[pgviper]

Originally Posted by dc_wright

Late to the party here, but interesting thread! Just for some background, I spent 20 years in engineering moving into various increasing steps of engineering management. In 2000 I went back to school full time while continuing to work full time to get my MBA. In parallel with that I moved out of engineering into operations, and then into program management which is the business management function in the aerospace industry. One of the transitional steps you have to make is overcoming the engineering background when you are trying to land a finance based job. Frankly, the engineering group is viewed by the bean counters as a group of misfits and trouble makers that have to be tolerated because they're a necessary function. While you've achieved much by getting your MSEE, the math ability will be the only thing applicable. It hasn't however taught you anything about FASB standards, SEC rules, general accounting practices, general ledgers, etc. It's all learning the rules from scratch. You will be up against this bias in trying to make your move, plus you will be competing with others your age that went directly into finance and simply have more years experience than you. I admire your ambition and I'm not trying to be discouraging, but it's a tough jump to make.
Moving into patent law could be a very good transition for you because your technical background does bring tremendous value to the position. I currently manage the company IP portfolio as part of my current job and I can tell you I much prefer engaging with a patent agent/attorney who understands the tech as I only have to get them to grasp our inventive material, not teach them all the engineering basics.
WRT your question on the difference between being a registered agent and an attorney, agents are allowed to create and file patents, and represent clients with the USPTO patent agents. Essentially they are the paralegals of the industry. To defend a patent in court or prosecute a patent infringement case, you must be the attorney, and if you are an effective litigator, that is where the big bucks are. :-)
Not intending this to sound like a rant, just some BTDT experience....

I appreciate your feedback. Much of my current work is in the aerospace industry as well. DO-254 and DO-178 type of projects.

As I was bouncing the idea of transitioning into finance through my mind, I kept going back to the fact that it would essentially render my engineering education useless which is something that I could live with but seemed rather inefficient. Along with the fact that in order not to bottle neck your career, an MBA would be required, now i'm looking at student loans and a process that will span a minimum of 2 years.

Patent agent on the other hand I can continue using my engineering education as a backbone for moving forward along with the fact that I can study for the Patent Bar Exam on my own. Minimal investment, high return! Anyone in finance can appreciate that lol. Along with the fact that I could later on go to law school in order to even further advance my career. The patent agent route looks to be the most profitable.

[Rygel XXV]

Originally Posted by pgviper

Hi Rygel, I actually have two contacts in this industry who have given me an inside scoop into what its like and their account of the profession is exactly how you describe! If you can (feel free to PM), could you answer the following questions:

1) What to consider when determining patent agent vs patent attorney?

2) If patent attorney, what type of physical investment is needed (years, etc...) Is this a full fledge law degree including the BAR etc...

Hi OP,

Sorry to get back to you late on this thread.

So I think some others have probably answered your questions already, but here are my responses:

1) A patent agent is basically a paralegal. A lot of them ghost write patent applications, but cannot sign the applications and cannot prosecute or defend a patent before the PTO (Patent and Trademark Office). Many law school graduates waiting for their bar results operate as de facto patent agents.

2) A patent attorney is a "full-fledged" attorney, yes, but also has to pass the patent bar in addition to the bar of any state in the union. So assuming full time, you'd be in law school for a minimum of 3 years, after which you'd test for both the patent and individual state bar.

I did also want to make a comment about the compensation, which someone mentioned as being low at $300K. While it is true that a partner at a big firm can pull down some larger numbers, that's typically after 7 or more years of being screamed at to increase billable hours. Even though patent attorneys do have it cushier than others, one is still expected to put in a fairly substantial load of time, maybe 2100+ hours per year, every year. And then there's the rather recent issue of "non-equity partners," who basically get a bigger salary and a nice title, but don't share in the firm's profits. This is, of course, after having to buy into the partnership, a system that one friend (a partner at a mid-size firm) has described to me as a "fucking ponzi scheme." Finally, stir in the consolidation that appears to be taking place in the industry, and you'll see that you shouldn't necessarily expect to achieve nor perhaps even want to strive for making partner.

I practice in the SF Bay Area, where many, many IP attorneys eventually make the jump to an in-house position like my good friend that I mentioned. The hours are much, much easier than firm life, and you'll make decent money. Obviously it will be less than if you make partner, but again, not many people will make equity partner at a large firm. If you happen to get lucky, you'll end up at a startup and become wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice, and certainly wealthier than most big firm partners.

Anyway, I hope this helps. Please feel free to drop me a line. Good luck!