- Law School Hiring: This year has been dismal for law student hiring. There are many 2Ls and 3Ls who are hopeful patent attorneys, but do not have jobs lined up yet or even serious prospects. In past years, those students would have been already snapped up by the big players. Contact me (dcrouch@patentlyo.com) if you are interested in looking at some Mizzou
law resumes. - Crocs: Helping keep the streets free of ugly shoes (as well as microscopic fungi), Sketchers has agreed to stop selling its molded footwear. Crocs had sued for design patent and trade dress infringement. Crocs, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No: 1:08-cv-01450-RPM (D. Co 2008).
-
Wall Street Journal Patent News:
- Medicis Pharmaceuticals (NYSE) climbed 2.26, or 20%, to 13.38, as the Scottsdale, Ariz., skin-products maker agreed to settle a yearlong patent dispute with Impax Laboratories over a generic version of Medicis’ acne drug Solodyn.
- Falling 7.67, or 46%, to 8.95, Tessera Technologies, a San Jose, Calif., company specializing in semiconductor packaging, was handed a setback when an International Trade Commission judge said six big chip makers didn’t infringe its patents.
- Future of the PTO: On December 11, 2008 in DC, Chris Katopis will moderate an historic panel of former PTO Leaders: Dickinson, Lehman, Mossinghoff, and Godici. Free Live or via Telephone. Details, RSVP, and call-in info from TLiszka@comptia.org.
- Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal’s 25th Annual Symposium: January 30, 2009 in San Jose. I will be presenting some ideas on attorney ethics and inequitable conduct. Other topics include developments in non-practicing entity patent litigation and litigation before the ITC.
law resumes. 
The competition among mega firms to gobble up the largest number of the best and brightest has slowed considerably. Both new and experienced job seekers would do well to consider joining a small, focused patent law firm.
“Many of today’s don’t want to work even 1700 billable hours”
Wait, patent prosecutors who bill 1700 hours a year? Writing patents and claims? I don’t believe it. Nobody can think that hard that many hours a day.
‘Course, I basically work for myself . . .
“Actually $70K is considerably less than what a primary examiner at the PTO earns.”
I wouldn’t be suprised if garbage collectors in San Francisco or Boston earn more than $70K/yr. But I did say “the bare minimum”.
I will also repeat that your background remains highly desirable and I would expect that you’d have little difficulty finding a job in today’s market. The trick is turning that job into the best job for YOU. Even though you’ve offended me with that snark wisecrack, I’d still be pleased to see a resume like yours fall across my desk. Before your interview, I’d recommend some plastic surgery to remove any facial tattoos.
link to abajournal.com
Law Grad with LLM Lands Just One Job Interview from 300 Resumés
Mooney-
Amazingly, a non-snarky comment from you. I appreciate the candor. I’m well aware of the sucky-ness of the high-billable jobs as a family member is a litigator (not patent law).
Actually $70K is considerably less than what a primary examiner at the PTO earns.
Hecky’s: It’s the sauce!
“I have degrees in both ME and Physics. I don’t have a hand in this dispute, just reporting what I see. I do think that MEs offer the most as far as technical proficiency across a large spectrum of possible art groups. For a boutique firm operating in a midsized city, I think MEs are the best way for a firm to go.”
I’ve always thought Electricals were a better choice, being an EE myself. 😉
In truth, I don’t think it matters. A smart EE or ME with a solid background should be able to understand and draft most electrical or mechanical application with a little study. I think that being able to quickly learn new areas of science and engineering is a VERY important skill for any patent attorney.
God knows, I have drastically expanded my science and engineering knowledge beyond what I learned in school as a result of working as a patent attorney.
Mooney-
Amazingly, a non-snarky comment from you. I appreciate the candor. I’m well aware of the sucky-ness of the high-billable jobs as a family member is a litigator (not patent law).
Actually $70K is considerably less than what a primary examiner at the PTO earns.
Hecky’s: It’s the sauce!
