Patent Attorneys and Agents: Years of Hands-On Technical Experience Before Focusing on Patent Law

Yesterday’s post included a cumulative frequency chart that some readers found confusing. I have replaced that chart with one showing essentially the same material in more reader-friendly format.

PatentLawPic1132

These results come from a survey of Patently-O readers conducted August 23–25.  In the survey, 626 responders self-identified as US patent attorneys and 116 self-identified as US patent agents.  Each was then asked to enter their “Years of hands-on technical experience before focusing on patent law (if none, enter 0).”  Responses ranged from 0–40 years.  Fewer than 1% left the field blank. 

[File Attachment: SurveyResults.v1.xlsx (58 KB)]

46 thoughts on “Patent Attorneys and Agents: Years of Hands-On Technical Experience Before Focusing on Patent Law

  1. 46

    It takes year of schooling to become a lawyer, but that doesn’t make a good lawyer. Years of experience in the real world dealing with tough cases makes a good lawyer. If you going through a divorce get a good, experienced lawyer to help you through the tough time, get the New Jersey divorce attorney.

  2. 43

    “Proud” two word I doubted. Every little bit of energy, the ability, he always believe in yourself, it’s own man. More assertive person, more confident. This is not bad. There’s something really proud, if put appropriate post, he would be modest, otherwise he will not go.

  3. 42

    Attorney/Agent experience survey begs the question of what is the focus of their respective practice, i.e., claims construction/prosecution, litigation &/or litigation support, patented product technical analysis (FTO),…?

  4. 41

    NWPA you can be as angry and nasty as you want. I have spent 15 years sending the same stuff over and over again. Proof of all kinds of things that didn’t gel. For example I order the whole files again. They send the first File. But on the order sheet is a phone number of mine that is over 8 ears old, and not the number I gave when ordering in 2009. Why did that phone number appear on the Patent Office Order Information. Elementary my dear Watson. No one to answer the phone if there was a question from an employee that may have come across what I was to be sent. Because there sure would have been questions as to what the H*** this was supposed to be. And the file they send is full of documents regarding Aids, and they won’t send the Second File.
    Honesty, where was it from those that were my Counsel? So don’t try to spin time lost. I’m not the one that was doing it.

  5. 40

    They said that “Hello” did not know how to read law?

    Wow, I missed that in my history book. I bet a lot of people missed that in their history books.

    Hey, by your theory, that must mean that it is a law!

    You say yes, I say no
    You say stop and I say go, go, go
    Oh, no

  6. 39

    Funny Ping that is exactly what the White Supremacists said when the African-Americans were trying to show institutional discrimination.

  7. 37

    Based upon statistics Ping . . . statistics. I have never read a Federal Circuit case in which a patent agent was found to have violated Rule 1.56. Please show me one.

  8. 36

    have less 1.56 liability.

    I think it unusual for you to make this unfounded accusation. There is no distinction between a patent agent and a patent attorney under rule 1.56.

    “Hello”, you must be going.

  9. 35

    If you think about it, isn’t it unusual that patent agents file most the patent applications and then have less 1.56 liability. Are the courts saying that patent agents are better trained than attorneys? Are the courts holding the patent attorney to a more exacting standard than patent agents? Could it be that patent agents are more likely to represent a blue chip company and, as a result, the courts are much more tepid with finding patents held by those companies invalid?

    The statistics are starting to paint a very troubling picture of the mindset of the Federal Circuit.

  10. 34

    Cynical,

    Can’t rightly tell (well, I could, but I be too lazy) – but 1948 is about the time frame that Ned’s legal mind gets stuck in.

  11. 33

    Did they have the LSAT back then?

    According to Wikipedia, the LSAT has been around in some form or another since 1948. Surely Ned hasn’t been practicing for 60+ years!

  12. 31

    Notably, it shows no data for folks with 2-4 years experience.

    Yes, but Ned took the LSAT, right? C’mon Ned, tell us what percentage of registered patent agents have between 2 and 5 years of experience? You can do it!

  13. 30

    One has to wonder why

    To see how many people stumble?

    honestly folks – download the date given by Dennis and make your own graphs. Then you can get all kinds of tidbits. For example, the gross average “real world” tech experience for patent agents is more than double that of patent attorneys.

    Of course, the data does not tell you how much “legal world” experience the respondants in each group have.

    I wonder if you see a cliff effect if one considers years of experience and “effectiveness”.

  14. 27

    Ned, its not a claim, its a chart. The chart does not include information for all levels of experience. Notably, it shows no data for folks with 2-4 years experience.

  15. 26

    Rapidly, agreed. There is something wrong with the chart. It excludes experience greater than two but less than 5 years, yet claims to include all levels of experience.

    Were it a claim, the chart would violate Section 112, p. 2.

  16. 25

    Dennis, thanks for the data. Is the takeaway that agents tend to have more “real world” experience than attorneys? Is that important?

  17. 24

    hey – 165% of patent agents have between 2-10 years of experience.

    Actually, Dennis’s chart indicates that about 30% of patent agents have between 2-10 years of experience. Where are you getting your data?

  18. 23

    hey – 165% of patent agents have between 2-10 years of experience. Is this because most agents do twice the work of an attorney, so they got two votes?

