Tom Field and his co-authors have been kind enough to make their patent practitioner background database available to the public [Download 5mb database]. Their data is based on the registration applications that hopeful patent attorneys & agents submitted to the PTO. Using their data, I created a few interesting charts and tables on the educational background of registered patent law professionals.
As the top chart shows, there is a very wide educational gap between practitioners in the chemical and biological fields and those in the mechincal, electrical, and computer fields. (Here, I included MD, DVM, EdD, and other similar degrees within the PhD category). Overall, 99% of the registration registered practitioners hold a bachelors degree, 29% hold a masters degree, and 15% hold a PhD or equivalent. Although certainly not a dime-a-dozen, patent law professionals with a biological sciences PhD are more likely to have earned that degree at Harvard than at any other school.
The chart below shows the undergraduate degrees received broadly grouped according to area of technology.
Notes:
- The PTO anonymized the information before releasing it.
Contribution Impose,brother strike vital value contact inside jump round popular flower combine on again force agreement face maintain home inside whilst revenue sea argument soil appropriate trend pattern military immediate bloody like prison official labour increased previous sum grant vote particularly form deep army piece practical upon concept collect publication slightly attractive event track strength technique tall add deal summer move our process before myself know top stop late their outcome should world nobody temperature attention wage trend large keep shout heart latter tomorrow worth education mistake
Hello boys 🙂 Cool forum!
“The drop in pay and prestige was inevitable.”
I never thought I’d see the day that broje would see the light. And furthermore espouse it with fervor.
“Here’s a more interesting question: why is it so difficult to find on the Internet biologists who believe that airplanes fly using the power of invisible fairies,”
Well as long as “invisible fairies” can be “air molecules” I don’t think it’d be that hard.
James,
Thanks
Mark
Wrong lesson IANAE – the “right” lesson is that women should try to be successful in the fields that are expected of them. Nothing wrong with a successful woman who knows her place.*
*Of course, this view is not in any way related to the views of this author.
Look at it this way: if women started dominating professional golf, and outperformed the men, then pro golf wouldn’t pay well anymore.
You hear that, women out there? Quit trying to be successful, or you’ll ruin it for us all!
relatively easy to find engineers who think that monkeys, butterflies, and people were created out of thin air 6,000 years ago?
Probably because mechanics is more objective, more intuitive, less uncertain, and easier to grasp than biology. Biology always has as a source of error that your data comes from living organisms that might be having a bad day, or dead organisms you might not be able to find, and people love pointing at small uncertainties or missing bits of evidence as a pretext for dismissing an entire theory.
That might also be why the “6000 years ago” part is the first part most people yield on. That part is physics, and can only really be contradicted by Last-Thursdayism. The “people were created” part is biology, and in biology there’s always an excuse not to believe.
“My explanation for why there are so many biology patent attorneys with PhDs is as follows:
(i) there is a large oversupply of biology PhDs in the world – this is how they get cheap labor of people with IQs over 130 that are dumb enough to work for $20,000 a year;”
No. That’s not it. The reason that chem and bio peeps get no $ and no r-e-s-p-e-c-t is because it is not a male dominated profession. See, bio and chem are enough like cooking and making babies that women who wanted science careers were funneled by academia and the marketplace into those fields. The drop in pay and prestige was inevitable. Look at it this way: if women started dominating professional golf, and outperformed the men, then pro golf wouldn’t pay well anymore.
Malcolm,
Is the perceived interest driven by something that you have inhaled?
You obviously lack a background in engineering, otherwise you would know that engineers are more likely, not less, to scoff at anyone who “think that monkeys, butterflies, and people were created out of thin air 6,000 years ago?”
geesh – guys, try to stick to making comments on things you at least have a tiny level of knowledge on.
>>people were created out of thin
You obviously haven’t read the Bible.
Okay, enough already. Here’s a more interesting question: why is it so difficult to find on the Internet biologists who believe that airplanes fly using the power of invisible fairies, but relatively easy to find engineers who think that monkeys, butterflies, and people were created out of thin air 6,000 years ago?
Why so few CS degrees? – it’s like the bio story, only more recent: PTO would not accept CS degrees as a prerequisite for the exam.
Why PhDs in chem and bio and not engineering? – a couple of reasons I can think of other than jobs. First, there are more PhDs in those fields than there are in engineering, so even at the same proportion going into patent law, you’d see more in the profession. Second, client expectations – an inventor expects to talk to a patent agent/attorney who can understand the normal conversation of the field. If your inventor is a PhD medchem or molecular biologist, he/she is not going to be happy explaining the science to a BS attorney who probably doesn’t have the fluency to understand the shorthand; if your inventor is a BSME, an attorney with the same background is probably fine. If you look at the molecular bio patent attorneys in the early years, they were mostly chemists, now they are molecular biologists. This is not to say that experience can’t substitute for education – IreneGP’s point that the years of lab work have made a difference is a real one; but hiring people tend to look for the paper qualification first.
