately want to end up in a firm and don't mind working through school, you would be better off having the firm paying for tuition. Otherwise you might find yourself spending 8 years in PTO, the last 6-7 years not really helping you in terms of transitioning to the firm environment.  And you most likely will not be given credit for all that time by law firms. 

If you can't get a patent job in a firm right away, you can work in the PTO for a year or two, then go to law school and also switch to a firm around the same time. Lots of my former classmates have pulled this maneuver.   Horsechute would, of course, argue that going to the PTO is a wrong move in the first place, but I think that as long as you don't prolong your stay there for too long, you should be fine.  Just don't get too comfortable .  Plus, landing a patent agent job without any IP experience or outstanding credentials is almost impossible and a year or two in PTO will help you tremendously in that respect.

As for staying in PTO for too long (>2 years), some practitioners feel that you don't learn any helpful skills after that time period and also become too entrenched in the "examiner's" mindset (everything is invalid), which is pretty bad when you are trying to push for broader claims from the other side of the fence.   

So here's a tip for blending in when talking to other IP attorneys: "yeah, I worked in the PTO, and boy, all of the Examiners were sooo lazy and stupid! Except me, of course..."

[horsechute]

I agree. The problem is that most people DO get settled in - by choice or maybe because the economy has turned sour suddenly - and stay and do the law school deal, etc. etc. and I think that we agree that this is not a good idea. I would say based on what I know and hear that it is a TERRIBLE idea, but I don't want to get into that.

It is funny, but I always want examiners to do a good job, but by arguing for them to leave in two years, this contradicts that desire, because you can't do a good examining job, at least in the complicated electrical arts, with only 2 years experience.

At any rate, I guess everyone is shaped by their own experiences, and if I hadn't seen (or read/heard about) things like the lady being taken before a grand jury in Virginia because she did not have enough gate hours - at least that is what I am hearing - it is about more than just not liking the job, it is also about not wanting to associate yourself with some crappy people. And new hires sometimes do get fired for things like not having enough hours, and this puts their registration number - ie, their future chance at becoming a patent attorney - at risk. So while I still would argue against working at the PTO at all, even for two years - if you can't start out working as an agent, and you are willing to leave after only two years, and you watch yourself, 2 years at the PTO is ok, but like I said, most - not all - people do get settled in. And like I said, I am in effect arguing against a strong patent system by advocating people only spending two years there. At any rate, I wish you well, TS.
HC

[pto_newbie]

I guess I am in the minority here, but I actually enjoy the job of being a patent examiner. It is like detective work that requires a great attention to detail. I enjoy reading about new inventions, and applying the rules of the MPEP, and making a judgment about the patentability of an invention.

The job is never boring because there is always a new case to work on (a new mystery to solve).

So, I wonder, what is so much better about being a lawyer and working for a law firm?

1) At the PTO I get to set my hours, and come and go as I please (as long as I get my hours in and get my work done). Will the law firm give me that flexibility?

2) At the PTO I get to dress in jeans and t-shirt, will the law firm let me dress so comfortably?

3) At the PTO I will eventually get to work out of my home anywhere in the U.S. (probably a nice community with a low cost of living). Will a law firm let me choose my work location, and let me work out my home?

4) Someone mentioned that lawyers are more respected than examiners. Who is making that judgment? Seems like the media spotlights dishonorable lawyers and that gives the whole class of lawyers a bad image  (like the ones who assist tax cheating, file ridiculous lawsuits, ones who keep obvious criminals out of jail, etc.). Also, on television there are advertisements from lawyers that persist the low-reputation by saying things like, "hire me and we will sue them for every dollar you deserve".

What does the average person know about a patent examiner?

It seems to me that the average person would identify a patent examiner as a more honorable job than the lawyer job because the average person probably has a life-time of hearing and seeing negative stories about lawyers. Also, if that average person had any troubles in which they needed a lawyer, then they are probably not too happy about having to pay the lawyer the huge amount money that lawyers supposedly charge for their services.