ME isn’t all gears and pulleys, ya know. There’s thermo, heat transfer, fluid dynamics, control systems, materials, optics, programming, plus a reasonable grounding in electrical.
For every ME that can handle almost any non-chemical art, there’s an EE who butchers the most basic gear and pulley app.
“- How many hours (billable or total) would an agent be expected to work?
– What kind of salary would an agent expect/ be able to command.”
The emerging paradigm is individualized treatment. Your background sounds very useful in both litigation support and prosecution contexts.
The big question is: what do YOU want out of this? Your pay will depend on YOUR requirements to a large extent. At a bare minimum, I wouldn’t settle for less than 70K+ benefits in exchange for a 1600 billable requirement if you’re working in a place where the cost of living is high. But beware of that hours requirement because the higher it gets, the exponentially more sucky the job gets. Your best bet is to try contacting agents with your background who are already employed at the places you are working and just ask them for their salary and hours requirements.
“I don’t know if I agree, bleedingpen. My background is ME, and even if I did not have extensive experience preparing and prosecuting electrical applications, I would say an ME generally knows much more about electrical engineering than a physics major does. Not as much as a true EE, of course, but more than an undergraduate physicist.”
Well I didn’t say it was true. I just said I felt like employers believed it. Certainly if you go through the job postings, they tend to read looking for “Computer Science, EE, and/or Physics” not “Computer Science, EE, and/or ME.”
I have degrees in both ME and Physics. I don’t have a hand in this dispute, just reporting what I see. I do think that MEs offer the most as far as technical proficiency across a large spectrum of possible art groups. For a boutique firm operating in a midsized city, I think MEs are the best way for a firm to go.
“I don’t know if I agree, bleedingpen. My background is ME, and even if I did not have extensive experience preparing and prosecuting electrical applications, I would say an ME generally knows much more about electrical engineering than a physics major does. Not as much as a true EE, of course, but more than an undergraduate physicist.”
My technical background was physics and EE. You’re probably correct about the relationship (e.g., there’s a lot of overlap between EE and ME when it comes to control theory). However, I suspect really top-level physicists are regarded as more intelligent than practically anybody else. I know they were smarter than I was.
Since the topic of workloads and salaries for prosecuting attorneys has come up, I’m wondering if the peanut gallery can provide any answers to the following:
– How many hours (billable or total) would an agent be expected to work?
– What kind of salary would an agent expect/ be able to command.
The agent would be someone who leaves the PTO as a primary examiner, Ph.D. in biology from a research university, 5+ years at the office. Lots of experience in patent law (from the PTO only), considered a good writer by peers, no interest whatsoever in attending law school.
I realize that salary depends in large part on location, so let’s narrow it down to cities of over 500,000 on a coast (DC, LA, SF, Boston, you get the idea), and not in NYC because I realize that is a different animal in terms of both salary and amount of work expected (3000 billable annually, anyone?).
Just curious. No, I’m not looking for a job now but I also don’t think I’ll be at the PTO forever. Just wondering what my options might be.
“A method for walking with increased comfort, comprising
1) wearing the novel shoe of figure A, wherein the shoe comprises a pebble; and
2) pretending really hard that the pebble isn’t there, wherein said pretending results in increased comfort.
Assuming the shoe is novel, is this patentable under 101? It’s not any stupider than a lot of issued claims out there now.”
Just to go along with the joke, isn’t 2) barred by the “mental steps” doctrine of Benson?
Gentlemen (and ladies?)
Re pebble free crocs: I am humbled by the outpouring of your creativity. I now know the true meaning of the words “shock and awe”.
I don’t know if I agree, bleedingpen. My background is ME, and even if I did not have extensive experience preparing and prosecuting electrical applications, I would say an ME generally knows much more about electrical engineering than a physics major does. Not as much as a true EE, of course, but more than an undergraduate physicist.
John:
I think I heard that right before posting my first comment. I think the counsel for GSK is very good.
“So far, a quarter of the way through, the court does not seem convinced of the Patent Office’s position.”
