Attorneys with accurate knowledge in these fields:
Im applying now for an LLM degree, the big problem is that I dont really know what I should choose. I am not pretty sure about if I should choose Corporate Law, or IP Law. Both fields fascinate me, but Im a little bit concern about de work market in both fields. I don know pretty well which one is better, to get a position in a law firm, or company, the salary, even if there are more jobs in one or the other. Im opening my perspective of law here in the US, because Im from another country and I dont know how these important details work here. In short, where and how does an IP lawyer or corporate lawyer work?
Regards
IP LLM, or Corporate LLM?
Posted Aug 04, 2007 21:50
0
Attorneys with accurate knowledge in these fields:
Im applying now for an LLM degree, the big problem is that I dont really know what I should choose. I am not pretty sure about if I should choose Corporate Law, or IP Law. Both fields fascinate me, but Im a little bit concern about de work market in both fields. I don know pretty well which one is better, to get a position in a law firm, or company, the salary, even if there are more jobs in one or the other. Im opening my perspective of law here in the US, because Im from another country and I dont know how these important details work here. In short, where and how does an IP lawyer or corporate lawyer work?
Regards
Im applying now for an LLM degree, the big problem is that I dont really know what I should choose. I am not pretty sure about if I should choose Corporate Law, or IP Law. Both fields fascinate me, but Im a little bit concern about de work market in both fields. I don know pretty well which one is better, to get a position in a law firm, or company, the salary, even if there are more jobs in one or the other. Im opening my perspective of law here in the US, because Im from another country and I dont know how these important details work here. In short, where and how does an IP lawyer or corporate lawyer work?
Regards
Posted Aug 06, 2007 15:05
0
Hi Araoz,
I'm also in the same boat, undecided whether to go for IP Law or Corporate Law LLM.
What I can tell you in this regard is that some of my friends have done IP LLM from US & now working there. Only thing is that you must have a science background because most of the firms/companies have openings for LLMs who have science background so that they can act as patent attorneys for them. are you a science graduate????
The other point of importance for me is that my post-LLB work experience is only for IP, not for Corporate and I'm more inclined towards Corporate. I wanted to know whether in such a situation, whether it could adversely affect my LLM application for Corporate Law LLM. If chances of getting admission in IP law LLM are more then I should go for IP and if chances are same, I will go for Corporate. Where there is General LLM it may possible to persuade the Committee that I would like to take courses which integrates Corporate into IP. But what should I do in case of Stanford or Penn which offers Corporate as well as IP specialization?
How to convince them about my interest in Corporate???
Regards
Hi Araoz,
I'm also in the same boat, undecided whether to go for IP Law or Corporate Law LLM.
What I can tell you in this regard is that some of my friends have done IP LLM from US & now working there. Only thing is that you must have a science background because most of the firms/companies have openings for LLMs who have science background so that they can act as patent attorneys for them. are you a science graduate????
The other point of importance for me is that my post-LLB work experience is only for IP, not for Corporate and I'm more inclined towards Corporate. I wanted to know whether in such a situation, whether it could adversely affect my LLM application for Corporate Law LLM. If chances of getting admission in IP law LLM are more then I should go for IP and if chances are same, I will go for Corporate. Where there is General LLM it may possible to persuade the Committee that I would like to take courses which integrates Corporate into IP. But what should I do in case of Stanford or Penn which offers Corporate as well as IP specialization?
How to convince them about my interest in Corporate???
Regards
I'm also in the same boat, undecided whether to go for IP Law or Corporate Law LLM.
What I can tell you in this regard is that some of my friends have done IP LLM from US & now working there. Only thing is that you must have a science background because most of the firms/companies have openings for LLMs who have science background so that they can act as patent attorneys for them. are you a science graduate????
The other point of importance for me is that my post-LLB work experience is only for IP, not for Corporate and I'm more inclined towards Corporate. I wanted to know whether in such a situation, whether it could adversely affect my LLM application for Corporate Law LLM. If chances of getting admission in IP law LLM are more then I should go for IP and if chances are same, I will go for Corporate. Where there is General LLM it may possible to persuade the Committee that I would like to take courses which integrates Corporate into IP. But what should I do in case of Stanford or Penn which offers Corporate as well as IP specialization?
How to convince them about my interest in Corporate???
Regards
Posted Aug 06, 2007 23:41
0
- deleted -
- deleted -
Posted Aug 07, 2007 07:13
0
IP is by far the most marketable position right now.
