<p>I was asked if this was a good career choice for someone who loves CS & research, and wonders if this field would hold more interest than a PhD in CS. Is a patent attorney a subfield? Would undergrad major in CS or engineering be of benefit?
If anyone has some info to offer, it would be appreciated. thanks</p>
<p>Intellectual property law consists of patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret law. There are similarities among the various areas, and a lot of lawyers do some of each. For a long time, there was a "patent bar" that was largely separate from other areas of legal practice, and to some extent it still is, but the increasing importance of intellectual property to mega-corporations and venture capitalists has meant that large commercial law firms (and medium-sized ones, too, and in-house legal departments) have been muscling in on IP law for the past 10-15 years. It's one of the hottest legal specialties these days, and I don't see that cooling off much in the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>Patent attorneys, either in separate firms or in regular practice before the US PTO -- not only is an engineering degree of benefit, it is almost a requirement in the field (or some other technical/scientific degree). I would guess that the majority of successful patent attorneys, especially those under 45, have AT LEAST an undergraduate degree in a technical field, and often a graduate degree. </p>
<p>However, I am not sure that Computer Science counts much for patent lawyers. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought CS dealt mainly with software, and software is a copyright field, not a patent field, so CS itself might not be a plus in patent law. Anything dealing with the hardware, however, is a patent issue. And I expect that the hardware-patent/software-copyright structure will be dynamic over the next 20-30 years, so CS could wind up being a hotter degree.</p>
<p>IP lawyers basically do four things that are pretty separate: (1) They help people negotiate the bureaucracy at the PTO and Copyright Office. This used to be the most important thing, now it is probably the least, although it's still pretty important. Increasingly, obtaining international rights is a vital part of this practice, too. (2) They design licensing agreements and strategies. (3) In acquisition or investment situations, they confirm the quality of the target's intellectual property and agreements, and they make certain that title is and remains good. (4) They design and implement enforcement strategies, sometimes litigating (or working with litigators) to enforce rights, or getting sherriffs to impound counterfeits, etc.</p>
<p>Like many legal specialties, IP is not completely separate from other areas of the law. Dealing with the PTO is relatively "pure", but once you get into private arrangements you have to know a lot of contract and other business law, and antitrust, and tax can be important. And litigation requires understanding litigation and court procedure. Being an IP lawyer, in the end, is a lot more being a lawyer than being a researcher or engineer. You have to want to be a lawyer.</p>
<p>One thing to think about: Thanks to how hot the field has been, and to the dot-com/tech bust of six years ago, I think there are a fair number of highly-qualified young IP lawyers out there right now, or coming out of law school. A lot of kids with technical backgrounds and experience lost their jobs in 2000-2001 and wound up going to law school and being attracted to IP. That cohort may be 10 years older than you, but it means that the field won't be as wide-open in the future as it was 10 years ago when people with a little expertise and a little marketing acumen could become legal superstars practically overnight.</p>
<p>I know a little about IP law. IP includes patents, trademarks and copyrights. IP attorneys typically do mostly patent work, with some or no trademark and copyright work thrown in as spice for some or annoyance for others. Patent work is where the opportunities are and barriers to entry are highest, as discussed below.</p>
<p>An engineering or hard science degree (Phys, Chem, Bio) is a prerequisite to be licensed as a patent attorney. Computer Science from an accredited program meets the requirement. There are a lot of nuances to the education requirement, but engineering or hard science is the executive summary. For details see <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb15nov05.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb15nov05.pdf</a></p>
<p>To be a success in IP law, a person has to be a really good attorney and have the technical skills. This is a really rare combination. There is a perennial shortage of capable people to do the work that could be done, so the compensation is high and the life style enjoyable. You hear complaints that there are too many attorneys and the profession is horrible? Does not apply to IP attorneys.</p>
<p>The shortage is a result of the huge impediment to engineering students even getting into law school, because engineering is such a hard major. Law schools are obsessed with rankings, and the rankings are based mostly on numbers, GPA and LSAT score. Engineering courses are hard as heck, only big time universities have engineering programs, and engineering faculty tend to be more old school, giving out lots of B's and C's and few A's. Bottom line is, in industry, a 3.0 in electrical engineering for example is fine, and a 3.5 is in walk on water territory. This is prefectly acceptable in most cases where engineering GPA's are being compared against other engineering GPA's, but at law school admissions offices mostly what they see are 3.9's in business and communications programs from Grade Inflation LACs. There is no weighting given to the difficulty of program, because heaven forbid the rankings would suffer.</p>