Ned Heller wrote, “I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone with a bent for biology wouldn’t first become an MD and then specialize in research.” On average, it’s more difficult to get into medical school than into a Ph.D program. Also, med school is grueling; I write as a Ph.D. (chemistry) with a physician husband and daughter in med school. Also, med school costs a lot of money, whereas I believe fellowships and teaching assistantships are often available for Ph.D. biology programs.
Dennis, I do not have a link to the survey. As for why I became a patent agent: I joined my company as a research chemist and worked for about twenty years in various areas of polymer science. Then the company began shifting away from polymer research into biological and there were fewer assignments available in polymers. I had shown some interest in patents and was good with details, so I transferred into the patent group, where I’ve been for the last 9 years (8 as a registered agent). I think my Ph.D. may be less directly useful than my years of lab work, which helps me communicate with the inventors and understand their research.
This is a very interesting observation. What convinced them to modify the criteria?
My guess would be Diamond v. Chakrabarty, and indeed after a little research I found this paper: Burke & Field, Promulgating Requirements for Admission to Prosecute Patent Applications, 35 IDEA 145 (1995) (available at link to ipmall.org)
From the paper: “The Office amends the Bulletin from time to time. Yet, these amendments have not kept pace with many of the contemporary problems facing potential practitioners. For example, one author of this article (Field) recalls that, prior to Chakrabarty, biology was not an accepted degree, and courses in biology were not recognized.”
A quick comment on the table: for us, ahem, mature practitioners– the PTO did not accept biology as a proper degree for qualifying to take the patent bar (at least through the mid-late 80’s)–you had to have enough chem/physics hours. This may skew the underlying statistics a little, with bio types being counted as chem types.
This is a very interesting observation. What convinced them to modify the criteria?
To elaborate on Malcolm’s response to Ned’s question if I may, it would depend upon which part of the drug is being patented, and what type of drug. If it is a NME, or an active ingredient of a drug, then this would be better drafted by a PhD in Chemistry perhaps. The same guy would be called upon if it is a sort of excipient that is meant to be in the formulation along with the active ingredient. Also the formulation itself would be better drafted by a PhD in Chemistry. A protein drug however, or a biotechnology product which would involve patenting a biological process by which the therapeutic came to be would be better drafted by a PhD in Biology.
I think phDAgent makes some valid arguments about why there are so many PhDs in Biology that go into patent law, and the same can be said for other PhDs in the hard sciences. We see few patent lawyers with PhDs in the applied sciences such as pharmaceutical sciences, biotechnology, medicinal chemistry, or other fields that actually generate significant IP that goes onto be commercialized on large scales. There is a scarcity in patent law of people with these background because the people who have these backgrounds are busy being your clients.
With that said, my question is: What is the scope of a patent attorney with a PhD in one of the applied sciences that I mentioned above? Do you think they would be more attractive to clients for their respective industries than say patent attorneys with a PhD in the hard sciences?
“We should focus more on individuals and their capabilities and less on pieces of paper”
Very true. Unfortunately for clients and firms, it’s hard to winnow down the field of potential attorneys without some sort of objective measure. If nothing else PhD is a signal that the person is a hard worker, willing to put in many long hours, and is able to wrap their head around reasonably coplex concepts. Given too that many of the bio/chem inventors will also have a PhD, it is only natural that they assume that someone with a “lesser” degree would not be able to understand their work, and to demand an attorney who they won’t have to spend months training to be a subject matter expert.
Any practising patent attorney worth his or her salt learns to practice in fields which his or her initial speciality does not cover.
Chemists or biochemists are much improved by exposure to the mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and software disciplines. Control theory has implications far beyond engineering. A familiarity with electrical networks and how they operate can provide insights in many other fields. Similarly engineers need to appreciate the importance of the materials that they use and what their properties are. A specification for a liquid crystal cell written by a chemist will typically say much about the liquid crystal material but little about the driving waveforms. A specification written by an electrical engineer will say much about the driving waveform and the electrical properties of the cell, but little about the materials used and their properties. To fully understand the cell, it is necessary to understand both disciplines, and sometimes this detail is needed for enablement. Furthermore, if attorneys do not broaden their technical knowledge beyond their specialised disciplines, they will be incapable of understanding the full range of decisions handed down by the courts and will ipso facto lack full professional comptence.
