Why do Intellectual Property lawyers have science degrees?

I don't think a PhD or further research stuff would really help. You can do patent/IP courses at some universities/colleges that exempt you from doing the first set of patent law qualification exams though which could be more useful though....

Nope, it's a good idea to look at people working at firms did/have achieved. However, it is incorrect to say ignore what they say on their recruitment page/in their recruitment conditions. They put them there for a reason. Also you do only need a 2.1 to get a job as an IP lawyer or patent attorney. Believe me. And, whilst you can't be a patent attorney, I believe you can be an IP lawyer without a science degree - as my friend with a history degree dabbled in IP law in his internship and was considering going into it.

While you only 'need' a 2:1 in a science degree, in practice most people at most firms will be Oxbridge graduates and a very high proportion of those will have first class degrees.

He is correct to an extent when he says to ignore the recruitment criteria. They are a bare minimum below which you face automatic rejection. The chances of an interview without a first or oxbridge is pretty low.

I've no idea about biotech tbh, so I won't comment, but I can imagine a phd might be useful there since biotech isn't really covered in a normal undergrad degree...

Well at my firm we just refer to the whole biology team as biotech so that's what I actually meant. They all have PhDs though. Chem and Engineering are mostly undergrad degrees though.

I'm sure some firms will have higher/lower academic requirements and some will have a heavier Oxbridge bias (be that intentional or not).

To be honest, chemistry wise anyway, I'm not sure if you've found this too, though I use aspects of what I learnt in my degree on a daily basis, I don't really use that much of what I learnt over the four years at all...?

Pretty much. I've found as long as you understand a markush formula and understand the definitions of groups there isn't a huge amount of actual 'academic' chemistry.

I'm an organic chemist by training but have worked on things from drugs/concrete/printer inks/semiconductors etc. General knowledge is useful so you can understand an invention (good luck arguing for inventive step if you don't know what's going on!) but I've rarely found detailed knowledge useful. It was an exciting day when I got to mention the Suzuki coupling in a letter to the EPO

On the contrary, in the biotech areas most people have PhDs in my experience

To be clear, I'm not saying you cannot get a training contract/pupillage/traineeship/whatever without an Oxbridge first and a science background.

What I'm saying is that while the recruitment guff might say "science degree not required" and 2:1 or better, you should take a good look at the qualifications of the juniors at that firm to see what you are competing against. If they all have Oxbridge science degrees, masters or doctorates, then your 2:1 arts degree from Middlerankingexpoly probably isn't going to make much of an impression - unless you are truly an exceptional candidate (does your degree award suggest that?).

When looking at juniors, really look at the juniors. Don't try to kid yourself because you can find a few people with 15-20 years experience who don't have science backgrounds, look at those recruited/graduating in the last five years or so - times have changed.

Hi there,

I'm a trainee patent lawyer (/attorney). The patent law firms will require you to have a science degree. Becoming a patent lawyer is separate from becoming a lawyer i.e. you have to pass completely different exams. The firm I am training at have three separate division: life sciences (basically chemistry and biochem), engineering and electronics. You need a science degree because almost all patents will broadly fit into one of these categories and to draft the patent or respond to anything relating to the patent you first, and foremost, need to understand the patent and the technology behind it. The theory is that a person of an arts degree would struggle to understand say a patent for an offshore power station whereas a chemist would be much more suitable to it.

I do believe, however, with a maths degree it will be considerably more difficult to get a job in patent law at one of the specific patent law firms - since, as I explained above, the firms tend to specialise in those three divisions. If you think about it, there won't be many/any mathematics patents (as far as I'm aware...I am a Chemist though).

Though I know little about it, in your case if you want to do law it sounds better to apply to the general law firms (slaughter and may etc.) where you will do general law for the first few years, pass exams etc, before being able to specialise into ip law if you wish. The differences between what you will then do and as a patent attorney I do not really know.

I hope this helps.

I realise this is an old post, but I've recently graduated and would appreciate some advice.

I graduated with First Class Honours from Cardiff University in Biotechnology with a Professional Training Year (PTY; working as a microbiologist for Philips). I am also very involved with university sports clubs and keen travel blogger (just to show some balance)!

I have covered some aspects of intellectual property during my PTY and through Biotech and Business modules throughout my course. I have also set up meetings with patent attorneys working in biotech/biochem in Cardiff and discussed all aspects of the profession. I am very sure that this is a career I want to pursue.

I recently applied to a position at the IPO as I am aware that not having a postgraduate qualification/Oxbridge education puts me at a disadvantage, especially with particularly prestigious firms. I didn't get an interview, though I was proud of the application I submitted.

What tips would you give me in applying to firms? Is it 'do-able'? I would prefer not to spend another three years in education, but I am in the fortunate position of being able to apply for PhD positions directly from my undergrad. I would not hate a PhD, but I am not motivated solely by scientific endeavor. As stated, it would be a means to an end - that being a job in Life Science IP.

Thank you!