However, it is because the other poster is correct, you are only highly marketable with a science background (more specifically, someone who qualifies to sit before the USPTO exam).
IP is by far the most marketable position right now.
However, it is because the other poster is correct, you are only highly marketable with a science background (more specifically, someone who qualifies to sit before the USPTO exam).
However, it is because the other poster is correct, you are only highly marketable with a science background (more specifically, someone who qualifies to sit before the USPTO exam).
Posted Aug 07, 2007 10:54
0
Hi trollsoft....
can u suggest me whether the shift from IP to Corporate will lower the chances of getting into a law school.....
regards
Hi trollsoft....
can u suggest me whether the shift from IP to Corporate will lower the chances of getting into a law school.....
regards
can u suggest me whether the shift from IP to Corporate will lower the chances of getting into a law school.....
regards
Posted Aug 07, 2007 16:59
0
can u suggest me whether the shift from IP to Corporate will lower the chances of getting into a law school.....
I was just commenting on the work force market. I don't think law schools care. I've not heard of that choice affecting admissions, or which would be best to get into a program.
<blockquote>
can u suggest me whether the shift from IP to Corporate will lower the chances of getting into a law school.....
</blockquote>
I was just commenting on the work force market. I don't think law schools care. I've not heard of that choice affecting admissions, or which would be best to get into a program.
can u suggest me whether the shift from IP to Corporate will lower the chances of getting into a law school.....
</blockquote>
I was just commenting on the work force market. I don't think law schools care. I've not heard of that choice affecting admissions, or which would be best to get into a program.
Posted Aug 07, 2007 20:49
0
Thank you for replaying Jaideep and Trollsoft.
As you see I did not know anything about the science background, and i still have doubts about it. I dont understand what kind of science background? a specific one, anything?, what s the purpose of that? Do you have to do it previously in college?
Regards
Thank you for replaying Jaideep and Trollsoft.
As you see I did not know anything about the science background, and i still have doubts about it. I dont understand what kind of science background? a specific one, anything?, what s the purpose of that? Do you have to do it previously in college?
Regards
As you see I did not know anything about the science background, and i still have doubts about it. I dont understand what kind of science background? a specific one, anything?, what s the purpose of that? Do you have to do it previously in college?
Regards
Posted Aug 07, 2007 22:34
0
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb.pdf
I dont understand what kind of science background? a specific one, anything?
Please see page 4-8 (printed page, that's adobe page 6-10). The easiest way to qualify is Cat. A and there is a long list in there. For those that aren't in the qualifying degrees, there are other ways to qualify but you'll have to read the 4 pages and look out for special non-citizen rules (cit/non-cit resident are generally the same but should be read).
what s the purpose of that?
It only applies to the patent department of the uspto, and the theory is that you need that knowledge to help your clients write patents. How true that is, is up to debate, but that's the theory (well that's what it says in the document "An applicant applying for the examination must demonstrate that he or she possesses the
scientific and technical training necessary to provide valuable service to patent applicants.")
Do you have to do it previously in college?I'm not sure when else you'd do it, so I'm not sure what you mean, but yes you need a BS in those subjects, foreign equivalent or start meeting the credit hour/work experience requirements of the other categories.
Here's the deal. You do not need to pass the patent bar to practice IP law. Trademarks, Copyrights (and antitrust if you consider that IP or IP related) have no such requirment. Additionally, all patent work has not such requirement with the exception of prosecution (i.e. filing/pushing-through patents at the actual USPTO). However, even that can be done without patent bar admission you just need someone else at your firm who is a member to sign off.
So then why do you need a tech degree to do IP if it's only partially required for one small part of one of the IP subjects? Well, patent work constitutes the majority of IP work in this country (not a vast majority but a substantial majority). So most IP firms or IP groups of firms are patent dominated. Then there becomes two reasons why you need a tech background (1) if they can find enough tech people to do the work they don't feel the need to deal with non qualifying people and (2) they form a kind of click and just plain discriminate against people who don't have tech backgrounds. It's hard to explain but I work at a major IP only firm and it's just an "engineer turned lawyer" culture and we don't hire non-tech people unless we have to.
In the end, you will need a tech background to have a realistic chance at getting a job in anything relating to patents (even litigation where there's not actual requirement) for no other reason that it's just the way it is. However, for copyright and trademark work you can find positions in non-IP firms and any general firms doing that work. Usually those people will come in as corporate lawyers, make friends with copyright/trademark people in the IP group and slowly start getting assignments etc until they're brought into the team.
