<p>Don't you need to have background in engineering and the natural sciences if you're interested in pursuing patent law or IP (intellectual property)? That's what I've been reading everywhere. Is it a must in order to practice the field?</p>
<p>yeah you need a BS in a scientific field to sit for the patent bar</p>
<p>Don't I have to have a technical background? </p>
<p>Two propositions are commonly heard among would-be IP lawyers: first, that to have an IP practice, one must be a trained engineer, or chemist, or biologist, or computer scientist; and second, that if one is a trained engineer, chemist, biologist, or computer scientist, the only proper place in the law for that person is patent law. Both propositions are myths.</p>
<p>First, the brief summary of IP law provided above should be enough to prove that you don't have to be a scientist to be an IP lawyer. Lawyers who represent inventors in front of the United States Patent Office must have specialized technical training, but an intellectual property lawyer (even a patent lawyer not practicing before the PTO) may be happy and successful even without it. For some other areas (patent licensing and litigation, and copyright and trade secret law that addresses computer technology), a scientific or engineering background may be an advantage. But even in Pittsburgh, known historically as a traditional technology city, there are a number of successful patent litigators, trial lawyers, and licensing lawyers who do not possess B.S. degrees."</p>
<p>-from <a href="http://www.law.pitt.edu/madison/ipprogram/faq.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.pitt.edu/madison/ipprogram/faq.htm</a></p>
<p>so...what does this mean</p>
<p>it means that an IP lawyer who focuses on copywrites or trademarks instead of patents, or if the patent agent isnt dealing with filling patents to the PTO (i guess they do litigation only? im not sure) then you dont need a tech background. But to sit for the patent bar, which you must be a member of to be a Patent Attorney, you must have a tech bg</p>
<p>so basically if someone wants to do patent law in law school and they have a bachelors in poli sci (or any other social science), does this mean they won't be able to do it, or would it be just a huge struggle</p>
<p>probably wont be able to do it, unless you can prove competency in technology. im not sure, youd have to check the patent bar requirements</p>
<p>in order to be a patent agent and practice before the patent office, you do not need a law degree, and only need to pass an exam given by the USPTO but typically you do have extensive technical expertise (how else are you going to write patent applications and prepare technical drawings for your clients?) In order to practice patent litigation, you need a law degree but not necessarily a technical background. In large firms, trial lawyers will work on patent cases but alongside lawyers with technical background and technical experts who can basically teach them the technical stuff they need to know. Law school provides an overview of all types of law not just patent law. However, if you know you are interested in patent law it is only to your benefit (and subsequent marketability) to obtain some sort of technical education/expertise.</p>
<p>scansmom, thanks for the insight. so if one wishes to become a patent lawyer, you don't need to have a technical background? all i'm asking is if its possible for a normal undergrad who had a bachelors in the social sciences to study patent law in law school (just like any other law, criminal, corporate, family) w/out it being different from any other normal 3 year law school program (meaning is patent law school only in favor of some students or anyone from any bachelor's can do it). </p>
<p>where's concerndadd that guy's the master of laws he should be able to answer this</p>
<p>you can study it in law school fine, and you can do patent litigation. Litigation would be arguing cases of patent infringement in a court. What you need a tech backgroud for is if you want to be a patent prosecutor, who is licensed by the patent bar to write patents. Simply, if you want to write patents, you need a technical degree, but if you want to argue cases you dont necessarily</p>
<p>yes, any undergrad can study patent law in law school without a technical background. The patent law you would study in law school is basically a general overview of the law, not the technical intracies of patents. Technical expertise may help you understand specific patent issues better down the road, when you are actually practicing law, but shouldn't effect your performance in law school if you choose to focus on patent law.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if you want to write patents, you need a technical degree
[/quote]
If you want to prepare patents and negotiate with the USPTO, then you need to qualify for and pass the USPTO's "Patent Bar" exam. The most common way to qualify for the Patent Bar is with an acceptable BS degree in engineering or science. It is theoretically possible to qualify for the Patent Bar without such a degree, but you still have to demonstrate an equivalent level of technical proficiency, either by taking lots of science classes or by passing a standardized test (the NCEES "Fundamentals of Engineering" exam). </p>
<p>
[quote]
if you want to argue cases you dont necessarily
[/quote]
I believe this is correct: the Patent Bar exam is only needed for dealing with the USPTO. If you want to litigate patent cases in court outside the USPTO, then the Patent Bar is irrelevant; you just need to pass the regular State Bar exam. </p>
<p>
[quote]
if one wishes to become a patent lawyer, you don't need to have a technical background?
[/quote]
I may be wrong, but I don't think you can legally use titles like "Patent Attorney" or "Patent Lawyer" unless you are licensed by USPTO. And as noted above, you need to have a technical degree (or the equivalent) to qualiify for the USPTO's Patent Bar exam. </p>
<p>If you don't have a technical background, and can't qualify for the Patent Bar, then you could still litigate patent issues. But I think you would have to use a more general title, like "intellectual property attorney". You would not be a "patent lawyer".</p>
<p>Here's the link: </p>
<p>If you want to be a licensed patent attorney, the requirements are essentially that you must have a bachelor's degree in a technical field, although there are exceptions. You can still practice patent law without working with the PTO if you want, though. However, honestly, if you're going to be a semi-successful patent lawyer, you should probably be able to pass the patent bar exam . . .</p>
<p>Question that's a little off topic:</p>
<p>When trying to get employment as a patent lawyer, does prestige of your law school matter as much as for other fields of law and will your income usually be greater? I have been researching patent law for awhile, so don't think that I'm only in it for the money (I only realized how much patent lawyers supposedly make today, but my main goal for looking at this field is combining law and science). I read in a book that most fields of law pay relatively the same and that the only real differences are usually your firm size, prestige of school, etc. It said that the exception is patent/intellectual property law mainly because these lawyers are required to have certain undergraduate majors and must take another bar exam, putting them in higher demand. Because of this, does the prestige of your law school matter as much for patent law as for other fields of law (don't get me wrong - I will aim as high as I can and am still way far off from law school) because of different requirements and more demand?</p>
<p>Just to confirm what was suggested earlier: titles like "patent lawyer" and "patent attorney" are indeed protected by Federal law (37 CFR 10.34; 35 USC 33). You must be registered with USPTO to use those titles, and such registration requires a technical degree (or equivalent knowledge).</p>
<p>So if you lack a technical degree, you cannot earn the title of "patent lawyer", and you cannot represent clients at the USPTO. </p>
<p>However, you can be an "intellectual property lawyer", and you can still have a successful career in patent licensing or litigation. There are plenty of patent issues that do not involve USPTO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, you can be an "intellectual property lawyer", and you can still have a successful career in patent licensing or litigation. There are plenty of patent issues that do not involve USPTO.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>so this means its ok if you want to do patent law for law school, and possess a bachelors in the social sciences field ?</p>
<p>
[quote]
so this means its ok if you want to do patent law for law school, and possess a bachelors in the social sciences field ?
[/quote]
Yes. You can safely assume that no law school class, even in patent law, will require a science or engineering degree as a prerequisite.</p>
<p>Just be aware -- and by now, you probably are -- that a non-technical degree would limit you in certain respects as a practicing attorney in this field. You would be able to address many aspects of patent practice, but not others. You would be an "IP lawyer," but not a "patent lawyer." Fortunately for you, these are not critical limitations; many successful IP lawyers do not have technical degrees.</p>
<p>corbett i love your response it was just what i was looking for. mucho thanks.</p>