Hello,
I am a senior in a Biomedical Engineering program and am considering
pursuing patent law as a career. I've reviewed much of the literature
available online, such as old newsgroup postings and patents.com, but
still have a couple questions to ask.
First, what is your take on the stereotype that patent law is boring? I
love researching, getting up to speed on new technologies, writing, and
logical analysis of arguments. But I don't especially enjoy mindless
filling out of forms, such as doing my taxes. I become bored whenever a
task becomes too easy and routine: I need to be constantly challenged.
Do these characteristics describe a good or bad candidate for patent
law?
Second, is it possible to maintain a quality family life and have a
life outside of work if one is working in patent law, or is it like
some surgical specialties where one must basically marry their career
(high divorce rates, 65- to 90-hour work weeks as the norm, etc.)? I
don't mind working hard (I work 70-hour weeks right now), but not at
the expense of missing out on things like spending quality time with my
family and going fishing on the weekends.
I appreciate your input!
Jeff

Hello,
I am a senior in a Biomedical Engineering program and am considering
pursuing patent law as a career. I've reviewed much of the literature
available online, such as old newsgroup postings and patents.com, but still
have a couple questions to ask.
First, what is your take on the stereotype that patent law is boring?

I love
researching, getting up to speed on new technologies, writing, and logical
analysis of arguments. But I don't especially enjoy mindless filling out of
forms, such as doing my taxes. I become bored whenever a task becomes too
easy and routine: I need to be constantly challenged. Do these
characteristics describe a good or bad candidate for patent law?

Second, is it possible to maintain a quality family life and have a life
outside of work if one is working in patent law, or is it like some surgical
specialties where one must basically marry their career (high divorce rates,
65- to 90-hour work weeks as the norm, etc.)? I don't mind working hard (I
work 70-hour weeks right now), but not at the expense of missing out on
things like spending quality time with my family and going fishing on the
weekends.

Jeff <jeff1599@mailinator.com> wrote:
For me it is the best job I ever had. I get to learn new things
constantly; I'm always on a steep learning curve. When I was in grad
school, and when I was working as an engineer, I noticed that as soon as
I got good at something, it got boring and I didn't want to do it
anymore. So for me, patent law is perfect. For a person who wants to
burnish her knowledge of a particular field, I'm guessing it would be
very frustrating. Perhaps an in-house position would be better for that
person.
Another issue is whether you are a big extrovert. I, like most patent
prosecutors, work alone a *lot*. You can do litigation and be around
people a lot more, but they work much longer hours and have much worse
stress.
You sound like me, so I am going to go wit "good" (but no guarantees,
though!). Most of the form-filling is done by my paralegal. Of course
there is inevitable scut work in patent law, as in any other job. But
it isn't because you spend your day filling out forms.
How much money do you want to make? That's your answer. I work
part-time (for an attorney, anyway) and I pretty much always have. It
works for me. But note that your overhead has to be paid for before you
start making money, so working part-time mean you make proportionally
*less* than what you make working full-time. Is this something you can
shrug your shoulders about and say "works for me" or will you find
yourself always working a few more hours to make some more money?
You've got to know yourself to decide.

Patent law is awesome. Drafting and prosecution are so
non-confrontational (not counting obtuse Examiners), you don't stand a
risk of stress as much as other branches of the law. IMHO, to be a
good patent agent/lawyer you need to be:
1) a writer: drafting patent applications is an art and can be a
passion;
2) a scientist: you have to know your sh*t so well that you can
present complex subject matter in the simplest terms;
3) a lawyer: you are, in fact, drawing a 'line in the sand' over which
your clients' competitors should not be able to cross. This line has
to be as close as possible to others' lines, and any trespass by
others against your patent should be evident. A good lawyer will make
this line as clear and impregnable as possible. Every case is
different and a challenge.
The money's not bad either. Check out NY Times or any legal
recruiter's database, and you will see a steady demand for patent
attorneys. Most law students have non-scientific backgrounds (I
graduated in 2000, and there was not a scientist among us), so I have
a feeling demand will increase as senior patent attornies retire.
Biomed patent applications are growing in number, and it's a good
field to build your niche.

trademark_attorneyFILTER@hotmail.com (Vlad Shvartsman) wrote in message
news:<dd0c857b.0409112202.9ff9637@posting.google.com>...
To give a contrary view: I'm a non-IP civil litigator with a few
patent prosecutor friends, and I couldn't stand to do patent
prosecution for a living. There's no excitement or fun in patent
prosecution, or any transactional work in my opinion that is not
litigation-related. Having said that, most of the people who do it
seem to enjoy it. In my view this is because their personalities drew
them to the job in the first place, kind of like accountants who think
accounting is exciting. I have one friend who can't stand patent
prosecution and is doing everything in his power to get out and do
more IP litigation, but having a tough time with that.
Bottom line: it's not for everyone but it may be for you, and only you
can judge that.

Patent law is awesome. Drafting and prosecution are so
non-confrontational (not counting obtuse Examiners), you don't stand a
risk of stress as much as other branches of the law. IMHO, to be a
good patent agent/lawyer you need to be:
1) a writer: drafting patent applications is an art and can be a
passion;

2) a scientist: you have to know your sh*t so well that you can
present complex subject matter in the simplest terms;

3) a lawyer: you are, in fact, drawing a 'line in the sand' over which
your clients' competitors should not be able to cross. This line has
to be as close as possible to others' lines, and any trespass by
others against your patent should be evident. A good lawyer will make
this line as clear and impregnable as possible. Every case is
different and a challenge.

Also agreed in principle, although that should read an engineer or a
scientist

<snip>
Lawyer is synonymous with attorney in the US, but some of us are patent
agents. It would be more correct to say that patent prosecution is
practicing law in most states, with all that implies, except for the need
to be admitted to the state bar. Not only are real legal skills needed, but
legal ethics must be observed. The consequences of getting it wrong can be
grave.

Also agreed in principle, although that should read an engineer or a
scientist

<snip>
Lawyer is synonymous with attorney in the US, but some of us are patent
agents. It would be more correct to say that patent prosecution is
practicing law in most states, with all that implies, except for the need
to be admitted to the state bar. Not only are real legal skills needed, but
legal ethics must be observed. The consequences of getting it wrong can be
grave.

To give a contrary view: I'm a non-IP civil litigator with a few
patent prosecutor friends, and I couldn't stand to do patent
prosecution for a living. There's no excitement or fun in patent
prosecution, or any transactional work in my opinion that is not
litigation-related.

In the USA, it is my understanding that you can call yourself a
'patent attorney' if you pass ONLY the patent bar and prosecute
patents ('patent attorney' being synonymous with 'patent agent').
Can someone elucidate on this subject?