Hi! Im a stem grad (biochemistry) and definitely considered being a patent attorney but ultimately decided that I'd prefer commercial law. there are definitely some large differences - not sure if you know them so apologies if this is just a repetition.
Firstly patent attorneys don't really study law, you're able to work at a firm straight away whilst commercial law would require the GDL/SQE. I believe this is because patent attorneys are the ones that register the patents on the clients behalf, so filling out the paperwork and ensuring that things are explained as clearly and is as much detail as possible so that the client has a strong patent, and potentially working as an expert witness in court. Solicitors on the other hand will typically deal more with the already registered patents whether that be in an M&A or litigation.
I've also heard that its common for patent attorneys to have done at least a masters in their area if not a phd which is what put me off as I was not interested in pursuing stem further. On the other hand lawyers can work in IP law without a science degree obviously, but having one does put you at an advantage.
One of the main reasons I decided to pursue commercial law was that I think there is much more variety - i definitely want to at least experience working in IP if not qualify into it but also like the opportunity to experience other practise areas where you can also use your science degree if you're working with life science companies. Finally, there is the option to eventually go work in-house at a life science company/big pharma so I also wanted that option
Hope this somewhat help!
