Can you provide some insight to the US patent system reform?

<p>Can anyone provide some insight to how the US patent system is being reformed?</p>

<p>As little as I understand it, the current system places high demand on patent examiners, directly affecting the quality of individual patents granted registration by the USPTO. Of this, I can only imagine the complex and interconnected consequences as the patent travels to the potential point of litigation.</p>

<p>I know that the USPTO is hiring a lot of patent examiners right now. Is this one of the measures of reform: to hire more examiners so that the work load can be more broadly distributed, allowing each examiner to provide higher quality work? I understand this may be a simple concept, but it is one of the few things I can think of, not being employed in the patent field.</p>

<p>What are some of the reformations going on now that, perhaps, aren’t quite so obvious, and why should someone interested in becoming a patent attorney feel the system worthy enough to base a career around? </p>

<p>I understand that a lot of the questions' answers may only be speculation, but I wanted speculation from those in the field, even if there is no right answer to these questions.</p>

<p>I also mean reform in both the legal sense and the general sense. Some changes are brought about by laws, while others are not.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>When one discusses patent reform one generally refers to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. It is the most subsntial reform in the past 60 years. many of the issues are somewhat arcane and a summary of the Act can be found here.
[Leahy-Smith</a> America Invents Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act]Leahy-Smith”>Leahy–Smith America Invents Act - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>How does this create opportunities fro new patent practioners?</p>

<p>First, the Act redefines the core doctrines of novelty and non-obviousness at the core of any patent application. This means that practitioners trained under the old patent laws will need to go through retraining. It is like a big reset button has been pushed. For a while, experienced practitioners will not necessarily have an advantage over recently trained patent attorneys. In addition to the AIA, the US Supreme Court has become very involved in patent law over the past decade, redefining what is patentable and what is not. Those who fastest master these changes will come out on top.</p>

<p>Second, by eliminating the first to invent doctrine, unique to the United states in favor of the universally accepted first to file principle, has created a enormous surge in patent applications especially from software companies who have a lot to lose if they fail to patent their inventions. The final aspects of the law will take effect next spring and there is currently a mad rush to get as many applications filed under the old system before time runs out. In some areas o fthe country like Silcon Valley or Boston, finding a patent attorney for some areas is virtually impossible because of the demand. Young attorneys have therefore no problem finding business opportunities. There are over 20 patent related groups on LinkedIn alone so it is very easy to establish connections. </p>

<p>Finally, there are the demographics of the profession. The vast majority of patent attorneys are in their fifties and sixties as the market had been stagnant for a while and fewer and fewer patent attorneys have entered the field. The current shortage will only get much worse as many current patent attorneys will retire over the next decade. There are only 20,000 registered patent attorneys (out of 3 million) in the US and not all are practising. Foreign attorneys are not allowed to prepare and file patent applications in the US so there is no risk of outsourcing as has been discussed in other areas of law such as discovery which is increasingly outsourced. </p>

<p>One of the best things about patent law is that it is Federal Law. Once you have passed the Patent Bar you can practice anywhere. You still need to pass the bar in a state to be registered attorney but it could be anywhere. This is very different from many areas such as corporate law or insurance law which is based on state law. You have to be in NYC to work with NYC firms. Most of my clients are out-of-state and I hardly ever need to visit them in person. Most of the time, Skype and email are just fine.</p>

<p>Finally, it is probably one of the only fields where law school attended is completely irrelevant. Your undegrad and grad science degrees will nearly always trump what law school you attended. Furthermore, the top law schools offer no particular training in patent law that others don’t have. Very few of their graduates have the necessary undegrad degrees to qualify for the patent bar. It is actually common for many patent attorneys to have attended law school at night while working at a day job. I have an MIT degree in engineering and run a solo practice and routinely beat out larger firms when proposing my services. They don’t even ask where I went to law school.</p>

<p>Finally, patent law is incredibly flexible and can be very lucrative:<br>
You can work for a boutique patent law firm, run a solo practice or even work in-house.<br>
You can work out of your house and don’t need a lot support staff.<br>
There are fully automated tools to manage your “docket” (cases).<br>
Patent searches tools are much less expensive than they were and many are even free.<br>
All interaction with the USPTO is electronic or by phone: no paperwork, no meetings.
You can charge by the hour or by project.
You can pick to focus on patent applications, patent portfolio analysis, patenting strategy, searches, litigation or even just write patentability or non-infringement opinions. For the latter, you can routinely charge $10K and up for a few days work.
Clients are incredibly loyal once you start working for them because the more you know about their business the more efficient you become.
They don’t see you as an expense but rather part of their R&D budget. A good patent for my clients can easily be worth millions so I seldom have to convince them of the benefit.<br>
You can get equity in the firms you work with and that is just fine as long as you don’t get involved in management or take a greater than 10% ownership interest.</p>

<p>MIT engineering is impressive. I never did well enough in high school to get into such a prestigious undergraduate program. Nonetheless, I don’t think this will hinder me in light of all the other benefits of becoming a patent attorney in the near future.</p>

<p>Thank you for your thought-out response.</p>