Well, it doesn’t get any better for the PTO no matter how long you listen.
Let us know at what point J. Rader asks Mr. Toupin if he would ever file an ESD, and when Mr. Toupin says yes, J. Rader informs him that no client would ever hire him. It will be followed by uproarious laughter from the court room.
“I also think employability will depend more on what your science/engineering major than necessarily the law school you came from unless that law school has a significant IP program (mine didn’t have an IP institute when I graduated although it does now). I would expect those with molecular biology, genetics, and similar high end biotech degrees (including PhDs) to do fine, along with EE, computer science, and possibly physics (these also tend to be scarcer in supply). I think those with ME backgrounds, plain biology, etc., may have more difficulty, but if you’ve got other “real world” work experience (e.g., worked in a lab, etc.), that should help.”
I think that is absolutely correct. ME’s are a dime a dozen, and life science people without advanced degrees don’t have a large range of technologies that they can work on.
You mentioned Physics as being in scarce supply. That is true, but I think it is important to note that many employers see Physicists as capable of doing some electrical and mechanical work. Employers are more than willing to hire a physicist due to the severe shortfall of EEs.
The truth is that for patent pros, your technical understanding is much more valuable than any baloney that you might learn in law school. I have seen kids with good grades from tier 1 schools that couldn’t pop the hood on their own car if they had to. Those kids are downright worthless in patent pros.
Listening to the audio, it seems clear the court is sympathetic to GSK’s position, and the Patent Office is set up for another loss.
The audio is available for the Tafas case. link to oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov
So far, a quarter of the way through, the court does not seem convinced of the Patent Office’s position.
A method for walking with increased comfort, comprising
1) wearing the novel shoe of figure A, wherein the shoe comprises a pebble; and
2) pretending really hard that the pebble isn’t there, wherein said pretending results in increased comfort.
Assuming the shoe is novel, is this patentable under 101? It’s not any stupider than a lot of issued claims out there now.
Transform the aforementioned pebble into energy. Since energy is not a part of the physical universe, there is no need for any mesh and I don’t have to deal with the “ugly” effect that mesh would have on my fine, lime-green crocs.
“Just be sure to select the mesh from a non-analogous art.”
lol … indeed
link to patentlyo.com
Sorry Malcolm,
I was “first to invent” Croc mesh:
link to patentlyo.com
“If anyone has any ideas on how to solve Crocs’ problem of “pebble pickup” let me know. I’d be honored to handle the patent application.”
Another solution would be to manufacture the interior part of the sole so that it contained pebble size depressions that are flexible and made of a material capable of holding the pebbles in place, below the plane of the surface of the interior sole. The pebbles would fall into the depressions and could later be removed by the user simply be inverting the shoe and flexing it so that the depressions release the pebbles.
Put all that crap in a claim and I bet it sails through. But it’s totally obvious. In any event, I dedicate the concept to the public. You’re welcome.
IP Work Hasn’t Slowed with Economy, Law Firms Hiring:
link to blog.aefeldman.com
“If anyone has any ideas on how to solve Crocs’ problem of “pebble pickup” let me know. I’d be honored to handle the patent application.”
How about some really fine mesh?
Just be sure to select the mesh from a non-analogous art.
Then it won’t be obvious.
“Guys guys, I had to miss the arguments today, we had a meeting this morning I had to go to instead. Let us know how that went. Maybe they’ll have an audio of it.”
It would truly be shocking if the PTO prevailed.
“This year has been dismal for law student hiring. There are many 2Ls and 3Ls who are hopeful patent attorneys, but do not have jobs lined up yet or even serious prospects.”
The suggestion by NM about initially considering starting as an Examiner for a few years isn’t a bad one. That will at least get you to the necessary work experience level.
That many firms are looking for a minimum of 2 years of experience in the IP world is nothing new. Law firms generally aren’t interested in training new attorneys, especially those who get starting salaries of say $100k or above. (I also agree with the comment just above that many attorneys just coming out of law school now have a sense of “entitlement” which they need to lose if they want to get jobs in the current economic climate.)
