<p>Hi I'm interested in patent law and am think of majoring in chemistry (im a high school senior right now), but i learned that unless you have a phd in chemistry its hard to find a job. I was thinking of switching to engineering but not sure i want to/am allowed to make this switch. I could however, switch to physics relatively easily. Is physics like chemistry (in that it needs a phd) or is it more like engineering where a BS is perfectly acceptable?</p>
<p>Decide what area of the country you want to live in. Do a search for patent law jobs. Look at the educational requirements (both majors and degrees, ie bachelors of PhD) for those jobs. </p>
<p>It is my understanding that few patent law jobs are currently geared towards physicists. That may change in the next fifteen years, however. </p>
<p>Patent prosecution requires a PhD more than patent litigation does.</p>
<p>At the last job search IP firms were very interested in Electrical Engineering majors and Computer Science majors. I don’t know any physics majors so I can’t share any anecdotes, but a good friend of mine is a chemistry major now working IP. He doesn’t have a PhD, though I suspect (do not know for sure) that his grades are solid and that may have made up for it in some respects. In general, I’d recommend trying a few EE/CS classes.</p>
<p>Chess:</p>
<p>In college, engineering and chemistry programs start out on different tracks. Switching from one to the other usually causes one to lose some time and take more than four years to graduate (switching between chemistry and chemical engineering will be easier than any other switch).</p>
<p>But you need to decide which field interests you more - not which field will be best for patent law. Otherwise, as I have stated a number of times in this thread, you could be spending four years studying material that you don’t like - and there’s no reason to do that intentionally.</p>
<p>On top of that, in the end you could easily decide not to go into patent law at all. Lots of things change during one’s college years.</p>
<p>Good luck, whatever you decide to do (or try to do).</p>
<p>dadofsam is right.</p>
<p>Get a degree in a field you enjoy. College is a major part of your life experience and you certainly don’t want to study a field of science because of its potential in patent law. I was a physics/math major undergrad and CS grad student. I have done chemistry patents, software patents, medical device patents, mechanical patents, electrical patents… The only patents I have not prosecuted are biotech, not really because I could not but because they take a lot of time and are not very cost effective for me to handle. Your technical background matters little. It is frankly not that hard to cover a field of science even if your primary expertise is in another. In fact, patents tend to be so specific that even if you were an expert in one area of chemistry does not mean you would be familiar with another field of chemistry. I like to learn about new inventions and feel my general scientific background is strong enough that I can understand pretty much anything thrown at me. Actually, I think physics is a great field to major in because it is pretty general and sits at the core of most engineering and science disciplines. There are also no hard rules as to what patent law firms will require from its new associates. Industry experience or experience as an examiner at the USPTO can be more useful that what field of science you graduated in. The initial training is very steep and law firms hate to lose patent lawyers because they are very hard and expensive to replace. There will continue to be a shortage of patent lawyers because very few law grads have the necessary science background.</p>
<p>Ok, thanks for the info and suggestions</p>
<p>I guess I’ll just stick with Chem for now</p>
<p>chess2520,</p>
<p>If you like math, you could always go chemical engineering. It’s fun and can have a lot of strictly chemistry courses, depending on your program, with several aspects of chemistry incorporated into almost every single class. Also, better job prospects, better skills, better discipline… and probably better projection into an IP law field, too.</p>
<p>Chess and Labarrister:</p>
<p>Chess is currently a high school senior. This being April, he/she either is preparing to decide which college to attend, or has already decided that. If he/she eventually decides on patent law, it still will be at least seven years (4 years college plus 3 years full-time law school) before being even eligible for an entey-level position in patent law.</p>
<p>There is absolutely no way to predict what that field will be like seven years from now, including which technology will offer the best opportunities. Science and technology change too much and too quickly for that. When I was first practicing, petroleum and petrochemical technologies were a hot area for patenting. Now very little patents are obtained in those fields. The primary reason - the technologies (especially petrochemical processing) became pretty efficient and most manufacturing companies decided to make only those improvements that were absolutely necessary, and to build new facilities only when absolutely necessary, so the number of inventions dropped dramatically. Who knows - perhaps that will change, or already has begun to change, with the advent of fracking. Mechanical engineering patents also began to drop in number dramatically some years ago, leaving mechanical engineers to worry about the future of that field of patent law. That changed dramatically with the upsurge in inventiveness in medical devices and prosthetics.</p>
