<p>Hi, I'm an undergrad about to start my sophomore year at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, majoring in Electrical Engineering. I'm still trying to piece together my plans for post-graduation. I had originally thought about joining the engineering workforce after graduating, but the past year at school has made me change my thoughts a bit. I'm not quite sure if I would want to become a professional engineer and go through the lab-work and intellectual crunching for a living. However, I did enjoy my classes and the learning material, and fared reasonably well in them. I'm pretty sure I still want to finish out my undergrad with an engineering degree.</p>
<p>I know a common path for engineers is law school --> patent law, which I've been considering. I like that it allows for one to stay in touch with science and technology while not necessarily going through the scientific rigors that a scientist or engineer would face. Also, it seems this route would be more secure job-wise, especially with regards to outsourcing. I realize that one of the major required skills for this area would be writing - I don't too much enjoy reading/writing for literature (analyses on the Odyssey, etc.) but I'm alright in technical/objective writing. These are some of the reasons I've been considering going into this field.</p>
<p>So my question is, would this path of engineering to patent law be a good fit, and are there other major skills/points I am not considering? Is anyone else considering the same path?</p>
<p>There are 2 major areas that people with tech/science degrees can get into, patent prosecution and patent litigation. </p>
<p>Patent prosecution is drafting patents, doing research for applications, writing office replies, etc... It's a lot more like engineering than law. Prosecution work is typically more solitary, nerdy, and boring (all my opinion). The pros are: you will have a monopoly over the field - you can't sit for the patent bar w/out your tech degree. Also the hours are much better than litigation. You will probably also not get heart attacks and stay at work all night. </p>
<p>Patent litigation is usually patent infringement stuff. A lot of it can also be boring, but it is more boring in the usual law sense. You will do document review, draft memos, briefs, take depositions, and after 7 years or so maybe you will go to trial. A tech degree is NOT a requirement (some of the top IP litigators have no tech degree) but it is strongly preferred. For one, you will know what the hell you are doing, 2 the client likes to see that the lawyers are reformed tech nerds. Litigators are typically more outgoing and "lawyerish" - which may be a good or bad thing. Hours can be nightmarish, depending on the trial. You will work with people so closely you might start to despise them. Litigation can go on for months and is the big moneymaker. Firms know IP litigation (patents in particular) are a nice cash cow.</p>
<p>"big" firms - skadden, kirkland ellis, paul weiss, for example - usually only do litigation, or very little amounts of prosecution. Some big firms do have healthy prosecution practices though. Supposedly it is toughter to make partner as a prosecutor, i cant confirm that.</p>
<p>With a EE degree, just do reasonably well in law school and you will get a job.</p>
<p>hmm - don't think i answered your question the first time around. Writing is a fundamental part of a lawyer's career. Patent prosecutors do more technical writing. Litigators do more persuasive writing. Law writing is nothing like writing an english paper, it is its own entity. Both need excellent oral communication skills, but litigators need to be really good at it to be the best.</p>
<p>Do all patent lawyers practice litigation/in-court room activity? From your descriptions it seems like patent prosecution would be a more apt fit for me and the area that more interests me. I'm not too sure that my skills and abilities would be the best for litigation/court work.</p>
<p>From what I know, patent attorneys do either prosecution or litigation. Some firms, in fact, do almost exclusively patent prosecution and don't have the litigation section. So yes, you can do the prosecution part and never set foot in a court room.</p>
<p>I can confirm Ariesathena's post. Been a patent attorney for many years, but the only times that I have been in a courtroom were when I had a traffic ticket and when I have been serving on a jury. However, I might be in a courtroom on a patent case later this year, for the first time, but probably not carrying on the litigation.</p>
<p>Many patent attorneys write and prosecute patent applications, evaluate and give opinions on patents, negotiate patenmt licenses, and carry on a number of other activites without being involved in litigation.</p>
<p>If you want to sit for the patent bar (which is a requirement for patent prosecution), then you need a tech degree or enough science courses (physics and chem) to demonstrate that you have the technical capabilities to do patent prosecution. </p>
<p>Could anybody briefly explain the various types of companies/work environments that an IP attorney might practice? Also, I'm curious about the employment rate and general salary information. Thanks!</p>
<p>You can work at big law firms just like everyone else. The patent litigation field is quite lucrative and virtually all big law firms are trying to get their teeth into it (I was at Paul Weiss last week, where they added one patent litigation partner and 13 or so associates a while back - they had no patent group before).</p>
<p>You can work at boutiques. There have been a few high profile deaths lately (Fish & Neave, Pennie Edmonds) but there are a few still around - Kenyon, Morgan Finnegan, Finnegan Henderson, Fish & Richardson, etc... Boutiques will generally do more prosecution, though some focus on litigation.</p>
<p>As far as pay, you will get paid the same as other lawyers at the firm. Typically 125k base + bonus depending on however they do it there. </p>
<p>There is corporate work too, that involves IP with more licensing, evaluating patent portfolios, etc... </p>
<p>As far as getting work, I firmly believe if you had a set of twins, one with an engineering degree and another with history, both having exactly the same GPA's from the same school, the engineering twin will get more offers. Science types that do well are just relatively rare in good law schools.</p>
