Patent / Soft IP

Post a reply


In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you complete the following challenge.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: B| 8| :clap:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Patent / Soft IP

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by FordTough » Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:35 pm

feel free to PM me. I do mostly Lit but I'm split 70/30 between Lit and Pros.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by patentmidlvl » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:20 pm

patentmidlvl wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:20 am
Any other patent pros ppl here?

...
I am the above person. Just a quick addition, I've written just about 100 applications to date. No idea if that would be considered a lot or little at this point..

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by patentmidlvl » Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:20 am

Any other patent pros ppl here?

Note, in general wondering about BigLaw/patent law boutique kinda places paying at/near market, in particular, versus other kinda of patent practices that sometimes seem to have very different practices in terms of workflow and such

I'm a younger mid level, close to 4 yrs now in total, and wondering just how long ppl at most other firms tend to keep doing all the original drafting on your partners' clients' applications. Honestly the pure volume of originally written pages (in very high tech space, nottttt easy slogging) we need to churn out is reallllllllllllllllly starting to drag on me, and with my billable rate now, honestly doing all of it myself is getting to the point of being impossible to fit in a budget.

I have occasionally had a VERY young atty or agent write under me, but that's typically been more as a one-off "training" sort of capacity, rather than more of the "supervisory/managing" capacity, where I can confidently review everything they did without rewriting a substantial amount.

I get pretty much unanimous positive feedback on the quality of my work product, but FUCK, idk how I can a) keep up with this, and b) even meet a budget on any but the easier of applications


So, JW, do people around my year tend to have 1st years or young agents doing the first draft yet? Or is that just wishful thinking at most firms at this point.

FWIW, this is primarily directed to our largest client who we do a TON of applications for on relatively discounted budgets. The smaller clients I work with are not nearly as draining on me TBH. I suppose another alternative might be that working for the partner on this clients' applications may be a large factor in the exhaustion this is causing me (and, frankly, many/most ppl in my immediate group).

Thanks for any comments

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by FordTough » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:53 pm

Bump.

https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1083 ... s-post-sas

Thoughts? I am starting to see similar estoppel issues disguised as "evidence" issues at district court.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by anonnnny » Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:48 pm

What is your billing rate? $3,000 - 5,000 is probably normal for an OA response, so if you are $500+ then its probably normal. I assume you are not doing pharmaceutical work or anything that people truly expect will be litigated. In any case, I would bill the time I actually spend and leave it to the partner to write it off if he thinks its necessary. If you get caught in a rejection with 20 references that requires a lot of time, then talk to partner, bill it, and let partner write it off.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by patentpros » Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:23 pm

same poster as above, didnt realize I accidentally emphasized "patent" instead of "regarded," lol. Didn't mean to imply we are a sweatshop in other areas. But concerned that it may feel like a sweatshop even if it isn't regarded as one on the outside. (amlaw 200 firm actually known for good QoL...) But maybe I really just need to get faster. =\

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by patentpros » Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:10 pm

Can anyone in patent pros tell me whether being allotted 6 hours per office action is normal/near normal/etc? As a young 3rd year right now, "innovative" lower ish Vault firm (I know that's meaningless -- primarily to signal it's not one of the places regarded as a patent sweatshop/mill).

We have hard budgets on the majority of our work, especially OAs, and I'm allotted roughly 6 hours per OA, on 95% of OAs. (I.e., 6 hours times my billing rate, with the remainder being allotted to the partner or whoever signs off on it). This includes 100% of the time spent: proposing strategy to partner, emails to inhouse atty/inventor if necessary (but rarely contact the inventor), etc. Roughly 1 hour (maybe like 1.3) or so extra to do an interview.

High tech space, if that matters (communications, general EE things, DSP, satellites, that sorta stuff).

