I have the chance to move from my engineering career (full-stack robotics, software engineering, cloud background) to assist a law firm as a patent agent in my respective fields. Has anyone made this transition who can offer some input on how that transition played out and what they learned?
FWIW: IAAL and I also have a CS educational background but never really worked as an engineer outside of academia. I spent a few years in the middle of my legal career working primarily on patent prosecution, which is the work also done by patent agents.<p>I would personally not recommend patent prosecution to any lawyer or aspiring lawyer. Patent prosecutors hold a second class status within the legal profession, something I only realized when I started working in that area. The work is inherently challenging (in a bad way) in a typical law firm context resulting largely from the fact that it is generally fixed-fee work (with those fees generally having been driven down over a long period of time) in a context where lawyers have nominal billable hour expectations. You are under pressure to churn out patent applications in a relatively short period of time. I believe this is one of the main reasons for problems in patent quality seen particularly in the software space over the past two decades. The work itself is highly non-intellectual in nature.<p>Maybe the considerations are different for a patent agent who doesn't intend to go to law school. Some firms will pay for patent agents to go to law school part time which could be beneficial if the patent agent were to graduate and go into some other specialty (but I suspect that hardly ever happens).<p>Edit to add a related point: For anyone with a scientific or engineering background who goes to law school, I recommend resisting the temptation to take the USPTO's patent bar exam (this exam is also incidentally something patent agents take). It might seem to be a useful credential, but by becoming a registered patent attorney, you will get pigeonholed into a patent prosecution practice group within a law firm, which is problematic for the reasons I give above.
I went from being a biomedical engineer -> M&A lawyer -> software engineer with a side legal practice.<p>I learned that law school was intellectually rewarding and the practice of law can be fun, but I could not stop thinking about software that I wanted to build to improve the practice of law. I took that as a sign that I needed to spend some of my working life being a software engineer.<p>I think what I have now is a great balance. A stable job as an engineer, with a law practice where I only take on clients that are nice to work with.
My office mate and good friend of many years is a patent agent. He was/is industrial/electronic/radio but then pursued patent agent 100% for a while.<p>Ultimately he came back to tech, but acts as a sort of front line patent agent for our company as well.<p>We have many discussions about the inanity of the whole system. I’m an idealist, he’s more of a realist about it. It exists. If nothing else, we participate from a defensive posture.<p>He has shared that he kind of likes the game of patents. You have an idea, which you then have to represent/express/model in a language that looks like English but isn’t exactly that has its own set of rules and idioms. Or in short, it can be seen a lot like the software we write. While he likes it as a sort of variety, he seems to like it about 20%, and when the workload goes above that much commitment, the complaining starts and the desire to get back to “the real work we do” begins to be expressed.<p>When I have asked him why he doesn’t do more of it, he has shared the same observation others have shared here: Agent is a great skill to have to broaden your value, attorney is what you want to do if you want to earn lots of money at it.<p>On that note, we both observe that the foundation of lawyering is to be in contention with someone, and generally speaking the less contention among people, the better. Someone’s gotta do it apparently, but it’s not a sphere of happiness.
