INTERVIEW

This is not a traditional interview with a European Patent Attorney, but with a headhunter. I thought it would be interesting to show a different point of view about our European Patent Attorney profession.

Peter Thissen has been working in recruitment since 1997. Since 2013 he specialises in recruiting IP professionals, mainly trainee and qualified patent attorneys. As his experience lies in the Benelux market, his answers reflect that.

What are employers mostly looking for when hiring trainee patent attorneys?

Peter Thissen: First, of course, the right engineering background. Second, excellent verbal (especially writing) skills. Needless to say law, including patent law, is about advanced reading and writing, about finding and utilising weak spots in texts and exploiting these by sagacious writing. Third, native mastering of Dutch. Fourth, a candidate should have some basic communication skills: the ability to deliver high quality work as well as leaving the client with a positive impression.

What kind of background is the most sought after by employers?

There is a difference between candidates with backgrounds in hard sciences (electrical, mechanical, physics) and soft sciences (chemistry, biology): the latter can meet more competition in application procedures as they are less scarce. This is the situation in both the qualified patent attorneys and the trainee market.

In the trainee market, PhD’s enjoy a slight preference compared to MSc. The market considers a PhD as proof of not only academic capabilities, but also of expertise (scientific research is intellectual property’s sister) and of language skills: writing a scientific article certainly requires excellent grammar, wording and formulating comparable to the level required for drafting patent applications.

One of the greatest difficulties in our profession might be studying again for years, even after finishing a long and difficult university course, and being a "trainee" for years, even as an MSc or a PhD graduate, as a 30+-year-old. In fact, many people don't like the word "trainee", they prefer using other terms, such as "partly-qualified".…

What is your experience in this regard when talking to trainees?

This is also my experience. I recently had a brief exchange of thoughts with patent attorneys regarding the wording. “Trainee” is not a preferable title. An alternative might be ‘patent engineer’, but that can also refer to an expert not (anymore) having the ambition to pass EQE.

Once people get enthusiastic about the profession, so after personally talking with me and/or my client, they do not care anymore about the title. Communication is crucial before the face-to-face interview. I try to eliminate the ‘studying again’ idea as soon as possible. I do that by stressing that as a ‘trainee’ the candidate does have a serious job on a high intellectual and commercial level, with an above average compensation, while at the same time putting effort in obtaining a qualification that is needed anyhow to do the job. It also helps to compare the system to other highly reputed but more common professions with similar legally prescribed education systems: doctors, pilots, attorneys-at-law, etc.

I would like to emphasise that PhD’s are more open to these arguments than MSc’s, probably because they already experienced the hybrid of studying while working. Furthermore, in most cases I recruit candidates close to graduation or who finished university no more than two years ago. People in a more advanced career phase are much less likely to be interested, are less affordable and less preferred by employers.

The patent attorney position can look like a tunnel career. Does this mean that there are no career options in the future if someone starts working as a trainee patent attorney?

Indeed, this is the main reason for withdrawing at some point during the application process. I am always honest about this as early in the process as possible, because that is the reality: I know not more than three qualified patent attorneys in the Netherlands (of ca. 500) who quit the profession to start doing something else since 2013 (when I entered this business). Of course, when talking to candidates I also show them the relativeness of this: anyone with a professional education specialises from the start of his/her career, decreasing the number of choices every year, unless, of course, someone is willing to accept serious concessions (like a lower salary). I also stress that I do not know a single patent attorney who is not fond of his occupation.

Do patent firms require their attorneys to have dual qualification, i.e. European (EQE) and a national patent attorney qualification?

Yes, they always do. In fact, solely having a national qualification is considered next to useless. A national qualification has an obvious advantage, but never so without the European qualification. A national qualification is considered as the stepping stone to (pre)EQE.

What I see as an EQE tutor is that, unfortunately, many candidates have to follow courses outside of work hours and pay for the books and courses themselves because their employer is not supporting them financially.

What do you see in the Benelux market, do patent firms offer training to support candidates with their exam preparations?

The situation here in the Netherlands is completely different. To my knowledge, one firm even provides its own training. All other firms send their trainees to the well-known and highly reputed Dutch course. Costs are covered by employers, including the work hours’ time (on average a day per week during the training period). If employers would not provide full financial support for the courses, I would have to stop my business as there would be no candidates left anymore.

However, there is a reimbursement clause in most trainees’ contracts that stipulates compensation of the costs an employer made for the courses in case of leaving the company within a certain period. In practice, however, this is never a hindrance for people wishing to change jobs.

Does being a patent attorney give more autonomy as well as visibility/responsibility than more traditional roles in engineering/industrial research?