<p>So, a career in IP law is only going to be available to someone who can obtain a miraculous GPA in engineering school, then crush the LSAT, then completely shift gears and excel in a law school curriculum for three years. This is not a realistic career plan for many people, really, but certainly fine to think about as Plan A with a solid Plan B behind it.</p>
<p>You should post this question in the law school forum. A number of patent lawyers regularly post there who may be able to provide you with information.</p>
<p>There is still a patent bar, and the requirements for who may sit for the patent bar include significant coursework in hard sciences, usually fulfilled with a major, and/or significant work experience in a scientific field. One cannot call themselves a "patent lawyer" if they are not admitted to the Patent Bar. You will find out a lot more through the law forum from attorneys who specialize in this field (I am a mere corporate transactional lawyer).</p>
<p>Is the patent bar given in addition to the state bar exam? If a person passed the patent bar and worked in IP law, but for some reason later wanted to switch to some other area of law practice, would that be possible?</p>
<p>jhs - I practice ip law in-house for well known company. You comments are spot on. Not sure I can add much - except really underscore the point that to do well one really has to want to be a lawyer - and do what lawyers do - that is - engage in rigoruous, deductive, rule based thinking as opposed to the inductive thinking practiced by scientists and engineers. Your comments reflect (and again, I cannot agree more) that the law degree is not just a credential - one really has to want to practice law. To your point, it is exceedingly difficult to find a great ip litigator - there are a number of good patent prosecutors out there - although even then, this skill should not be deemed a commodity and is and will be in constant high demand - but to find a patent lawyer that truly understands the ebb and flow of litigation and more importantly has the ability to be a great general manager, so to speak, over the conduct of litigation, well, that's a rare thing. </p>
<p>dt123 - your comments are good ones in terms of the challenges and engineer or computer scientists face when not only applying to law school, but also to adapting to an entirely different way of thinking that it takes to succeed in the law. (Note there are no value judgments here - deductive legal thinking is by no means better than anything else - just different and required for the job). I have seen people make the transition from engineering to a high level law practice, but as a general rule they are not only brilliant but possess a degree of personal intellectual flexibility. And their numbers are few, relatively speaking. But there are different hiring standards (even dipping down to lower tier schools) for patent lawyers in particular, so if someone really thinks they will enjoy being a patent lawyer (and spending some time with one is the thing to do), I would not be discouraged by the increased difficulty of getting into law school and the like. But in the end, one cannot forget that as much of a cool chess game as patent prosecution can be, it is still, without doubt, the practice of law. You have to like it.</p>
<p>Regarding the patent bar...</p>
<p>As Sally mentioned, it is still in effect. DadofSam has an excellent post about IP law as a "sticky" on the law school forum. He links to the USPTO's website and requirements for sitting for the patent bar. A student needs either:
1) a degree in specified majors (CS is not one of them);
2) enough coursework (as per requirements detailed on website) that is pretty much a major in itself - something like 32 hours of physics and chem, or
3) work experience in the field so as to demonstrate technical capabilities.</p>
<p>You do not need to go to law school to sit for the patent bar. Historically, the pass rate is below 50%, so one should study very hard for it and have more than a passing familiarity with the underlying law. </p>
<p>The Patent Bar is separate from the state bar. A state bar, to "state" the obvious, lets you practice law in that state. The Patent Bar is administered by the Patent and Trademark Office and lets you prosecute patents before it. The patent system is entirely federal in nature; hence the separate bar exams.</p>
<p>If you are not a patent agent, you can still litigate IP patents, write licensing agreements, or work in any other area of IP law (trademarks, copyrights, or trade secrets). </p>
<p>I would like to correct Mam1959's assessment of patent law hiring practices. A few years ago (even five) her statement was true. However, as patent law has become a very hot field, and as patent litigation has become extraordinarily lucrative, patent law has become part of big-firm lawyering instead of its own nerdy subspeciality. A lot of this is driven by the huge awards given for patent infringement and the salaries that patent lawyers can command - big firms didn't want to let that go. As per above, litigators don't need technical backgrounds. End result is that law firm hiring practices for patent law are fast becoming identical to those for corporate law. Patent boutique firms are shrinking in number. If you want patent law, be prepared to go to an excellent school and get top grades to land a job at a firm that has patent law.</p>
<p>Thanks all. I have forwarded all this excellent info to the person in question. He happens to be a double major in eng and CS, but didn't know if he needs to continue with both.</p>
<p>Software is patentable. The court made the ruling about a decade ago. Since then there has been an explosion of software patents. Another new emerging field of soft patents is business processes.</p>