Calling New Patent Law Professors

by Dennis Crouch

Every year, law schools advertise open faculty positions via a Faculty Appointments Register sponsored by the American Association of Law Schools (AALS).  This year’s list was just released, and lots of schools are looking to hire patent and IP professors. The list includes:

Akron, American University, Barry University, Baylor, Chicago-Kent, Drake, Duquesne, Florida A&M, GWU, Hawaii, Louisville, New England, New York Law School, Northern Kentucky, Oklahoma, Ole’ Miss, Seattle, Stetson, Suffolk, Suffolk, Texas Tech, U Florida, U Mass, UC Davis, UC LA, UIC (Chicago), UNH (Franklin Pierce), USC, & U San Francisco.

Note that top ranked law schools rarely advertise for particular subject matter areas.  For the most part, new tenure-track law professors will have already published law review articles and have some sort of teaching experience.  A number of schools though are also considering clinical and administrative positions that would have different expectations.  The hiring process is a bit cumbersome at most schools because the faculty as a whole typically vote on whether to extend an offer.  At Mizzou, we begin the recruitment process in late August and then usually vote in early December.  The new hire then starts work the following summer.  We’re not hiring in IP this year, but are looking to hire several candidates folks — primarily focusing on the areas of Criminal Law/Procedure; Evidence; Constitutional Law courses (including First Amendment); Contracts; Dispute Resolution; and Veterans benefits (clinic).

29 thoughts on “Calling New Patent Law Professors

  1. 6

    Are any of these jobs open to light-skinned men who only have sex with women?

    Are they only open to people who accept the tenets of “divisiveness, intolerance and exclusion” (DIE)?

  2. 5

    And speaking of “Academia,” happy anniversary to the “dead space of Ethics” on this blog — it has been exactly one year since we have seen a post in the “Meta-lands” of the Ethics side of this blog.

      1. 5.1.1

        Me too – when it occurred.

        Sadly, actual application of legal ethics just did not appear to be a desired part of “The Narrative.”

  3. 4

    Question for Prof. Crouch: I have an LLM in IP law, experience as a patent examiner and as corporate counsel, JD, law license, etc. but I feel I need to pass the patent bar exam first before applying for the highly competitive job of IP law professor. Am I wrong in thinking I need the reg number first or is the demand for IP law profs that great right now?

    1. 4.1

      Wow – so much “schooling” and so little practical knowledge (judging from your past ‘contributions’).

      You would fit right in with the academic world Jr.

      1. 4.1.1

        Anon, your commentary is irrelevant as usual because you troll everyone on the Patently-O blog to the general annoyance of the IP community. The empty can rattles the most. I hope Prof. Crouch bans you from future posting since you do not generally contribute any meaningful information pertaining to the subjects of Prof. Crouch’s articles. Please stay on point to stay relevant.



          Clearly you have not been paying attention, and likely confuse your bruised feelings with some sense of veracity on the issues.

          Newsflash: your feelings mean squat.

          Yes, the real world can be harsh, so Academia is definitely for you.

    2. 4.2

      Do you have the technical background to qualify for sitting for the patent bar exam?

      1. 4.2.1

        Yep, I have hardcore engineering undergrad (BSME) and a Masters in Engineering in addition to all the law degrees. I should be able to sit for the patent bar without any issues due to my technical background and education. (Worked for the US Army and DOE on special projects as a “contractor” but the cold war is now over. Oh wait, is it back on again?)

    3. 4.3

      I would think the LLM [advanced law degree] in IP law would be of more benefit for teaching patent law than passing the PTO agents and attorneys exam, since internal PTO practice details are not part of most law school patent law courses. But lack of patent litigation practice in a law firm might be a hindrance?

      1. 4.3.1

        Thank you for the input. Some law schools like having IP Law profs run “incubation centers” which require the reg number. The incubation centers help students get real world experience working with inventors and writing apps. I got tangentially involved with litigation as corporate counsel. I have the basics for patent litigation but I am no expert.


          Since you mentioned some law schools writing patent applications in “incubation centers,” I will add concern about anyone acting as any kind of agent for inventors on any legal matter without adequate malpractice insurance, not just signatures on PTO correspondence, unless the inventors have assigned all rights in advance to the law school.


            Paul, your reply sounds a bit confused.

