Yet another Patent Law question

Graduate School Law School
1

<p>Hello, I am a student entering Cornell this fall. I plan on majoring in Classics, and am also very interested in the Alternative Chemistry Major, as described on Cornell's website:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.chem.cornell.edu/undergrad/ChemMajorform_04.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.chem.cornell.edu/undergrad/ChemMajorform_04.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It says, "This course of study might also be attractive for students interested in law (especially patent law), as a double major in government or economics <and presumably="" the="" humanities="" as="" well?=""> plus chemistry is quite feasible."</and></p>

<p>However, the website then states, "This program is <em>not suited</em> to further graduate work in chemistry."</p>

<p>So, if this major is suited for patent law, but not suitable for graduate study, then can we say that patent law does <em>not</em> require a M.S. or Ph.D. to practice? Or, is it possible to practice patent law without a M.S. or Ph.D., but doing so will hurt my competitiveness and job opportunities? From past threads I can see that it is possible to practice patent law without an advanced degree, but whether employers favor candidates with M.S. or Ph.D. degrees has not been discussed.</p>

2

<ol>
<li><p>Patent law in NO WAY requires a graduate degree in the sciences. An undergrad degree is sufficient.</p></li>
<li><p>I can't answer that too well. What I can say is that it depends on the field (a bio person might need a master's more than an engineer), and that having an advanced degree will always help, but the lack of one may not necessarily hurt you. I know a bunch of people at my school with tech backgrounds, and very few of them have advanced degrees. It's unusual to go through the science undergrad, then go for an advanced degree, and, on top of that, get a JD. DadofSam might be able to give you more info on this, however.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Beyond that, I do think there is a difference between the lack of a graduate degree and the lack of a standard undergrad degree. Going for the "alternative chem" might hurt you for job prospects, simply because it will appear as if you lack the technical background to be a good patent attorney.</p>

<p>As with a lot of things in the legal profession, this depends on the job market. If more people start going into patent law, or if you are trying to break into a very small, competitive market, or if the economy is bad, your undergraduate degree (& lack of graduate) will matter more. </p>

<p>More info: <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb17feb05.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb17feb05.pdf&lt;/a>
has the requirements for sitting for the patent bar. "General chemistry" is listed as an acceptable major for Category A (which allows you to sit based only on your degree). I'm not sure if your potential major would be acceptable under that. If not, there is Category B (see page 7), Option 3, in which 30 semester hours of chemistry (specifically for chem majors) is acceptable.</p>

<p>Either way, you'll have to send in your complete transcript to sit for the examination. </p>

<p>.....</p>

<p>As an engineering/classics major, I would strongly encourage you to figure out how to make the two of them work, because it is certainly doable. I used AP credits, took summer courses, and usually had six courses a semester - but I got it done. For law school, I would recommend a lighter course load, because GPA is phenomenally important. </p>

<p>Good luck. Feel free to send a PM.</p>

3

<p>To take the examination for registration before the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) you must have a scientific background as described in the cite in Ariesathena's post. A graduate degree is not required, but you must either have an undergraduate degree in the sciences listed, or a combination of courses as also listed there. The USPTO requirements are set in tems of "scientific and technical training equivalent to a Bachelor's degree" in one of the listed science or engineering subjects. If you don't have that specific set of college credits, you could petition the USPTO to accept what you do have, but unless it's very close to what they require, the chances are not that great that they will accept your courses.</p>

<p>The USPTO requiremetns are set in terms of semester hours. I did not check the number of semester hours for the courses listed for the alternative chemistry major, so you should do that. It seems to me that the minimum requirements for that alternative major fall a little short of the USPTO requirements, so that you may have to take one or two courses over the minimum to meet their requirements, which is about the same as a regular chemistry major, perhaps minus indiviudual research - or take courses in other sciences. You should check with Cornell, but I am dubious that taking the miniumum requirements for this alternative major while double majoring in economics would meet the USPTO requirements.</p>

<p>In answer to your other question, while a graduate degree is not required for admission to take the USPTO exam, in certain fields of technology a graduate degree is considered desirable to practice patent law - particularly in biotech fields. In straight chemistry, many new patent lawyers also have advanced degrees. So if you really want to become a patent lawyer, you may have to take more than the minimum number of courses or more than just the basic degree to be in a position to compete for the better opportunities.</p>

4

<p>I don't know if the person who says that patent law doesn't require an advanced degree in science has actually tried looking for a patent law job with just an undergraduate degree in science recently. </p>

<p>To put it bluntly, the competition is fierce. There are a lot of Ph.D's out there trying to get into patent law and even people with Master's are having a really tough time (especially in biology) actually getting jobs. I mean, yes you can take the patent bar, but that isn't all that much. Also, I think the science that patent lawyers are dealing with is getting more and more complex every day and you actually NEED the material you learn in graduate school. </p>