Most “head hunters” (that’s what we called them when I started out) would come after you when you had at least 1.5 years under your belt. In fact, you almost had to beat them off with a stick.
Another possibility is to consider going into a corporate IP department (that’s what I did), especially if you’re interested in prep and pros. Corporate IP departments are generally much more interested in training new attorneys (although some of the smaller corporate IP departments will still look for 1-2 years experience).
I also think employability will depend more on what your science/engineering major than necessarily the law school you came from unless that law school has a significant IP program (mine didn’t have an IP institute when I graduated although it does now). I would expect those with molecular biology, genetics, and similar high end biotech degrees (including PhDs) to do fine, along with EE, computer science, and possibly physics (these also tend to be scarcer in supply). I think those with ME backgrounds, plain biology, etc., may have more difficulty, but if you’ve got other “real world” work experience (e.g., worked in a lab, etc.), that should help.
My 2 cents for what it’s worth.
“Today’s students don’t want to work as hard as those from even 10 years ago”
Perhaps that’s due to the change in minimum billable hour requirement?
In 1958 the ABA recommended 1300 annual hours worked.
In 2001 the ABA recommended 2300 annual hours worked (1900 billable).
link to lawpeopleblog.com
“Many of today’s don’t want to work even 1700 billable hours”
That’s wise thinking.
1700 billable hours of litigation for a well-heeled client would not be bad at all. A minimum of 1700 billable hours of patent prosecution, well, that pretty much ensures a couple months (cumulatively) of stress and depression. Yes, I know that “you get used to it” and after a while working 6 or 7 days a week seems “normal.”
“Ultimately the only solution may be for these students to start their own firms where they can work 900 hours, write apps for $2000, somehow find secretaries willing to work for $30K.”
When you no longer are expected to bill 1700 hours of patent prosecution, the need for a secretary is greatly diminished. Secretaries are needed to handle large volumes of mail and other projects. Nobody who can type needs a secretary to help them bill 900 hours a year.
BigGuy: Don’t insult me – I went to a fourth tier law school =D
“P.S. If anyone has any ideas on how to solve Crocs’ problem of “pebble pickup” let me know. I’d be honored to handle the patent application.”
Install a laser on each shoe and program it to vaporize any pebble within a 10 yard radius.
I would also make Crocs out of flavored soy resin, so you could eat them after they wear out, thereby making them 100% environmentally friendly. This could be a continuation-in-part or something.
“This year has been dismal for law student hiring. There are many 2Ls and 3Ls who are hopeful patent attorneys, but do not have jobs lined up yet or even serious prospects.”
I’m a name partner in a midsize California IP boutique. In our experience, an additional explanation is that the work ethic of new patent attorneys has changed. Today’s students don’t want to work as hard as those from even 10 years ago – or at least there are fewer who do. Many of today’s don’t want to work even 1700 billable hours, and their first questions in interviews relate to benefits, “work-life balance,” how firm the billable hour requirement is, etc. Our response: become more selective.
Ultimately the only solution may be for these students to start their own firms where they can work 900 hours, write apps for $2000, somehow find secretaries willing to work for $30K. Something has to give.
Guys guys, I had to miss the arguments today, we had a meeting this morning I had to go to instead. Let us know how that went. Maybe they’ll have an audio of it.
In my law school, if you paid attention in class you would have heard somebody say something about “relevancy,” a measure of the degree to which a piece of evidence makes a hypothesis more or less likely to be true. Not a hard concept – most people knew this definition already before ever thinking about applying to law school. Standing alone, the statement “When I graduated from my highly ranked law school two years ago, many 3L’s didn’t have job offers in December” is irrelevant to whether hiring is down this year *compared* to two years ago. Of course, if the hypothesis you were testing pertained to the size of your ego rather than year-to-year trends in law student hiring, your statement was relevant.