<p>So do not make any choice to study a particular technology or science based on what may be a “hot” area for patenting at this time. Choose one that you are interested in and expect to do well in (otherwise you won’t get the GPA that you will need to be admitted to law school or, for that matter, graduate school).</p>
<p>Great advice, dadofsam. </p>
<p>The only thing I will add is that there are some regional influences. If staying in your home state really matters, then find a field that tends to hire in your home state. If you fall in love with petrochemical, then be ready to move to Texas or North Dakota.</p>
<p>thanks all for the advice.</p>
<p>everything being said, chemical engineering is something im genuinely interested in, as i like math (and did especially well in calculus when i payed attention) in addition to chemistry
what im wondering is if chemical engineering BS is sufficient in today’s patent law job field (i know for EE and CS a Bachelor’s is sufficient, but im not interested in those), or is it like pure chem/bio where a phD is practically required to be competitive?</p>
<p>At this time a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering may be sufficient to get a job as a patent attorney, but there’s no telling how the situation will be in seven or eight years. So one needs to keep up on what;s happening in the field.</p>
<p>However, going for the minimum qualifications for getting a job is not a recommended practice if you have the option to get more credentials. SO when the time comes, if you’re still interested in IP law, consider beefing up your job qualifications by getting a master’s degree and/or some industry experience. Look at the background of new patent attorneys to see what you would be competing with (do not look at the backgrounds of experienced attorneys).</p>
<p>And where to move - the IP jobs will be either where company headquarters are located or where major R&D centers are - so don’t consider moving to North Dakota unless major company headquarters or labs are located there (they’re not there now). Texas, however, currently qualifies, but mainly in the Houston area.</p>
<p>thank you!</p>
<p>could someone clarify this, i heard that for patent litigation one does not need a STEM degree, just that it could help?</p>
<p>also, i was looking at law school acceptances from my two main choices, ut and cornell, and while everyone says law is just a numbers game, cornell seems to place substantially more ppl than ut in law school, even the ppl from ut honors
should i spend the extra amount for cornell?</p>
<p>It’s true that you don’t need a technical degree to carry out IP (patent) litigation but it’s also true that it help to have one, to better understand the subject of the litigation.</p>
<p>And I repeat, don’t use law school admissions as a criteria to decide where to attend college. In the end you might not even go to law school - you may look for a different career. College will expose you to subjects that up to now you have had no connection with (or perhaps even awareness of).</p>
<p>For patent law, an electrical engineering degree makes you very valuable. Valuable for the prosecution side of patent law that is. For litigation though, it really comes down to what the ranking of the law school you to. If you’re a chemistry major going into patent law, it’s probably best to get a phd.</p>
<p>My girlfriend was a patent attorney for 3 years working at a patent firm. She got her undergrad in chemical engineering. From what she has told me about her time there, electrical engineering was GREATLY considered better than her undergrad as most of what she did work on, was for electrical stuff. Now onto the actual work was like…It was horrible. The most boring, tedious, stressful job she has ever had. You pretty much write all day in very strict “law” form, sitting in a office. She worked 60-70 hour weeks (on normal weeks) and if you wanted time off, you knew that you had to make it up when you got back. All I can say is the pay was great, she started at 118K, but her life/work balance was terrible and the work itself, so she found a better, but lower paying job she enjoys (environmental law).</p>
<p>All I can say is, if you like talking to incompetent inventors, screaming partners, massive amount of writing all day (think of the story Bartleby, the Scrivener, kind of like that). No court or litigation, just writing, long hours. Your life revolves around the infamous “billable hours”. If this sounds great to you, then go ahead and enjoy!</p>
<p>Sorry to hear about your girlfriend’s bad experience. Sounds to me like the practice at the law firm was heavily into electrical engineering/computer science and everyone was drafted to work for those clients. In some other firms with a different client base, chemical engineers are occupied with more relevant work.</p>
<p>But in all law firms, making your required billable hours, and then some, is the name of the game at that level. And when you’ve been there longer they add the requirement to bring in business. As we all know, law firms are not for everyone, especially if making a lot of money isn’t your top (or only) priority.</p>
<p>“Sorry to hear about your girlfriend’s bad experience. Sounds to me like the practice at the law firm was heavily into electrical engineering/computer science and everyone was drafted to work for those clients. In some other firms with a different client base, chemical engineers are occupied with more relevant work.”</p>
<p>No, this is pretty much the patent law experience.</p>
<p>I was a chemical engineering occupied with more relevant work.</p>
<p>It was eating sawdust.</p>
<p>I no longer have to bill hours or do that much writing and I still absolutely despise the practice of law.</p>
<p>Not being a patent attorney and not billing hours makes life better.</p>
<p>Granted, I can’t think of any work that I would <em>not</em> hate.</p>