Is this Normal? Basically me and my similarly experienced colleagues are finding ourselves way behind this expectation. Sure, some very easy ones I can meet 6 hours, but then a pain in the ass 6-reference 103, 101, 112 bullshit rejection one comes along..... Or, even better, article 34 demands, where the european examiner makes 4 independent novelty/IS rejections.

Thx.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by Alpha » Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:44 pm

UVA2B wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:25 pm
Oh right, good point. Luckily I don’t really feel bad for anyone at Quinn or WilmerHale on this.
Yeah, me either.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by UVA2B » Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:25 pm

Oh right, good point. Luckily I don’t really feel bad for anyone at Quinn or WilmerHale on this.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by Alpha » Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:15 pm

UVA2B wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:08 pm
Alpha wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:35 am
Associates now currently fearing for their jobs and bonuses..
Considering most of the last year or so probably was settlement conference-related, I can’t imagine that many associates are still feasting on the bone, but they’re definitely hoping 3-4 years of 3000 hours will buoy them for awhile.
There was a trial and verdict in late May on the design patents (coming down from Supreme Court appeal) on damages only, which definitely would have gone up on appeal if they didn't settle.

But yeah, they are definitely hoping the 3-4 years of those hours and getting absorbed into other teams will come through.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by UVA2B » Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:08 pm

Alpha wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:35 am
Associates now currently fearing for their jobs and bonuses..
Considering most of the last year or so probably was settlement conference-related, I can’t imagine that many associates are still feasting on the bone, but they’re definitely hoping 3-4 years of 3000 hours will buoy them for awhile.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by Alpha » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:35 am

Associates now currently fearing for their jobs and bonuses..

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by UVA2B » Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:42 am

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by Alpha » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:00 am

Gorsuch apparently fails to comprehend 271(f) infringement in his dissent in WesternGeco. Good lord, it's painful to read.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by BearCat » Wed May 02, 2018 9:19 pm

Could anyone explain the difference between "claim vitiation" and "just failing the DoE test(s) really hard"? (so hard that "no reasonable jury" could find equivalence)

How could something pass the "insubstantial difference" test while being the "opposite" of the claim?

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by UVA2B » Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:49 am

BearCat wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:47 am
UVA2B wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:32 am
Alpha wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:22 am
The IPR march continues. Not unconstitutional under Art. III or 7th Amend. Interesting that opinion specifically comments on it being narrow and does not consider any unraised challenges regarding whether patents are property for purposes of DPC or Takings Clause.
I’m a noob, but was there really much doubt that the court would reverse course on creating confusing distinctions in agency adjudication?
According to my prof, the major force pushing towards invalidation was concerns about reining in administrative agencies, not so much an issue with IPRs. Probably why the opinion is written narrowly.
Of course, I just meant the court wouldn’t draw the line here at what constitutes a private right vs. public right, or that having an adversarial proceeding would violate art. I/art. III distinctions.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by BearCat » Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:47 am

UVA2B wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:32 am
Alpha wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:22 am
The IPR march continues. Not unconstitutional under Art. III or 7th Amend. Interesting that opinion specifically comments on it being narrow and does not consider any unraised challenges regarding whether patents are property for purposes of DPC or Takings Clause.
I’m a noob, but was there really much doubt that the court would reverse course on creating confusing distinctions in agency adjudication?
According to my prof, the major force pushing towards invalidation was concerns about reining in administrative agencies, not so much an issue with IPRs. Probably why the opinion is written narrowly.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by UVA2B » Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:32 am

Alpha wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:22 am
The IPR march continues. Not unconstitutional under Art. III or 7th Amend. Interesting that opinion specifically comments on it being narrow and does not consider any unraised challenges regarding whether patents are property for purposes of DPC or Takings Clause.
I’m a noob, but was there really much doubt that the court would reverse course on creating confusing distinctions in agency adjudication?