Yes, it does. As a patent attorney (especially in private practice, where all ‘trainee’ vacancies are) one can specialize in specific topics, be it on the technical or on the legal axis. Basically, the business model in private practice only requires a number of billable hours (on average ca. 1,000 per year). It does not make a substantial difference if they are spent on cases in encryption software or photonics, nor if they are spent on drafting or litigation support, as long as clients are willing to pay for services. In traditional engineering roles however, an employee functions in a team in which he/she should deliver a certain amount of a certain type of expertise on fixed moments in time.

Regarding visibility: if for example a patent is granted, the client will recall the individual patent attorney more than the firm that invoices for the service. In traditional engineering roles the individual’s contribution to the product is completely irrelevant. Patent attorneys are more visible, as individual achievements can be retrieved from public registers (or published IP lawyers’ rankings).

Can becoming a patent attorney be the only choice for PhD’s outside academia that rewards (not only financially) this academic achievement?

In my opinion yes, it can. It is extremely difficult to obtain a permanent contract in academia. The alternative is postdoc assignments, but these are often accepted as an unpreferred but necessary second-best option. Nowhere outside of the academic world is a PhD valued as highly as in patent attorney jobs. In industrial companies a PhD only rarely makes a difference. Hence the huge proportion of patent attorneys holding a PhD (over 50%, in chemistry and biology ca. 90%).

Are there any frequent questions at the interviews?

In most cases, I first must explain some basic topics: what law and intellectual property is, why wording is so crucial, etc. Once this larger context is clear, most questions aim at getting a picture of what the daily work of a patent attorney entails. The most frequently asked question is: ‘Can you tell me, Peter, what does a typical workday look like?’

Zsofia’s comment:

Good news: you can also find several interviews with European patent attorneys on this website. They all describe in the interviews what their typical workday looks like.

What do you experience when working with patent firms, are they open to hybrid and remote working?

First, remote working has become more accepted since the pandemic. Apart from this, it depends on a few things, such as company culture. On the other hand, in the competition for candidates, employers are increasingly willing to do concessions on this item. Equally important can be the manager’s attitude: some prefer to keep an eye on what their reports are doing. However, the situation is not that different from other sectors: the longer an employer and an employee work together, the more the first trusts the latter. In figures I would say that next to all employers after a year or two or so allow their employees to not come to the office for at least say two days a week.

Apart from this, I also see that many patent attorneys wish to particularly avoid working from home/remote only. That can be a reason to choose an employer whose office location would not require too much commuting.

In your experience, how long do patent attorneys work in the same position?

Ever since 2013 I have seen that patent attorneys stay with their employers for a relatively long period of time, when compared to other job types. I have not made detailed calculations on this, but my impression is that patent attorneys who stay with their employer less than say six to eight years are quite rare.

In your opinion, what could candidates do to stand out from job applicants (when applying to become a trainee patent attorney)?

The patent attorney profession is quite unknown. The content of the job does not belong to common knowledge. Second, hiring a trainee is meant for years of employment, the more so as employers consider that investing in a trainee does not pay back until a number of years. This means that employers would like to be assured that a candidate will stay with the company until at least a few years after EQE. In order to be assured they wish to see that a candidate is really thoroughly motivated and has a clear picture of what he/she is going to do. Diving into the matter via courses or browsing epo.org or delving up patents is very helpful in this.

If you are in the Benelux region, please feel free to revert to me. I hesitate here, as it may sound arrogant. However, I do believe there is not a single person in the Benelux who is more knowledgeable about or has a more intensive network in the job market for (trainee) patent attorneys. I work for several clients who are always interested in a candidate who expresses his/her interest in becoming a patent attorney. However, there are a few companies however that I explicitly do not work for due to business circumstances.

Please kindly note that for trainee positions in the private practice in the Netherlands, usually native Dutch is required.

What could qualified patent attorneys do to improve their chances when applying for another position?

The answer is the same as to the previous question. Any patent attorney considering changing his/her position is welcomed for at least a coffee with a possible next employer. Industry and private practice are different in this sense though. In industry, vacancies are not fluid: once a position is filled, hiring efforts stop, while in private practice, a vacancy will be created once a suitable candidate comes along. But still, also in industry, for every assignment, I need to go out on the street to tap on people’s shoulders and invite potential candidates for a meeting. I can recall only one case in which I had the luxury to reject candidates that applied via an advertisement. I always succeed in providing my clients with a choice among good candidates, but rarely more than three or four.

This means, in my opinion, that any candidate considering changing employers, is recommended to put more effort in making the right choice than in improving his/her attractiveness for the job market.