Wednesday, May 12, 2010

IP economy boosts research job prospects in law

By Jim Schakenbach, Special to Mass High Tech

Video Gallery

MHT's Julie Donnelly: Colleges see uptick in interdisciplinary programs

MHT's Galen Moore: N.E. firms target individual carbon footprints

MHT's Julie Donnelly: Pharmaceuticals find drug development partners in colleges

Related News

Data breaches a growing problem in healthcare [May 24, 2012]

Federal jury rules in favor of AspenTech [May 21, 2012]

Helicos settles one of three patent lawsuits [May 14, 2012]

HIPAA changes could put tech companies on the hook [May 9, 2012]

Akamai case tests IP law boundaries [April 27, 2012]

Massachusetts runs on an economy based on knowledge. General manufacturing has migrated to other states (and other countries), replaced by next-generation, knowledge-based industries including the life sciences, IT, fiber optics and health care. Just as machine tools and capital equipment were the assets of yesterday’s manufacturers, intellectual property now provides the value in today’s economy.   

As a result, Massachusetts is now home to some of the largest IP law firms in the country (see chart below), supported by growing numbers of technology specialists and attorneys with advanced degrees in science. The ability to successfully practice business law in Massachusetts now often relies on an attorney’s knowledge of molecular science, physics or biology, which explains the past decade’s trend of students with advanced degrees in chemical engineering or molecular biology being recruited by law firms and heading to law school.

One such attorney is Nathan Edwards, an associate at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP in Cambridge — and a Harvard University graduate with a Ph.D. in biology. Edwards is a prime example of the new breed of technology lawyer, choosing to “leave the (lab) bench,” as he put it, to practice law instead of perhaps fast-tracking a high-profile bioscience career.

“I saw other people in the lab getting ready to start post-docs and brand-new projects, genuinely excited to start new research, but the idea of starting over at the bench with a new project was just not appealing to me,” said Edwards. “I love science, so I wanted to do something where I would be thinking about science. Patent law brings together science, education, policy and law, and that was very appealing to me.”

Dan Young, a patent agent with Boston’s Wolf Greenfield & Sacks PC, one of the largest IP law firms in the Northeast with about 60 IP attorneys, expressed similar sentiments. “As a scientist, I was drawn to the practical side of things, to the commercialization of IP,” said Young, who studied biomedical engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute and has a Ph.D. in biomedical science from University of Massachusetts Medical School. “I was involved in a patent application and got exposed to the world of patent law and saw it as a career option at the interface of technology transfer and commercialization — a chance to combine my skills as an engineer with the more practical, business side of things and help companies commercialize their technologies.”

Young represents the type of technologists that many intellectual property law firms seek out and cultivate with recruitment and training programs. “Many IP law firms like to have technologists onboard to provide real-world insights into technology,” said Young. “So our firm, like many others, recruits scientists directly out of grad school or industry to work on project teams as a scientific advisor. That role often enables them to evolve into a patent attorney, going to law school at night, paid for by the firm.”

Edwards sees a technical background providing valuable, tangible advantages to his firm and how it practices law. “Our technologists enable our attorneys to jump into a case without the factual underpinnings of the case getting in the way. Our technologists understand how a scientist thinks and how they approach a problem, so they can help our attorneys and our technology clients.”  

 “Definitely, having a technology background provides some clear advantages,” says Brian Dingman, an IP attorney and partner at Mirick, O’Connell, DeMallie & Lougee LLP in Worcester and Westborough, and a University of Massachusetts Amherst graduate with a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering. “To be able to talk that language and be comfortable in that environment enables a technologist attorney to interview an inventor and extract the necessary information for a patent application. In fact, it’s particularly helpful in the patent realm because patents are written in a sort of problem/solution approach, which is at the heart of the scientific process. If you don’t have that training, you can struggle with writing a good patent.”

McDermott Will & Emery partner Leigh Martinson had worked at Raytheon Co. for several years before joining McDermott and attending Suffolk University Law School at night. He, too, believes his technical background gives him an edge. “Thinking practically about problems is probably easier for an engineer. While writing may be harder for a technical person, you tend to think more logically.”

“The methodical, scientific thought process can be a drawback as well, though,” says Dingman, “especially in cases where a freewheeling approach to creative thinking is more appropriate and desirable — for example, if I was asked to participate in a case involving, say, constitutional law, requiring much more abstract thinking.”

Chasing technology
All agree that the speed of technological innovation is driving the law, as the courts struggle with issues for which there is no precedent, affected by laws decades old, before the Internet, human genome mapping, and petaflop computer processing speeds. The result is a change in both the legislative process and the approach to intellectual property.

“Everyone’s screaming about patent reform these days,” said Martinson. “That’s a result of the law not keeping up with how fast technology is moving, so you’re hearing about patent reform in every Congressional session now. You’re seeing the courts taking matters into their own hands now, too. You’re seeing changes in how damages are calculated and what reasonable royalties are. If anything, changes in technology are driving changes in the law.”

While general corporate law might not change much from year to year, the speed at which technology moves has brought faster changes to the laws affecting (and being affected by) technology. “Technology creates new issues for the law,” said Dingman. “For example the Internet has affected changes in collaboration, which is now easily done internationally. So which country’s laws apply?”

As New England’s economy has evolved into a knowledge-based one, the general attitude toward IP has changed too.

“In the past, IP was not given nearly the consideration it is now,” said Martinson. “Now it’s the core of the business. It used to be ‘just get me a patent.’ Now it’s ‘Get me a patent that’s going to allow me to leverage relationships and compete.’ That’s exciting.” 

New England’s largest IP law firms

In a survey of New England law firms conducted in November, Goodwin Procter topped the list in terms of number of intellectual property lawyers in the region. The top 10 firms reported having more than 550 IP lawyers.

Source: MHT Research

Jim Schakenbach is a freelance writer in Jefferson, Mass.