If you have more specific questions you'd like me to ramble about let me know.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb.pdf
<blockquote>I dont understand what kind of science background? a specific one, anything? </blockquote>
Please see page 4-8 (printed page, that's adobe page 6-10). The easiest way to qualify is Cat. A and there is a long list in there. For those that aren't in the qualifying degrees, there are other ways to qualify but you'll have to read the 4 pages and look out for special non-citizen rules (cit/non-cit resident are generally the same but should be read).
<blockquote>what s the purpose of that?</blockquote>
It only applies to the patent department of the uspto, and the theory is that you need that knowledge to help your clients write patents. How true that is, is up to debate, but that's the theory (well that's what it says in the document "An applicant applying for the examination must demonstrate that he or she possesses the
scientific and technical training necessary to provide valuable service to patent applicants.")
<blockquote>Do you have to do it previously in college?</blockquote> I'm not sure when else you'd do it, so I'm not sure what you mean, but yes you need a BS in those subjects, foreign equivalent or start meeting the credit hour/work experience requirements of the other categories.
Here's the deal. You do not need to pass the patent bar to practice IP law. Trademarks, Copyrights (and antitrust if you consider that IP or IP related) have no such requirment. Additionally, all patent work has not such requirement with the exception of prosecution (i.e. filing/pushing-through patents at the actual USPTO). However, even that can be done without patent bar admission you just need someone else at your firm who is a member to sign off.
So then why do you need a tech degree to do IP if it's only partially required for one small part of one of the IP subjects? Well, patent work constitutes the majority of IP work in this country (not a vast majority but a substantial majority). So most IP firms or IP groups of firms are patent dominated. Then there becomes two reasons why you need a tech background (1) if they can find enough tech people to do the work they don't feel the need to deal with non qualifying people and (2) they form a kind of click and just plain discriminate against people who don't have tech backgrounds. It's hard to explain but I work at a major IP only firm and it's just an "engineer turned lawyer" culture and we don't hire non-tech people unless we have to.
In the end, you will need a tech background to have a realistic chance at getting a job in anything relating to patents (even litigation where there's not actual requirement) for no other reason that it's just the way it is. However, for copyright and trademark work you can find positions in non-IP firms and any general firms doing that work. Usually those people will come in as corporate lawyers, make friends with copyright/trademark people in the IP group and slowly start getting assignments etc until they're brought into the team.
If you have more specific questions you'd like me to ramble about let me know.
<blockquote>I dont understand what kind of science background? a specific one, anything? </blockquote>
Please see page 4-8 (printed page, that's adobe page 6-10). The easiest way to qualify is Cat. A and there is a long list in there. For those that aren't in the qualifying degrees, there are other ways to qualify but you'll have to read the 4 pages and look out for special non-citizen rules (cit/non-cit resident are generally the same but should be read).
<blockquote>what s the purpose of that?</blockquote>
It only applies to the patent department of the uspto, and the theory is that you need that knowledge to help your clients write patents. How true that is, is up to debate, but that's the theory (well that's what it says in the document "An applicant applying for the examination must demonstrate that he or she possesses the
scientific and technical training necessary to provide valuable service to patent applicants.")
<blockquote>Do you have to do it previously in college?</blockquote> I'm not sure when else you'd do it, so I'm not sure what you mean, but yes you need a BS in those subjects, foreign equivalent or start meeting the credit hour/work experience requirements of the other categories.
Here's the deal. You do not need to pass the patent bar to practice IP law. Trademarks, Copyrights (and antitrust if you consider that IP or IP related) have no such requirment. Additionally, all patent work has not such requirement with the exception of prosecution (i.e. filing/pushing-through patents at the actual USPTO). However, even that can be done without patent bar admission you just need someone else at your firm who is a member to sign off.
So then why do you need a tech degree to do IP if it's only partially required for one small part of one of the IP subjects? Well, patent work constitutes the majority of IP work in this country (not a vast majority but a substantial majority). So most IP firms or IP groups of firms are patent dominated. Then there becomes two reasons why you need a tech background (1) if they can find enough tech people to do the work they don't feel the need to deal with non qualifying people and (2) they form a kind of click and just plain discriminate against people who don't have tech backgrounds. It's hard to explain but I work at a major IP only firm and it's just an "engineer turned lawyer" culture and we don't hire non-tech people unless we have to.
