<p>caa5042, I've wondered the same thing. I'd assume that firms place value on "real" law school training. There is probably a large delta between incomes of patent agents and patent attorneys.</p>
<p>Out of any undergraduate degree, I believe that Mechanical Engineering is the most flexible. I would recommend that solely on that basis. But, I would think that EE would probably be better than either ME or Physics for patent work though, just looking at the general economy and the next generation of technologies which will be created.</p>
<p>Also, 166 is baller for your first test. A score of 170+ is very attainable.</p>
<p>Patent lawyers have more career flexibility than patent agents. Both can prosecute patents; some patent lawyers are happy spending their entire careers doing just that. But others branch into other areas of the law, such as licensing, or IP litigation.</p>
<p>how much does a patent agent earn?</p>
<p>Patent agents tend to have limited long-term career opportunities. In law firms they have relatively little chance for advancement because they can function only in a limited capacity. If they're happy with that, that's fine. Scientists who become patent agents tend to be older than those who go to law schools and are looking for a career change but are not looking for major career advancement from then on. A very small number, however, with the right technical and other qualifications, have moved into responsible positions in small companies.</p>
<p>If you are a student interested in the patent profession, I recommend you go to law school, even a zillionth-tier law school, as that will give you far more options and make it possible for you to become engaged in a much wider range of work.</p>
<p>say i dont plan on going to law school, what should i do in order to be one of the few 'lucky' patent agents that are able to advance to good,lucrative positions in a company?</p>
<p>and do you know how patent agent salaries compare to the salaries of patent attorneys?</p>
<p>Disagreeing, on a very minor point, with DadofSam.</p>
<p>A fair amount of large law firms are swallowing up boutique patent firms, which means that hiring for patent attorney jobs is changing - the hiring patterns are more alongside those for large law firms. That means that quality of law school, grades, and journal work are much more important than they would be otherwise.</p>
<p>caa5042. You have to be truly "lucky" to attain a responsible position in-house as only a patent agent, not an attorney. In the few cases where this occurs, (a) the person is already in-house as a researcher and decides to move into the patent field, and the company already has a lot of confidence in his/her intelligence and ability, or (b) the person is an outside patent agent with excellent technical/scientific qualifications as well as a solid knowledge of worldwide patent strategy. This typically is combined with a desire on the part of the company to keep costs down by not having to pay an attorney's salary.</p>
<p>So I would not recommend making this a career objective. The chances of success are too few. And you'd better have a darn good reason for not having gone to law school.</p>
<p>Aries: the patent law market is constantly changing; while on the one hand boutique law firms are being gobbled up by larger ones, on the other there is the formation of new small firms mainly specializing in lower-cost prosecution by junior partners or senior-level associates leaving larger firms, dissatisfied with the high overheads and other aspects of large-firm practice.</p>
<p>That's good to hear. So is it the mid-size (vague term, I know) firms that are on the way out?</p>
<p>I've heard a few other things about the current trends in patent law - would rather not post here.</p>
<p>Wow...I came to this Law school Forum to ask the EXACT same question about patent law as Russell7...then i saw this...odd.
thanks for the info</p>
<p>We're good like that. :p</p>
<p>dadofsam- but even if there's no opportunity for advancement, dont these agents make a respectable amount of money given they dont HAVE to attend law school, and consequently dont have to incur further debt(undergrad+law school)? I mean, i wouldn't mind making what-100K?</p>
<p>caa: I'm not in the career counseling profession. You should make plans that suit your own personality and your aims.</p>
<p>Question very similar to the topic creator's (I am going into my senior year of high school):</p>
<p>What are the nuances/differences between the following majors for patent law: Biological Physics and Biomedical Engineering</p>
<p>Right now in my situation they both seem to have advantages and disadvantages. I think I would like Biological Physics (or Biophysics) more, but VERY few colleges offer that major (the only ones I would consider applying to out of all of them are Columbia, Brown, Hopkins, and Brandeis, the latter two of them I have a feeling I wouldn't like, while UPenn is close but I don't like Philly, while Columbia and Brown are extremely hard to get into). However, with my current test scores I'd be fine and I know that I enjoy that. If I can't get into a school with this major, would it be possible to go to a school and create my own interdisciplinary major or even just major in physics and minor/have a concentration in biology?</p>
<p>For biomedical engineering on the other hand, it may be more practical as a choice for a major, but I only recently (as in a few weeks ago) started thinking about it. Some engineering schools are more limited in their requirements, which I did not realize, that is, I thought the biology SAT Subject Test would be enough for the science requirement for the slim chance I may want to do engineering, but many require just chemistry or physics, which I did not take. I am also not sure if I would even like engineering as I like pure/theoretical science more than applied science.</p>
<p>Do different firms (and I am really ignorant here) look at these majors for different needs? For example, would one firm take someone to put a patent on a new drug from a biophysics major while another firm would require a patent on the machinery used to deliver the drug from a biomedical engineering major? What can someone expect to be working with with each major? I am aware that the answers might not be available from people on this site, but I am planning on talking with one or two patent attorneys hopefully sometime this week.</p>