  19. 22

    ping, no idea what you are on about.

    7: I think EPO obviousness objections are fit for their specific purpose, which is nothing to do with adversarial English common law.

    You don’t. Never mind. Thanks for your gracious comments otherwise.

  20. 21

    But, as ever, thanks for the comment. I have an ongoing interest in the level of ignorance of Europe, that is to be found amongst US patent attorneys.

    Funny – that’s exactly the same thought about you and US practice, isn’t it?

    Must be that all us US blokes are “just trying to learn”, eh?

  21. 20

    “But, as ever, thanks for the comment. I have an ongoing interest in the level of ignorance of Europe, that is to be found amongst US patent attorneys.”

    It’s not ignorance. My opinion is that everything at the EPO is good but for the analysis in the search report.

    Heck, I had an EPO examiner do something I hadn’t seen before in a recent communication. He included a claim, as amended by him, that he would allow, and invited me to amend all my claims accordingly… and it’s actually a pretty fair amendment that gets around the big contested point between us and the examiner.

  22. 19

    So what happened to the attorneys and agents with experience ranging from 2 years to 4 years, 364 days?

  23. 18

    7: 6 is right. His “100% useless remark” is bang on, I agree. When 6 is looking at claims that bear no relation to those originally filed, whatever is the point of looking at the opinion of an EPO Exr on those originally filed claims.

    As to the rest, let’s lalk about it again, after you have been through EPO appeal proceedings and multi-jurisdictional patent litigation around mainland civil (not English) law Europe. Tell me then, that the EPO exam report was ever crrp, and I will reply (if at that stage you still think you need it).

    But, as ever, thanks for the comment. I have an ongoing interest in the level of ignorance of Europe, that is to be found amongst US patent attorneys.

  24. 17

    “1 EPO examination report that was harshly short on substance and long on hand waiving “no inventive skill required” “obvious design choice when doing this sort of thing” rationales. Of course, no copy of their claims is given, and I’m not about to be bothered to look it up. 100% useless.”

    When even 6 says it, you know it’s true. Maxie, I’ve been saying this about EPO examination reports for a while. They’re pretty much crrp now.

  25. 16

    Dear 6, here’s an efficiency tip. Next time, before you do your own search, consider the possibility of using EPO Register Plus to check out, online, the EPO list of search references, drawn up on the basis of the claims as filed. No need, after that, ever to look at the EPO file again (unless they file an EPO divisional).

  26. 15

    Ok guys and girls, I’ve been busy nearly all week with cases that didn’t require me to do an IDS for one reason or other.

    So, the first IDS on my list of 50 cases (or maybe 50 IDS’s) happens to be an IDS that is after allowance but before issue fee and contains all stuff from an EPO counterpart application examination. All the references are listed as being very relevant to the claims at the EPO, indeed, most anticipatory or 1 reference “no inventive skill required” rejections.

    None of my claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by any of the references or combination with any of the references I remember from the prosecution.

    We have

    1 reference barely even connected to the field of invention.

    3 references barely connected to the claims.

    1 reference that looks good, but isn’t actually good enough to make a 103. If this case were still in prosecution however, I have a feeling that I could spend a few hours and cobble a lil something together.

    1 EPO examination report that was harshly short on substance and long on hand waiving “no inventive skill required” “obvious design choice when doing this sort of thing” rationales. Of course, no copy of their claims is given, and I’m not about to be bothered to look it up. 100% useless.

    I will admit though that the references barely connected to the current claims would probably have been more relevant to the old claims in this case.

  27. 12

    YOU counted the agent twice.

    I wonder if all these double agents at the PTO are the reason they’re proposing increased secrecy for pending US applications.

  28. 10

    Confused:

    Read and believe the descriptors at the bottom of the chart.

    If an agent has at least 15 years experience he or she also has at least 5 years experience and YOU counted the agent twice.

    Since fewer attorneys percentage wise have 15 years actual real world experience YOU counted fewer of them percentage wise twice.

  29. 9

    Gee, Dennis, I was just being sarcastic. But thanks for the responsiveness!

    On another note, I’m confused by the graph in your 3:30 post. Could you make that a pie chart, preferably in nice bright colors?

  30. 7

    amazing.

    Dennis, how about you post a link to the raw data and let everyone make his or her own graph? Then perhaps you can post them all, and we can all fail to understand one anothers’ graphs.

    I’m with you, ping. I think it’s frightening how many attorneys can’t interpret anything more complicated than one of those USA Today pie charts.

  31. 6

    confused: What gives?

    Look in your wallet. What percentage of the bills have a value of less than $2? $5 or more? $10 or more? $20 or more?

    Do those percentages add up to 100%? If not, where did you go wrong?

  32. 4

    Oops. Attorney percentages sum is close to 100%. I still don’t understand the agent numbers though.

  33. 3

    The attorney percentages in the graph sum up to 85%, which is the percentage of attorneys in the total. But the agent percentages sum up to 168%. What gives?

  34. 1

    Dear Prof. Crouch,
    I think since these are no longer cumulative, then the “at least” labeling could perhaps replaced by ranges.

Comments are closed.