<p>In chemistry, I'd be especially suspicious about an undergraduate program in the sciences which doesn't prepare one for graduate school. There is a certain fluency required in science and science-culture that isn't taught at the undergraduate level and might be especially lacking in a program that bills itself as not preparing one for graduate school. When I advise undergrads, I always tell them that if they want to go into (biotech) Patent law they definately need the graduate degree to be competitive in the market place. I mean - if you really want to go straight to law school- go straight to law school but just don't expect to get a patent law job out of it. Keep in mind that the clients have a higher comfort level working with Ph.D. level attorney-scientists and in the end patent law is a customer service industry. </p>

<p>The good thing is that after you get your Ph.D. in science, you can (at least now-maybe not so much as the market gets more and more saturated) go to work for a law firm as Technical Specialist/Patent Agent and get trained as they pay you to go to law school.</p>

5

<p>You also might want to check out the greedy associates boards (especially greedy IP) and do a search for ph.D. and see what the people actually practicing have to say about the issue if there is still any doubt. Here is one link on the topic: <a href="http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002cwW%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002cwW&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

6

<p>I agree with Rigel in general about advanced degrees. In biotech, a master's is the least you should have, although in engineering a bachelor's degree often would be acceptable - however, patent law has become a highly desirable field of practice, with the result that, even in engineering, there are many folks with advanced degrees applying for positions.</p>

<p>Law firms difffer on the matter of paying technical specialists to go to law school. Some actually aim at that; others don't find it so desirable. (Yes, this could be considered short-sighted, but it's a fact nevertheless.) Most if not all, however, will support a technical specialist taking the USPTO examination and becoming a patent agent, and pay for the review course and exam fees.</p>

7

<p>I think that two things need to be pointed out.</p>

<p>It is obviously true that PhD's will be favored over master's degree holders when you're talking about patent law. That's just simple common sense. However, a point that needs to be stressed is that not everybody has the werewithal to get a PhD. In fact, very few people have what it takes to get a PhD. Just because you want one doesn't mean you're going to be able to get one.</p>

<p>In order to get a PhD, not only do you have to get admitted to a PhD program (which is not trivial by any means), but you also have to complete the PHD process, which means passing your quals, and completing your research thesis. Even at the best science schools like MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard, etc. a significant percentage of incoming PhD students will never complete their PhD, either because they couldn't pass their quals or (more likely) because they run into a roadblock in their research that they can't surmount. When we're talking about schools of that caliber, we're talking about some of the best doctoral candidates in the world who nevertheless are still unable to complete their doctorates. </p>

<p>A PhD is not just something that everybody can get just "like that". . It takes a certain mentality and a certain level of inborn talent in order to get a PhD, and if you don't have it, you don't have it. Talking to many PhD candidates, both successful and unsuccessful, I gather that the PhD process is one of the loneliest and mentally difficult things one can ever do. It's not just about brainpower. It's not just about hard work. It's also about who has the mental stamina to stick with it when times are difficult. The fact is, a lot of people, even the ones who've shown the ability to get into the best PhD programs in the world, don't have what it takes. </p>

<p>Anyway, the basic point that I want to convey is that you can't treat a PhD as just a checkbox you need to complete in order to become a patent lawyer. A PhD is a major major undertaking unto itself, and success is not assured by any means. Plenty of the best science students in the world try to complete their doctorates and are unsuccessful. I hope nobody plans to treat the PhD glibly.</p>

<p>The second thing I would say is something I've been saying for awhile, which is that in order to become a patent lawyer, you have to first get into law school, and the fact is, law school adcoms are extremely grade-focused. Furthermore, science courses tend to be graded harder and require more work than non-science courses do. Go ask ariesathena about this. </p>

<p>The upshot is that by taking undergraduate science coursework, you may be hurting your chances of getting admitted into law school, such that you end up going to a worse law school than you would have otherwise, or (even worse), find that you can't get admitted into any law school at all. You have to be aware that that's the tradeoff you're making - to make yourself more marketable as a patent lawyer later on, you may be forgoing your chances of getting into a better law school (or even any law school). Whether that's worth it or not is up to you, but you have to be aware that that's the tradeoff you're making.</p>

8

<p>The problem I see when reading this is basically how to stand out as a classics major (which is highly appealing to me). I know it would be comparatively easy (with respect to math/sci) to get good grades. If law school admissions is so stats oriented and you have say 3.9+ in classics, LSAT in 25-75 for the school, maybe write a research paper or two, what else is there to do? It does not seem that volunteer work is as important to law school admissions as ug's, so its still mysterious to me as the best plan to take to receive strong educational foundation and, sadly, look appealing to law schools. </p>

<p>Back on topic, in regards to sakky's post, the treatment of a PhD (not by sakky) is taken much too lightly. A PhD is a ridiculous commitment to a very small area of research. From people I have known, a PhD takes around 5 years, plus 3 years JD and your undergrad. I personally think people look at these labels and treat them as that, but really have no idea the work and the daily life involved with becoming these people that have earned these degrees. </p>