In the end, you will need a tech background to have a realistic chance at getting a job in anything relating to patents (even litigation where there's not actual requirement) for no other reason that it's just the way it is. However, for copyright and trademark work you can find positions in non-IP firms and any general firms doing that work. Usually those people will come in as corporate lawyers, make friends with copyright/trademark people in the IP group and slowly start getting assignments etc until they're brought into the team.
If you have more specific questions you'd like me to ramble about let me know.
Posted Feb 02, 2009 19:44
0
So then what do you think of doing an LLM and taking classes so that by the time you finish your LLM you can sit for the patent bar?
My undergraduate major initially was Engineering before I switched to Economics and Mathematics. Consequently,I had finished a few physics courses. Do you think its worth finishing the rest of courses to sit for the patent bar or just go the trademark/copyright route?
Thanks!
So then what do you think of doing an LLM and taking classes so that by the time you finish your LLM you can sit for the patent bar?
My undergraduate major initially was Engineering before I switched to Economics and Mathematics. Consequently,I had finished a few physics courses. Do you think its worth finishing the rest of courses to sit for the patent bar or just go the trademark/copyright route?
Thanks!
My undergraduate major initially was Engineering before I switched to Economics and Mathematics. Consequently,I had finished a few physics courses. Do you think its worth finishing the rest of courses to sit for the patent bar or just go the trademark/copyright route?
Thanks!
Posted Feb 10, 2009 00:17
0
So then what do you think of doing an LLM and taking classes so that by the time you finish your LLM you can sit for the patent bar?
My undergraduate major initially was Engineering before I switched to Economics and Mathematics. Consequently,I had finished a few physics courses. Do you think its worth finishing the rest of courses to sit for the patent bar or just go the trademark/copyright route?
Thanks!
You should be able to qualify some of those Math classes too. The requirements are substantial, 32 hours or something. It's not weekend requirement. If it were me, and I wasn't dead set on Patent work, but was just generally interested in the field, I wouldn't take more than 3 classes to qualify for the patent bar. It's not that big of a deal.
I think the most sure route would be to get a job as a Trademark examiner for a couple years, move to a job in an IP firm, or IP department, do trademark work and ask for patent/copyright work if you want it.
Experience as a trademark examiner is very marketable. Passing the patent bar is mildly marketable at best.
<blockquote>So then what do you think of doing an LLM and taking classes so that by the time you finish your LLM you can sit for the patent bar?
My undergraduate major initially was Engineering before I switched to Economics and Mathematics. Consequently,I had finished a few physics courses. Do you think its worth finishing the rest of courses to sit for the patent bar or just go the trademark/copyright route?
Thanks!</blockquote>
You should be able to qualify some of those Math classes too. The requirements are substantial, 32 hours or something. It's not weekend requirement. If it were me, and I wasn't dead set on Patent work, but was just generally interested in the field, I wouldn't take more than 3 classes to qualify for the patent bar. It's not that big of a deal.
I think the most sure route would be to get a job as a Trademark examiner for a couple years, move to a job in an IP firm, or IP department, do trademark work and ask for patent/copyright work if you want it.
Experience as a trademark examiner is very marketable. Passing the patent bar is mildly marketable at best.
My undergraduate major initially was Engineering before I switched to Economics and Mathematics. Consequently,I had finished a few physics courses. Do you think its worth finishing the rest of courses to sit for the patent bar or just go the trademark/copyright route?
Thanks!</blockquote>
You should be able to qualify some of those Math classes too. The requirements are substantial, 32 hours or something. It's not weekend requirement. If it were me, and I wasn't dead set on Patent work, but was just generally interested in the field, I wouldn't take more than 3 classes to qualify for the patent bar. It's not that big of a deal.
I think the most sure route would be to get a job as a Trademark examiner for a couple years, move to a job in an IP firm, or IP department, do trademark work and ask for patent/copyright work if you want it.
Experience as a trademark examiner is very marketable. Passing the patent bar is mildly marketable at best.
Hot Discussions
-
Cambridge LL.M. Applicants 2024-2025
Jul 08, 2024 137,894 543 -
Columbia LLM 2024/25
Jul 25 11:49 AM 28,199 122 -
KCL LLM 2024-2025
Jul 25 11:37 PM 17,104 115 -
Oxford DPhil 2024
Jul 03, 2024 2,503 19 -
QMUL 2024-2025 LLM
Jul 05, 2024 1,756 12 -
Seattle University's LL.M. Programs
Jul 19, 2024 184 3 -
Is China-admissions reliable?
Jul 16, 2024 2,008 3 -
LLM in ADR
Jul 12, 2024 134 3