5) Someone mentioned that people become "developmentally stunted" at the PTO. Huh? I mean what if you are working as a lawyer and you dream of being a stunt car driver, isn't the law firm "developmentally stunting" you for a profession as a stunt car driver? Isn't it mostly true that any job you work that is not the job you want, then you are being "developmentally stunted" for that other job? I don't see how the law firm job is better in this respect, obviously since employment at PTO goes up by hundreds of people every year, not everyone wants to be lawyer at a law firm.

6) It was mentioned that lawyers have more status. Is this elitistism? Do lawyers view themselves as superior to people who perform "lesser" jobs?

7) Do lawyers do less work than examiners? Is it an easier job?

8  So lawyers generally make more money than examiners?

9) I can think a few perks of being a lawyer.
    a) I have never seen a patent examiner on television, but I see lawyers on the television all the time.
    b) If you are a judge lawyer then your legal opinion matters more because you can overrule an examiner (if you have the right job).
    c) The lawyer probably gets a lot of different kinds of legal activity, a variety of legal activities could be enjoyable, whereas the examiner role is very repetitive work (Although, I was told that the examiner works on more cases per year than a lawyer, and thus becomes better at knowing the MPEP).

10) One perk of being an examiner is that you have the power (wikipedia calls is quasi-judicial power). The lawyers are on the outside trying to get patents on their inventions, and their first stop is a patent examiner.

So, considering all the above, what is so terribly great about being a lawyer at a law firm that it necessitates expressing a negative opinion about the PTO in every thread about the PTO?

[JD]

"(Although, I was told that the examiner works on more cases per year than a lawyer, and thus becomes better at knowing the MPEP)."

You were told wrong.

[horsechute]

"I guess I am in the minority here, but I actually enjoy the job of being a patent examiner."

Thanks Newbie.
I think your name says it all. I  am kind of busy, but I will try to address each of your points in turn.

1) Law firms have flex time too. And I don't think you get flex time (or geographic diversity) at the PTO until you have worked there a while.

2) You get geographic flexibility by being able to change jobs, and work with different people too, and not be stuck with the same PTO crowd of people who has to watch others move on and up while a core of corndogs stays behind and does searches all day long, day after day.

3) Patent lawyers are not in the same league as tort lawyers. Most examiners are only a joke in some (not mine) lawyers eyes. I am not sure status is really too important. you have to like your job. Any experienced examiner HATES that job. You can say all this because you are a newbie. But no, patent lawyers have lots of respect in my experience. Most people don't even quite know what a patent examiner is.

4) Career can be stinted by PTO is 10000% true. You will see in a few years, if you stay. In a law firm, you do more than 1) read spec and claim 2) search for art 3) write rejection 4) read spec and claim 5) search for art 6) write rejection 7) read spec and claim.......

5) Have already discussed status

6) Being a patent lawyer is easier than being a patent examiner. Patent examining is the second most stressful government job there is (air traffic controllers being first). Patent examining is an incredibly hard job these days, especially when you hear about people carried out in handcuffs, dragged before grand juries for not having enough gate time, being denied registration numbers for lack of gate time (government theft) etc.

7) Examiners have more power.  Sorry, but if that job makes you feel powerful, maybe you should get a second job pulling the wings off of flies. After a while, any feelings of self importance will wear off on that job. Besides, money is power, and being a good lawyer is being a good advocate, and it is just an entirely different sphere of work. This could be why lawyers generally disdain examiners. But I don't.

Thanks Newbie. I think in a few years you will come around. As I keep saying, just once would I like to see an experienced examiner say something good about working at the PTO.
But I appreciate your taking the time to help sharpen the issues. Take care.

[bald & chained]

pto_newbie, all I gotta say is we need more people like you in the PTO. Some of your reasoning is rather naive. To sum it up, patent lawyers do enjoy a greater variety of work than patent examiners, which actually doesn't say that much.  They also generally make more $$$, but the pressures of work/hours are very significant.  As for the career name recognition, have you ever tried to pick up a woman in a bar by saying that you are "a patent examiner?"  Kidding.... patent lawyers wouldn't fair much better

Anyways, if you enjoy being a patent examiner (and still keep on enjoying it after N years), then more power to you.  The PTO needs to retain qualified and dedicated professionals like no tomorrow.  Otherwise, if all the smart and motivated examiners leave the PTO to become lawyers, who is staying in the PTO?  Exactly.