<p>I am sorry and am not trying to stir up trouble, but statements like "There are a lot of Ph.D's out there trying to get into patent law..." and "then can we say that patent law does <em>not</em> require a M.S. or Ph.D. to practice" devalue the degree because of their blatant ignorance. Even a cursory look at law schools can show that there are not "a lot" of PhD's to get into patent law. In fact they are a very small percentage. Even for law professors, a PhD is a clear minority. The majority of PhD's are not trying to get into law in general, and particularly not a specific field of law (even though that would be an understandable choice for them). Again, a glance at the law practice would easily be sufficent to show you that patent law obviously does not require a masters or PhD. I know you guys aren't trolling, but there seems to be a huge gap here that in my opinion is caused by people being too dependent on CC and reluctant to take a look for themselves.</p>

9

<p>"f law school admissions is so stats oriented and you have say 3.9+ in classics, LSAT in 25-75 for the school, maybe write a research paper or two, what else is there to do?"</p>

<p>That's about it. So very few people have 3.9s from very good schools that the grades alone would make you stand out. There are the engineers, who usually get horrible grades (a 3.4 would have put you in the top 10% of my class, but the same GPA in liberal arts is around the 50th percentile); those who had rough semesters; people who just didn't apply themselves; and those who go to schools which do grade deflation. Unlike in high school, smart, hard-working people can get lousy grades.</p>

<p>Beyond that, it's not really easy to get a uber-high LSAT score, which is all based on percentiles. Think of all the people you know who took the SAT and got an 800 or a 1000. Those people aren't taking the LSAT. Now think of all of those people who got an 1100 and didn't finish college. Think of all the people who got 1300s and decided that three more years of school isn't going to happen. Basically, you have the more intelligent and highly motivated people taking the LSAT. The bottom 25th percentile for the top schools is around the 98th percentile for the LSAT. Median LSAT for the top 25 or so schools is around a 165.</p>

<p>End result is the combination of very high grades and an excellent LSAT puts you in the running for most any law school in the country.</p>

<p>So, beyond that?? I would say that summer jobs, internships, or projects are good, so that the empty space on your resume isn't large enough to hunt buffalo on; a few school activities, so you have something to write about for your essay (and that whole "enjoying your undergraduate experience" thing is really underrated); and something to make you stand out a bit. That could be geographical (I know someone who swears she got into a top 10 only because "they needed someone from Kentucky"), your undergrad school (H, Y, and the rest are good bets), and good recommendations.</p>

10

<p>Sreis: My comments about the number of Ph.D.s who are trying to get into patent law, or the types of degrees of those who are trying to get inot patent law are not based on a review - cursory or otherwise - of students in or applying to law schools but on a review of resumes of law students applying for positions at our patent law firm. Whatever your opinions may be about Ph.D. degrees, and despite the fact that only a Bachelor's degree or the equivalent is required for admission to the patent bar, the fact is that most resumes that I get to see (that is, that are passed by our initial screen) are of students with at least a Master's degree - with the main exceptions being in electrical or mechanical engineering or physics.</p>

<p>Students with a Bachelor's degree in biology generally do not have a broad enough background to handle patent applications in a biotech field (there are some exceptions, depending on the specific program). Students with a bachelor's degree in chemistry have enough exposure to the science to be able to handle patent applications in certain fields, but we often are able to choose among students with advanced degrees in chemistry, which make them more widely useful in different technologies.</p>

<p>But, as you say, feel free to look for yourself.</p>

11

<p>I have heard on numerous occasions that Yale and Stanford is not as numbers-oriented with respect to competing institutions. I do not know how sound this claim is, but I am certain that the undergraduate institution factors in decision-making. In the recent bulletin, there was a noticeable disparity in the amounts of students admitted from Yale, Harvard, and so forth, and the number of students admitted from schools that are in neither the Top 10 nor the Ivy-League.</p>

12

<p>Thanks for posting in this thread, everyone.</p>

<p>ariesathena: I'm sending you a PM with an off-topic question about your Classics major.</p>

13

<p>Got it, just responded.</p>

14

<p>If I am getting a BS degree in Aerospace Engineering, do I need to get a Masters and also how are the job prospects based on the response for my degree with patent law?</p>

15

<p>docbrain: the USPTO currently does not list "aerospace engineering" as an acceptable degree, so (unless your major is aeronautical engineering) you may have to qualify for the exam under one of the other bases; see <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dc.../grb17feb05.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dc.../grb17feb05.pdf&lt;/a> for more information.</p>

<p>Whether you will need a master's degree in that field to be competitive for a position as a new patent attorney would depend on the courses that you took. If there is a strong basic engineering component, maybe not, but a master's couldn't hurt, either. In any case, your propsects for employment would be helped if you did not look for a position only in the aerospace field but showed that you had versatility.</p>

16

<p>Cornell University BLOWS. I would know. Luckily, you're in ARTS AND CRAFTS, unlike me, who took the challenge and jumped into materials science engineering with electrical engineering on the side. </p>

<p>If I were you, I would switch out of Cornell immediately b/c the school SUCKS, the weather BLOWS, and the girls are butt-ass-ugly.</p>

<p>No offense, but having paid $160,000+ for Cornell, I would have much rather gone to another school.</p>

<p>Anyways, to the point, Patent law really doesn't require any specific background. It surely helps when people wish to patent something in regards to your field, such as a bionanotech device that I would have experience with in the past. Otherwise, it really doesn't matter much. Go with any major you want...</p>