I've got a friend who made the transition.<p>Ultimately, he went to law school because he didn't feel there was career growth as just a patent agent... you've got to be a full-on attorney if you want growth in that marketplace.<p>I'm recalling a little bit of his rationale, but it seems that if you're curious about the law, it's a decent way to get exposure without the total commitment of law school, and you get paid while you're learning. But don't think of it as a "career transition" unless you're going totally into the law, it's more like an experiment to see if that's a direction you'd want to take. You'd still have to go to law school and pass the bar if you want to make a career out of it.<p>(advice is U.S.-based)
I went from electrical engineering (logic design and then aerospace) and went to law school (night school) specifically for patent law. I now have 14 years as a patent attorney writing patents. It is definitely a change of pace from designing circuits to a largely technical writing career.<p>However, (with a small "boutique" firm) the hours are more flexible, the work is rewarding due to always learning new technology at the bleeding edge, and you get to interact with engineers/developers in the industry. Having a strong engineering/science background helps you in getting up to speed on new technology quickly, and having a strong writing background is a required skillset (but that can be developed over time). As with many careers, having good mentor(s) does make a difference. The "lawyer" part is definitely present, but more in the background for drafting/obtaining patents (referred to as "prosecution") vs. litigation work. For prosecution, "the law" is more about learning a set of "operating rules" and applying those rules to your daily work to both comply with the requirements and to anticipate litigation issues in the future. Patent work can also encompass licensing, employment agreements, trademarks, portfolio strategy, competitor analysis - all of which vary from firm to firm on how deeply that sort of work crops up. For litigation, you are definitely more involved in traditional attorney work, sometimes courtroom work/sometimes behind the scenes.<p>To become a patent agent, passing the Patent Bar Exam is required, and takes a bit of studying - it is not trivial and largely learning a set of rules/procedures to practice in the field. Of course, adding the "attorney" title requires yet another more comprehensive Bar Exam (state-by-state) and most states also require attending a law school prior.
I started to - I went to law school with the intent of switching, and ultimately cut that short to go back to tech. I just didn't enjoy working with attorneys. I'm sure some people do, so my rejection of that industry should be taken with a grain of salt... but I'd take time to get to know who your professional community would be before committing to such a change.
Word of caution. UC Davis computer science graduates could not do patent law when I wanted to. Why? Because the dean Norman S. Matloff didn't fill out the paper work. So - "computer science" wasn't considered an engineering field at the time. It gets worse, I was the only one to make the request EVER. Make sure you research if your computer science department would be considered a valid engineering bachelors under the patent law offices. You may be able to talk to the dean to spend the time and get it done.
Worked as patent agent. Back in tech AMA.<p>+ extremely independent
+ lots of reading about different subjects
+ less time working on tooling or “chores”
+ admin to manage your calendar
- much higher productivity expectations than tech
- high intensity
- varied knowledge of attorneys
I'm in the process of attempting this. I'm taking some classes at law school, but I'm only studying towards the Bachelor of Laws, not towards the kind of university credential that you need as a prerequisite for being allowed to sit the bar exam to become a real lawyer. I'm instead using it as an opportunity to try to find ways of combining tech knowledge and legal knowledge and getting interesting work out of it that draws on both but doesn't require a bar exam.<p>I think there are some interesting avenues opening up there, around Legal Tech and also around the general fact that I expect that tech will become more compliance-driven in the future.<p>I mean: When I started out in the field, it was pretty much this unregulated wild west. When I retire, I expect that working in a tech company will feel a lot like working in a bank does today. In a bank, lawyers and law-savvy managers are hugely influential, because everyone else struggles to navigate all the nuance of the regulation that affects them, and it's not even just about money, but about potentially going to jail or not.
For the lawyer side:<p>My dad did a transition from Mech E to patent lawyer, but super early in his career. Basically to the point where he didn't work much professionally as a mechanical engineer. My understanding is it's very different, but he <i>really</i> likes patent law. It requires a much greater interest in digging through legal history, and an even greater emphasis on writing than engineering does.<p>From my perspective (working as an engineer, growing up hearing everything about patent law):<p>If you like the building stuff part, stick with engineering.<p>If you like the debugging / analysis / almost-audit-like side of tech, and aren't scared by a giant reel of red tape (and as mentioned before like history digging and writing), then maybe patent law would be for you.<p>If you get good enough, you may be able to affect changes in the red tape even.<p>I can't really say much about the patent agent side.
a friend of mine went from working in oil extraction field engineering to being a patent agent. he does a lot of reviewing applications, finding prior art, and analysis of the inventions.<p>it’s interesting to him since he is always coming across curious inventions and applications but otherwise it seems like a pretty dead end career. he is particularly unambitious so i think the lack of pressure other than “review this stuff” is pretty nice for him.<p>I wouldn’t trade being a builder to be a paper pusher.