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by Alpha » Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:22 am

The IPR march continues. Not unconstitutional under Art. III or 7th Amend. Interesting that opinion specifically comments on it being narrow and does not consider any unraised challenges regarding whether patents are property for purposes of DPC or Takings Clause.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by Fsk » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:04 am

What do patent people thing about FRAND? Curious how it differs from our antitrust view.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by djonline » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:14 am

Would love to chat, though as a 0L. PM me please?
guestbrah wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:13 am
Adapting this post here from elsewhere.....



Anyone here in Patent Pros that might want to trade info/share experiences?

I'm coming up pretty close to the 2 year mark where I am. First firm post-grad, but summered at other firms.

For reference as to where I'm coming from: top 10 law school grad, OK tech credentials, at a small ish office of a large firm in a "secondary market" I guess you could call it. Base pay is a little below "Cravath scale" (is that what they still call it? I honestly don't talk to NYC lawyers at all anymore, and havent really read shit like ATL/TLS in prolly over a year at least). Bonuses are shitty, benefits are great. Mostly work in the EE arts.

My quality of life varies between amazing and outright horrible. For example, in the 4 weeks of Feb before this current week, my (unsubmitted, so they'll end up a bit higher too once all the rounding and stuff happens) hours went 55, 35, 63, 68.

IMO, I feel a 68 billable week is not a fun fucking week. That week included a double all-nighter cranking out a 113 page application to meet a submission deadline. Makes me contemplate peacing the fuck out sometimes. Also because of the small bonuses and "low" "billable" target, me and some of the colleagues I'm close with don't really feel rewarded for these kind of efforts. Oh yea, and this week looking like 70s at least, burning into the 3rd day in a row without sleep at the moment having missed a deadline for one of the first times ever on this bigass app I've procrastinated on for ages.

I ALSO feel like my group has a weird structure that I worry may be stifling my professional development. But, I'm also not sure if these sorts of things might be more prevalent than I realize. But without knowing that, I feel like describing it in much detail on a public forum might be too outing.

I've considered considering one of these lateral offers I get blown up about constantly. At least I think it could be a decent pay raise, and I would be mildly surprised to hear of another pros atty working much more than I do. But then I hear from other ppl (not at my firm) how lucky I am to be at the firm I am.......... Idk.........

Basically, just wondering if anyone here might want to talk semi-anonymously (or, just, without trying to protect anonymity at all -- either way. I won't snitch you out, promise lol).

Mostly looking to just chat, and/or data points about any/some/all (whatever you're comfortable) of: group structure, variety of clients and work, autonomy, workflow, your typical timelines, BUDGETS, compensation, time off, happiness, etc etc etc... I am willing to be very open if you'd like to be.


Thanks for reading.

Feel free to DM me, or I can drop a throw-away email address, or whatever, if you just drop a post below.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by BearCat » Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:16 am

Can someone help me figure out whether there is an inventive concept here?

Image

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by Alpha » Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:17 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:59 pm
PTAB fucks up civil procedure

Petitioner asks for rehearing because PTAB fucked up and in excruciating detail explains why PTAB is wrong

PTAB doubles down
Kangaroo. Court.

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by Desert Fox » Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:59 pm

PTAB fucks up civil procedure

Petitioner asks for rehearing because PTAB fucked up and in excruciating detail explains why PTAB is wrong

PTAB doubles down

Re: Patent / Soft IP

by Alpha » Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:53 pm

IPeeLaw wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:58 pm
SCOTUS: What are you kidding me? Of course you can't patent a centuries old method for transactions!

*SCOTUS writes opinion bringing into question the patent eligibility of sentient robots and warp drives*

also SCOTUS: Okay Mayo was a bit of a bust, we could've done better, but let's just double down.
Federal Circuit: What the fuck even is this? Ok, lets decide a bunch of cases and create some kind of bright line categories.

(WAIT X NUMBER OF YEARS)

SCOTUS: Everything that you've done thus far on your bright line categories is wrong, Fed. Cir. Here's another amorphous standard to fix your bright line categories.

Top