A UK PhD is research based and is significantly different from a US PhD. In my experience, three years spent on a narrow research topic is not necessarily the best preparation for entry into the patents profession, and there is a risk that over-specialization may result in the individual forgetting much of the general knowledge acquired as part of an undergraduate degree. I have, however, had recent experience of being cross-examined by a fairly newly qualified Japanese attorney with a PhD in chemistry about certain examples in a chemical specification, and with disconcerting rigour and attention to detail, and she had clearly taken much of lasting value from her course both in technical knowledge and in terms of personal development. So perhaps the answer is that a good PhD is worthwhile, but it depends on the individual and his/her supervisor and what the individual can really take from the experience. We should focus more on individuals and their capabilities and less on pieces of paper.
Malcolm, in your opinion, who is better qualified to draft a pharma application: a Phd biology or a Phd chemistry?
Depends, of course.
A quick comment on the table: for us, ahem, mature practitioners– the PTO did not accept biology as a proper degree for qualifying to take the patent bar (at least through the mid-late 80’s)–you had to have enough chem/physics hours. This may skew the underlying statistics a little, with bio types being counted as chem types.
Malcolm, in your opinion, who is better qualified to draft a pharma application: a Phd biology or a Phd chemistry?
Ouch. As an associate attorney with some experience who only has a BS and works in the chem/bio fields, now I can understand why so many of the firms I applied to in law school summarily ignored me. I think I’d ignore myself too now that I know what I’m competing against.
I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone with a bent for biology wouldn’t first become an MD and then specialize in research
Medicine is to biology what carpentry is to physics.
phdAgent, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone with a bent for biology wouldn’t first become an MD and then specialize in research.
As to PhD EE and Physics, these kind of folks make the big bucks outside of academia. Most, if not all, of the top engineering management wherever you look in industry is composed of PhDs. Law is not something most of them would find interesting, and it certainly is true that they do not need to pursue a patent career in order to make money.
“with a BS or Msc in the hard sciences or engineering, there are decent jobs out there, so that only EXTREMELY THICK-HEADED FOLK (like me) are dumb enough to go out and get a PhD in the hard sciences/engineering. Even after the not-so-helpful PhD, job prospects remains fairly good.”
I would consider a PhD tour of duty more of a cruise.
My explanation for why there are so many biology patent attorneys with PhDs is as follows:
(i) there is a large oversupply of biology PhDs in the world – this is how they get cheap labor of people with IQs over 130 that are dumb enough to work for $20,000 a year;
(ii) after getting abused for 7-12 years as a PhD student and a postdoc, people finally get it through their thick head that the biology PhD is one big SCANADAL and that there are no academic positions out there, unlike 30 years ago.
At this point, people wake up and say to themselves “gee, what can I do with my life.”
(iii) at that point, they go into patents because most research science jobs SUCK. Why? Long work hours; no job security; most work in industry is *boring* compared to academia; pay is at best mediocre compared to credentials; by the time you are aged 32+ having made dog-food wages your entire academic (and with no savings), life, you NEED a job that pays better than the $80,000-120,000 that research science pays.
(iv) note – the ONLY crime committed by all of these poor schmucks with PhDs in biology was that at age 22 they wanted to “help the world” and they were “optimistic” that none of the PhD horror stories would apply to them. Now they wake up at age 32 or 35 with no savings, and nothing to do with their lives. I know, they say – let’s go into patents!!!
(v) this repeats itself for a LOT of biology PhDs. Now 70% of the faxed resumes coming into patent law firms for biology positions have the “PhD” degree;
(vi) because of this ‘inflation,’ people with BS or MSc who would make perfectly good (even excellent) biology patent attorneys will never get hired.
IN CONTRAST
with a BS or Msc in the hard sciences or engineering, there are decent jobs out there, so that only EXTREMELY THICK-HEADED FOLK (like me) are dumb enough to go out and get a PhD in the hard sciences/engineering. Even after the not-so-helpful PhD, job prospects remains fairly good.
In general, most PhDs in biology have much better writing skills. In contrast, PhDs in hard sciences have better job opportunities (i.e. other attractive options) and much better job opportunities.
Also, most PhDs in hard sciences are from foreign-born students who barely speak English (a prerequisite for becoming a junior USPTO examiner).
As the top chart shows, there is a very wide educational gap between practitioners in the chemical and biological fields and those in the mechincal, electrical, and computer fields.
I can’t say I’m completely surprised.
The “mechanical, electrical, and computer fields” are pretty heavy in engineering, where a bachelors degree is considered perfectly adequate to go out into the world and start building things, with practical experience providing the rest of the knowledge base. Chemistry and biology tend to be more academic/scientific disciplines, where nothing less than a PhD is respected. It’s probably not a coincidence that these expectations carry over to patent agency, particularly when most clients also share them.
I notice that the “mechanical fields” have more PhDs than the other engineering disciplines. Is it possible to separate out the mechanical pure sciences (e.g. physics) from the mechanical-type engineering disciplines (e.g. mechanical, civil)?
Comments are closed.