When was in the pharma field I worked with a patent agent who had an M.D. and a PhD. She was outstanding -- really made a huge difference to the quality of our patents. She worked for one of the major law firms.<p>However I can confirm what others have written: she was at the bottom of the hierarchy. They treated her as if she were a paralegal.<p>This wasn't about <i>her</i> specifically -- we had a bunch of partners and associates working on our thicket of IP over the years: men and women from all sorts of national and social backgrounds. Despite her extensive education they considered her skills as simply mechanical.<p>PS: they charged as much for her time as a junior associate. I doubt she got paid as much though.
As far as made-up "bullshit jobs" go in this society, patent lawyers are likely well-positioned on the compensation scale, but if you enjoy actually building something and having some fruit of your labor to show at the end of the day, it might not be a good place for an engineer.<p>You'll be "solving" a problem that is the result of a completely artificial and particularly badly designed system. Such jobs can get to you as you curse the stupidity of the people who came up with and run that system daily.<p>That said - as long as nothing changes - someone has to do the job.
I agree with the others who say that being a patent agent is kind of a dead end job unless you want to go be an attorney.<p>Even patent attorneys who do prosecution, however, are in for kind of a grind. Again as others mentioned, it's often either fixed-fee or low-billable-rate work, and the client often won't know the difference between a really great patent and a mediocre one.<p>To me the real fun is in patent litigation, where you sue or defend lawsuits in federal court. That is where the rubber hits the road and patents are really tested. To get a job there, you mainly need a law degree from a good or great school and excellent grades, although a tech background (or a background as a patent agent) can help.
I came very close do doing this in the early 2000's. Though my degree was in Electrical Engineering, my professional career has been all software. (Full disclosure: I was actually a double major, but was a semester shy of finishing CS and finishing EE meant I had to graduate).<p>As others have noted, your degree will determine whether you can actually sit for the patent bar and be a registered patent agent. Certain degrees or showing equivalent level of training are required.<p>geofcline's comment covers the high level differences (+ extremely independent + lots of reading about different subjects + less time working on tooling or “chores” + admin to manage your calendar - much higher productivity expectations than tech - high intensity - varied knowledge of attorneys) so I'm going to talk about the part of the process I know about.<p>When I applied to college, I couldn't decide between Engineering and Law. I ended up going with Engineering, but 5 years into my career it was time to change jobs, so I figured I might as well try the law route. The path I chose was to become a Technology Specialist (or similarly worded role) at a big law firm.<p>A Technology Specialist was someone with an Engineering degrees who helped the actual patent attorneys evaluate and draft patents. The law firm would pay a salary (only about 5% than my Engineering salary at the time) and would both pay for law school and guarantee you a job after school. At the time, starting attorney salary was about 50% more than my current salary, so that was quite a deal.<p>I sent out 5 resumes, got 3 interviews, and one job offer. I joined a firm and was one of about 25 Technology Specialists. Here's where it got interesting. I was very unique in that I had a) actual experience b) a degree that wasn't biology or chemistry and c) the only one with _only_ a master's degree. Every other "tech spec" was a PhD that noped out of post-doc life of long hours and low pay for long hours and high pay. I later found out that CS/EE types were a harder sell because they typically had to take a pay cut to join.<p>While I saw some cool and innovative tech, and got to meet some names that anyone in tech at the time would know, I saw just as much bogus business process and software patent work. I had a beautiful office with city views and an amazing secretary (patent secretary itself is a skilled, well-paying role), and billed out at $250/hour. The job itself was fairly boring, though. I worked mostly by myself and was creating nothing. After a year I went back to tech and joined a startup.<p>FWIW, the life of an attorney doing patent prosecution seemed much more chill than those doing litigation. I think part of the reason is that there are only so many people with advanced engineering degrees required to be understand and write patents who also want to be lawyers. For myself, I showed up at 7am to take a couple hours to study for the LSAT, and I generally stayed until 5:30pm to take advantage of free dinner in the cafeteria. The office (and this was early 2000's, so not a ton of WFH tech) was generally empty before 9 and after 6.
In my role as researcher and engineer, I've engaged with a lot of corporate lawyers in the patent process. The best interactions I've had have been with those that transitioned to their role from engineering.