“I would never hire or want to work with somebody with that arrogant attitude, regardless of how my school ‘ranked’ compared to his or hers.”
Spoken like somebody from a 2nd-tier law school.
Lighten up. No offense.
“Why only consider resumes from Mizzou law? What about other law schools.
I guess this is some new form of nepotism in the 21st century.”
Maybe because those are in the resume stack that DC has access to?
Does anyone know what “Document Verification” means in the “transaction history” pane on PAIR? I used to interpret it as a precursor to a Notice of Allowance, but I just got a final rejection after it in a case. Could it be the second pair of eyes review?
“my school’s better than your school” – I would never hire or want to work with somebody with that arrogant attitude, regardless of how my school “ranked” compared to his or hers. “No offense.”
Dear Mark Nowotarski,
Re: “P.S. If anyone has any ideas on how to solve Crocs’ problem of “pebble pickup” let me know. I’d be honored to handle the patent application.”
Yes, I do. I’ll split the proceeds of any possible revenues from my “Pebble Pickup Prevention” for Crocs et al. invention if you write and process the patent application and market the invention no charge.
Mold a mesh into the Croc’s holes (i.e., openings, but, of course, not the foot openings). Let’s call it a Croc’s “Chastity Belt” (©¿®).
Mark: I can picture the application: “The holes 12 of the shoes 10 are smaller, leading to unexpected result of advantageously reducing the amount of pebble pickup, a long-felt need.”
Dear Mark Nowotarski,
“[E]ngineering marvel” or not, those “shoes” are ugly-ugly, and they will put cobblers out of work. And they won’t biodegrade forever, or at least a long, long time. Yuck.
“This may be a good time for budding patent attorneys (especially EEs) to look into a 2-year stint at the PTO.”
As long as they stay away from 6k…
P.P.S.
That goes for TEVAs too.
P.S. If anyone has any ideas on how to solve Crocs’ problem of “pebble pickup” let me know. I’d be honored to handle the patent application.
Hey Dennis,
Don’t you know that Crocs are the shoe of the future? They probably have the lowest carbon footprint (to say nothing of manufacturing cost) of any know footwear. To me, they are an engineering marvel.
Send them to Asia! See link to nytimes.com.
Why only consider resumes from Mizzou law? What about other law schools.
I guess this is some new form of nepotism in the 21st century.
It’s a tough job market, but IP is a much better place to be than other areas of the law:
link to money.cnn.com
“This year has been dismal for law student hiring. There are many 2Ls and 3Ls who are hopeful patent attorneys, but do not have jobs lined up yet or even serious prospects.”
Isn’t it a little early to start hyperstressing about job prospects at this point? When I graduated LS a couple of years ago (from a considerably higher ranked school than Missouri, no offense), many of my classmates did not have any solid job leads December before graduation, including those near the top of our class. The “golden days” of patent law when someone could get multiple job offers with only mediocre grades from a crap law school and a civil engineering degree are LONG gone. It’s simply a matter of supply and demand – too much supply and too little demand.
The “Future of the PTO” panel discussion sounds very interesting.
“I guess the managing partners have their reasons, though.”
Heh.
This may be a good time for budding patent attorneys (especially EEs) to look into a 2-year stint at the PTO.
I’m surprised that firms have cut hiring rather than cutting starting salaries. I don’t know any jobless law students that would turn down a law firm job at, say, 25% under the market rate. Depending on debt load, some would probably take 50% under. Beggars can’t be choosers.
Given the first year associate salary arms race that went on over the past decade or so, even reduced salaries would still be pretty high. For example, even on Manhattan’s Upper East Side a 40% reduction in salary from $160k to $96k would still put first year associates above the median income.
I guess the managing partners have their reasons, though.
Lowly — I think that the difference is between folks with experience and new law school grads. If you look at the Patently-O Job Board, for instance, every single job posting asks for at least two years (and often more) experience.
Patent attorneys are having problems finding work? I am constantly hounded by recruiters.
Comments are closed.