<p>There's other work too, like in-house, but I don't know much about it.</p>
<p>Thanks for the info, codingmonkey! With your twin example, did you mean that the engineering twin would get more undergrad job offers or more law school admission offers or more law position offers? </p>
<p>I'm glad to hear that the IP field is larger than I imagined. It sounds as if there is certainly a variety of work environments and job potential in many cities.</p>
<p>In you opinion, are certain law schools better for this area than others?</p>
<p>I'm surprised the following point hasn't been already made. As I'm sure AA would attest to, the fact is, it is quite difficult to get the high grades in engineering that law schools are looking for, and law school adcoms care far more about how high your grades are than how difficult the courses were. In other words, for the purposes of law school admissions, it's better to get an easy, do-nothing 'A' than a hard-fought and hard-won 'B'. Sad but true. Hence, by choosing to study engineering, you are probably reducing your chances of getting admitted to a top law school, and, on the margins, you may find that you can't even get into any decent law school at all. </p>
<p>If you can handle engineering, then you can probably handle law school rather easily, because engineering teaches you the discipline and the time management skills you will need to succeed. Furthermore, with that engineering degree, you would be well positioned to get into patent law. But unfortunately, as AA put it, admissions is the rate-limiting step. It doesn't matter if you could do well at a law school if they don't admit you in the first place because your engineering grades don't look good compared to some other applicant who coasted and partied his way through with top grades in Film Studies. The hardest part of getting a law degree from any decent law school is just getting admitted. </p>
<p>I'm not telling you not to do engineering on your way to law school. What I am telling you to do is to take an honest and candid assessment of what the positives and negatives are of going down this road. Obviously there are some engineers who successfully get into top law schools. Heck, I know a couple of MIT engineering students who are or will be going to Harvard Law. But it's like strapping on a couple of barbell plates to your back and then trying to run a footrace. You can still win the race, but it's a lot harder, and you should recognize that it's going to be harder. </p>
<p>Anyway, I'm sure AA will have a lot more to say about this.</p>
<p>I hear you Sakky, and you are probably right. But my son really wants to try engineering and maybe he can earn good grades there. If he can't make decent grades in engineering or any other major, chances are he won't like it all that much. After all, people usually like things they are good at. This kid has never seen a "B", so college may take a little adjustment on his part! I keep trying to warn him that the competition in college will be much stiffer than he is used to.</p>
<p>Would post, but Sakky summed it up well. My one contribution is this: many engineering schools are filled with bright, talented, hard-working students who all love what they are learning. In any given class, half of those kids are going to get Cs (or worse) - not because they don't get it or don't like it or don't have the aptitude, but because that is just how engineering is graded. </p>
<p>Engineers get this. Law schools, not so much. :)</p>
<p>Well, yes, engineering is tougher than liberal arts grade wise, it's just reality. I was valedictorian at my high school, never got below an A- and ended up getting a C+ my first year at Caltech. You have to be thick skinned.</p>
<p>My post regarding grades was purely from a job perspective, not a law school perspective. A lower GPA can be mitigated somewhat by scoring high (170+) on the LSAT. Getting into law school has been covered in tons of other posts.</p>
<p>Your chances for law school admission depend somewhat on what faring "reasonably well" on your engineering classes means. </p>
<p>Given the rarity of law school graduates with EE degrees, it may matter less which law school you attend than it does to a more typical law school graduate who's aiming for a position with a blue chip firm.</p>
<p>Staying with the EE program may reduce your chances of law school admission somewhat, but should enhance your employability if you do make it through to law school.</p>
<p>This is probably a lil off topic, but I was just curious as to a couple of the following considerations for those who are pursuing/are currently in the patent law field:</p>
<p>What were/are your motivations for doing engineering undergrad work but deciding not to enter the engineering profession afterwards?</p>
<p>What about the field of patent law motivates/drives you towards pursuing it? Why did/do you strive to become a patent lawyer? Is it because of a passion for law? Or some other non-engineering field/subject?</p>
<p>Thanks for all the replies guys, they're all very informative =)</p>
<p>One other thing that hasn't been touched on is that many patent attorneys are in the largest cities, especially NY. I believe there's only one or in any case not many in HI & other places which are more remote from DC & NY. This may be another factor to consider, if it matters.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, another area of law that EE or other engineering could be useful for is products liability suits--either plaintiff or defense. With rumblings & campaign promises of tort reform, unsure how lucrative this may be in future. It was pretty good in the early 80s when I graduated from law school & got increasingly less attractive.</p>
<p>I'd guess the number of patent attorneys in a locale is more a function of the number of engineers there than it is a function of the overall population.</p>
<p>No, I think it might be related to demand. Not sure how much patent attorney business there is to be had when you're away from a major urban center.</p>
<p>Sure it's related to demand, but it's engineers who generate the demand for the services of patent attorneys. I suspect you'll find more patent attorneys in Santa Clara County (the heart of Silicon Valley) than you will in Manhattan, despite Manhattan's considerably larger overall population (and larger population of lawyers).</p>