<p>Both degrees are equally good. The more important factors toward patent law are: where you go to school and your ranking in undergrad and law school. </p>
<p>All things being equal, focus more on your grades and getting into a good law school and do not worry so much the undergrad degree.</p>
<p>The main reason why your undergraduate major matters for a career in patent law is that employers are typically looking for candidates with a specific background: patent lawyer with undergraduate or advanced degree in _______________. You fill in the blank: electrical engineering, chemical engineering, biological sciences, chemistry, physics, etc. Employers often don't want "just" patent lawyers ... they want patent lawyers with expertise in a particular area, and the way to show that expertise is to have a degree in that area.</p>
<p>As for biological physics v. BME, I don't think that it matters much. You would be hired to do roughly the same work. Face it - no law firm hires on a patent attorney to write up a single patent. Even if they did, the difference in majors is pretty small. We're not talking BME v. computer science. </p>
<p><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>
lists the acceptable degrees for sitting for the patent bar. (See pg. 6-7.) </p>
<p>BME is acceptable; biophysics is not. I would strongly, strongly suggest taking a major that allows you to qualify for the patent bar under Category A. I would also encourage you to avoid "speciality" or "hot" majors - the best thing for young engineers is to take a traditional major. Engineers know what you had to do to get that degree and they know the skill set that you have. That's invaluable. Engineers don't like to guess at what skills someone has; they also aren't wild about pseudo-engineering degrees. </p>
<p>Lawyers are a different breed - but, to the extent that you'll be dealing with engineers (or might like it enough to continue), do BME.</p>
<p>The problem is that I'm not sure if I'd like the engineering as much, as I like the theoretical science better. Is physics with a concentration in biology or biophysics possible to an employer that wants to be sure of what skills I have? What would be the most acceptable way to combine that fields of biology and physics for patent law?</p>
<p>I'm not sure if I'd be able to even go into engineering since many colleges that I'm looking at are different with requirements. Colleges that I've just started to look at say that they require the chemistry or physics SAT 2 for engineering, not biology (I also never thought I'd be looking at engineering), while I thought most simply wanted a science, so what could I do in this situation?</p>
<p>Probably a better way to word this is, what major would allow me to deal with patents involving drugs, pharmaceuticals, protein folding, but those specific things, not the machinery, or is that even an area where patent law is required?</p>
<p>Researching a little, I found this (URL: <a href="http://www.patents.com/patents.htm#patentable%5B/url%5D">http://www.patents.com/patents.htm#patentable</a>)</p>
<p>*The question "what is patentable" is a complicated one. Here is a simplified answer. In addition, we will discuss some common misconceptions about patentability.</p>
<p>In order to be patentable, an invention must pass four tests:</p>
<ol>
<li>The invention must fall into one of the five "statutory classes" of things that are patentable:
1. processes,
2. machines,
3. manufactures (that is, objects made by humans or machines),
4. compositions of matter, and
5. new uses of any of the above.*</li>
</ol>
<p>What types of practical majors for patent law would allow me to deal with number 4, compositions of matter (specifically biophysical aspects of it - new drugs, proteins, etc.) that are not biomedical engineering (which as I'm reading seems to be geared more towards 1,2, and 3)?</p>
<p>Well, deal with undergrad first. If you don't like something enough to major in it for four years, I fail to see how you'll like it enough to work in that area for the rest of your life, albeit indirectly.</p>
<p>If you want pharmaceuticals, I would guess that biology, organic chemistry, and chemistry would be best. </p>
<p>The "compositions of matter" that you are reading from Sec. 101 (I think) really does not have to do with how patent law works. That's just Congress telling the USPTO what can and cannot be patented - for example, you cannot patent a mathematical formula, an equation, an algorithm, a recipe, or things which fall into other areas of IP law. Copyright encompass movies, books, plays, songs, performances, paintings, sculpture, and a few things that I can't remember off the top of my head. Trademarks covers any variety of means to identify a single source of a product - not just a name, like Coca-Cola, but sounds (like the NBC chimes), scents, even colours. Patent law covers novel, useful, and non-obvious "inventions." The types of inventions which are patentable are in that section you found.</p>
<p>Don't look at that statute and get bogged down into where a particular major fits into patentable subject matter. I would be downright shocked if lawyers were classified according to how something comes to be protectable subject matter.</p>
<p>Pharmaceutical patenting could cover the drugs, but also the methods of making the drugs (process patents). Often, a new pharmaceutical will be covered by dozens of patents, all of which are interrelated and many of which fall into different "categories" of patentable subject matter.</p>
<p>Patentable subject matter is a very, very low hurdle to get over. I just cannot stress enough that you should not categorise yourself in the way that you are trying to, because it simply does not make any sense. It's like trying out for the track team and saying that your main skill is winning close races. Some races will be close; sometimes, you'll be running against people who are vastly better than you are; it may not matter, because you could be so mediocre that you're always fighting for fourth place. Ultimately, the track coach wants to know if you're a sprinter, distance runner, hurdler, or high jumper, becuase that is how he decides who to put on the team. Performing well in a close race is completely incidental to the decision of whether or not to have you on the team.</p>