[horsechute]

Thanks tech_spec, always good to hear from you. I think our last posts were made almost within 1 minute of each other. We must be operating on the same wavelength now. Which is why I think we essentially agree.

We need more people like newbie. I like his chipper attitude. I would however like to see him keep it up for more than 2 years, but I think this is equivalent to trying to make water run uphill. Yes, we need more people like newbie, but more importantly, we need more people like newbie 3, 4, 5, etc. years down the road (I don't know why, but when I think of newbie, I picture a young, energetic, somewhat akward, clean shaven young man in a white, short sleeved shirt).

I don't go to bars, but if I did I wouldn't rely on being a patent attorney to pick up women. This kind of thing backfires in the long, run in my experience. 

Yes, we need more people like newbie, TS, but your saying this makes you a hipocrite, because you yourself say don't work at the PTO more than 2 years.

Take care
HC

[bald & chained]

Oh, now I am a hypocrite too?  Well, HC, in my other posts I only advocated not working in the PTO for > 2 years for people who plan on leaving the PTO to go into the private sector.  Clearly, my advice doesn't apply to those who enjoy being Examiners and don't plan on leaving in the first place.  There are plenty of long-term employees in the PTO and at least "some" of them must be fairly content.  Some people manage to make a pretty good bureaucratic career in the PTO (assistant->primary->SPE->director->etc), as you are well aware.  So maybe pto_newbie is going to be one of those lifers.  Not everyone leaves the PTO and not everyone leaves it as bitter as you, HC

[horsechute]

LOL!

I am not trying to get personal, I am only pointing out the obvious flaws in your logic.
I will try to address each of your points in turn.

1) "Clearly, my advice doesn't apply to those who enjoy being examiners and don't plan on leaving in the first place."

I have only met 2 people out of the 1 or 2 thousand examiners I met working at the PTO who had more than 3 years experience there who enjoyed being examiners, and one of those was ultimately railroaded out. Consider how many people working there are senior examiners. When I left, the taxi cabs were lined up all around the building ferrying people and their belongings out of there.

2) There are plenty of long-term employees at the PTO
Really? I sure never saw them. I don't remember the exact numbers, but over the period of a few years round about the year 2000 (admittedly during the tech boom) I believe over half the people in the office left, and Commissioner Q Todd Dickinson, who I respect very much, had to implement flex time program to try to get people to stay. Then the tech wreck and the recession came, the PtO got over 3,000 examiner applications (to work there), and they suspended the law school program and ultimately beefed up quality review. When the recession ended, people started leaving again. Now we are probably about to enter another recession, and you will probably see the same old hard line toward examiners from management again - we don't need you, we have X thousand people applying for the job. But who wants to stay in a place like this? No one does, and they don't. So to get back to your point, I disagree with the idea that people like the job, that they are content with it, and that there are "plenty of long-term employees." If anyone disagrees with me, just read the other comments on this blog and, even taking into account the problems of the ability to judge credibility of a person making a statement when it was made anonymously, and I am sure you will agree with me.

3) Not everyone leaves the PTO as bitter as you.
Well, you are obviously not bitter, judging by the fact that you like to brag about how much money you currently make on your other posts, but putting that aside, I left on good terms, and was not bitter with my supervisor at all. I was, and am, bitter about the way the PTO has changed into an agency that does things like prosecute in state court (through the office of the IG) pregnant women for not having enough gate time, and is willing to take examiners out in handcuffs for time code violations.

When I left the PTO, one of the people who checked me out said that examiners who pass thorough her office on the way out are almost always bitter about having worked there. I am glad you weren't, TS, but you only worked there about a year and a half, so as far as I am concerned, your opinion does not count for much.

