As a patent attorney who previously worked in-house, I've pretty much seen it all: the good, the bad, and even the ugly. I've worked against the limitations of time and resources and with several outside law firms. Now that I am a patent attorney in private practice, I can honestly say I've seen both sides of the coin … and learned a few lessons along the way. Here is what being on both sides of the aisle (in-house & outside counsel) has taught me about how to better serve in-house counsel.

Cut to the Chase by Reversing the Order of Information

Large law firms tend to produce an equally large amount of paperwork. In my experience as in-house counsel, it was not uncommon to receive a seemingly simple reporting of a USPTO Office Action that would total 10 pages or more. Most of that content is typical boilerplate language and form letter content, much of it containing basic background that I would flip right past to get to the final two pages of actual legal analysis and recommended courses of action. Once you've established a working relationship and comfort level with your client in-house, it's likely that they already know the basics of a filing or recurring matter, so all of the background information attorneys provide can sometimes be in the way of what in-house counsel truly wants: clear and concise answers and next steps, delivered quickly.