            The incubators that I have provided pro bono services to offer their own malpractice coverage shield for volunteers and students, and never have requested assignments from inventors as a consideration.


          One obviously important factor we have not discussed re law school faculty hiring in general is of course what law schools the candidate got their JD and LLM from and those schools relative prestige ratings in the personal views, and locations, of the hiring school faculty.


            It is just not all that clear why such would be “obviously important,”…

            …. unless of course your aim is the repetition of dogma, and how well the thought control bubble can be maintained.

            By the way, that is a horrible metric for teaching the next generation actual attorneys. Especially mere litigators who lack Real World experience.

    1. 3.1

      By ALL means, visit the link provided by Greg “I Use My Real Name” DeLassus, read the title and the very short blurb, and immediately recognize that this does NOT support his ongoing mantra vis a vis actual business start-ups and the dangerous slide of innovation protection.

    2. 3.2

      No one seems to be making much use of the comments section on this thread, so I will continue my off topic musing.

      In chemistry, we speak of a “rate limiting” factor. If you are trying to hydrogenate an aliphatic oil, you need oil, and hydrogen, and a palladium catalyst, and heat. Imagine that you have three moles of aliphatic oil, but only one mole of hydrogen. Even though oil is necessary to the reaction, adding more oil to this reaction will not change the reaction kinetics, because there is already more oil in the system than it can use. Oil is not—in other words—the “rate limiting” factor.

      Patents are a necessary part of the innovation ecosystem p, but they are not the only part. One also needs geniuses, and capital, and freedom, etc. Are the data telling us that patents are not the rate-limiting factor in the current innovation ecosystem?

      We like to tell ourselves that recent changes to the patent laws will have detrimental effects on innovation, but these changes have had a decade or more to work their effects by now, and it is hard to point to any tangible evidence of decline in innovation. Does that not suggest that patents are not (and have not recently been) the rate-limiting factor for innovation?

      1. 3.2.1

        Not even wrong Greg.

        Innovation is not like a (linear) chemical reaction.

        Even beyond your not looking at your own link carefully enough, you provide continual indications that you just don’t understand innovation.

        Innovation begets innovation and one should expect non-linear effects.

        And while this non-linear effects are to be expected, the notion of “rate-limiting” may come from other areas (were innovation protection operating at full capacity) – but such would NOT be indicators that the innovation protection measures suffice.

  4. 2

    Off topic, but Law360 is reporting this morning that Arthrex’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied yesterday. Presumably a cert. petition will follow shortly.

  5. 1

    Re this AALS Faculty Appointments Register advertising for patent law professors, isn’t “UNH (Franklin Pierce)” still well known for teaching patent law from the merger with the latter? Who is already on their faculty these days with a national reputation?
    Some of the best patent law professors have been full time patent practice professionals with patent litigation, especially with oral argument experience, teaching part-time as adjunct professors. [In contrast to law schools where a patent law course is taught part time by some young professor having no patent practice experience, and little or no contact or communication with those who do.] Is such adjunct professor hiring no longer acceptable to accredited law schools?

    1. 1.1

      My general impression is that, from the law school’s perspective, the primary job responsibility is to write law review articles. The only make them teach a little to pay the bills.

      1. 1.2.1

        > Academia should never be confused with real world practice

        This is very true today, far more than in the past. In the past, law review articles were routinely cited as persuasive authority in federal decisions for guidance in deciding unsettled legal questions in many areas, such as torts, IP, securities, antitrust, etc. This is because law review articles in the past were intended to be useful and practical; they’d often provide a helpful canvassing of the development and history of a particular area of law, and make logical and practical suggestions for improvement or advancement based on a rigorous analysis. For example, in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the Supreme Court held that an essential inquiry in copyright fair involves whether a work is “transfomative,” which was an analysis that they pulled directly from a 1990 Harvard Law Review article.

        Today, while there are occasional exceptions, law review articles tend to be far more “abstract” and their authors don’t seem at all concerned about an audience that extends beyond the narrow echo chamber audience consisting of other law professors. There’s far less emphasis on pushing the law forward in any practical or meaningful way, which is why it’s far less common, these days, to see any judicial decisions that cite law review articles.


          Academia long ago lost its way, becoming a ce ss p001 of “get ahead by mirroring the controlling ideology” and departing from any actual embrace of (true) critical thinking, with a focus on meritocracy.

Comments are closed.