[bald & chained]

Damn, HC, I must have hit on a raw nerve with my "bitter" comment.  That's a nice little essay you wrote... Only a few posts back and forward with you, and I am already getting used to how you mix up your infallible arguments with subtle jabs at my persona.  First I am a hypocrite, then I brag about the money I make, and yeah, and "as far as you are concerned", my "opinion doesn't count for much."  Well, since it doesn't, then you surely won't mind if I point out the obvious...

Which is that, you, HC, apparently spent 7 looooong, un-fulfilling years in the PTO, didn't see those years materialize as productive work experience, and feel the need to discourage everyone on this board from even considering work for the PTO as a viable career option.  And you are clearly right because a few incidents of the PTO treating its employees like crap here and there (which, btw, you keep bringing up in every argument and perhaps under a different sock?), undeniably prove that overall, every single Examiner out of 5000+ employed by the PTO was, is, and will be miserable.  Because "if anyone disagrees with me, just read the other comments on this blog and, even taking into account the problems of the ability to judge credibility of a person making a statement when it was made anonymously, and I am sure you will agree with me." A little presumptive, aren't we?

As for you not seeing any long-term employees at the PTO while you were there for 7 years, perhaps you should have taken more strolls out of your office. Even I saw a few during my measly 1.5 years there.  They are not some mythical beasts, like unicorns, you know... Many primaries and most SPEs have been in the PTO for a considerable amount of time (i.e, 10+ years), which certainly counts as a "long-term" employment.  Hard to believe that you've never met "a SPE" during those 7 years.

[horsechute]

Thanks TS, you're a particularly gifted essayist yourself, and I won't make any personal attacks this time. In this respect I am probably more the sinner than the sinned against, and you seem like a pretty nice person (honestly).

1) I think it goes without saying that, to quote Nancy Regan, I believe that people should "just say no to PTO" (kind of rhymes).

2) The idea that the few incidents I have mentioned of the PTO treating its employees "crappy" (as you admittedly put it) are the only incidents of this happening is, quite frankly, ludichrist. The point is, and think this is perfectly obvious, that when you see something happening that is particularly outrageous, like dragging a woman before a grand jury for not having enough hours,  there are probably many, many other incidents of employees being mistreated as well, and that this is only the tip of the iceberg. The idea is kind of like after the Rodney King beating, the Christopher Commission which investigated it ultimately found that there was a system - wide problem within the LA police force, and that this was not just one isolated incident that we saw. I could easily list lots of cases of slightly lesser magnitude, but I do not have the time or space, and I frankly don't want to mention or imply peoples names.

3) I don't think it is presumptive to say that if 99 percent of the postings on this blog say the PTO is a lousy place to work and that you should stay away from it, that it is probably true. Then again, until recently, the tobacco companies said there is no proof that smoking causes cancer, so maybe you are correct. Maybe that 1 percent, yourself and an SPE who is posting here to try to beef up recruitment, is correct, but I wouldn't bet the family farm on it.

4) There are a few lifers left at the PTO, but they are a vanishing breed, and they are there in most cases because they could not move on in the world, like the horseshoe crab which has essentially not evolved over the last 400 million years. There is a reason, you know, for having a 5 year backlog of cases in some of the arts.

Take care,
HC
 

[bald & chained]

Now that we've compared the USPTO and its employees to LAPD, tobacco companies, horseshoe crabs, and unicorns, I think we should stop   Peace out.

[horsechute]

Agreed.
Kindest regards,
HC

[somedude]

If my eventual goal is to work as an in-house attorney for a large corporation, and I'm starting out at the PTO, what is the best road to take?  Is option B even possible?  Or do corporations prefer you have extensive background in a firm?  IMO, it seems most large corporations, e.g. IBM, Intel, Motorola, etc... do very little patent prosecution in house- primarily subcontracted to private firms.

(A) PTO (2-3 years) -> full time law school -> firm -> corporation
(B) PTO + evening school (8 years) -> corporation
(C) PTO (2-3 years) -> firm + evening law school -> corporation


Also, I keep hearing how the PTO wants to get rid of the law school reimbursement program, due to "budgetary constraints".  Does anyone know if there's any truth to that?