Can you briefly introduce yourself for us?

My name is Aaron Yates. I'm a principal lawyer at Davies Collison Cave Law, which is a specialist IP practice having one of the biggest—and we would say, best—IP litigation groups in Australia. I've been at DCC for my entire career, starting as a seasonal clerk, then a law graduate, and all the way up to principal lawyer. While at DCC, I've practiced across different areas of IP, including trademarks, copyright, designs, and patents. Over the last few years, my practice has focused on patents, particularly patent litigation in the courts and patent oppositions before the Patent Office. I studied Law and Science at Monash University as a double degree, majoring in Genetics and Molecular Biology.

Describe your journey in law school. What made you choose law instead of science, and what led you to specialize in intellectual property law?

Somewhat unusually, my parents sent me to a careers advisor in Year 10 to explore potential options when deciding on VCE subjects and my future direction at university. During that process, I was first introduced to the patent attorney profession—a field that combines science, technology, and law—which resonated with my interests and strengths at school.

I learned that there are two discrete but related fields: patent attorneys and IP or patent lawyers. Patent attorneys are responsible for drafting patent documents and securing registrations for patents, while IP or patent lawyers generally enforce patents once they're granted or defend their validity, mostly in the courts. I also discovered that patent attorneys typically require a high-level science or technology qualification; many at DCC have PhDs and postdoctoral experience.

Factoring all this in, I decided early on to pursue the IP lawyer path, which led me to study both Science and Law simultaneously. I believed this combination would offer a unique skill set in the patent world. As I progressed through university, I realized that lab work in science subjects wasn't my strength, and I couldn't envision myself pursuing a PhD in genetics or molecular biology. This solidified my decision to focus on IP law. About halfway through my university course, I sought opportunities in the field and completed clerkships at firms like DLA Phillips Fox (now DLA Piper) and DCC

You did several clerkships in the intellectual property field. How did you get involved in those, and what experiences convinced you that this was the right career path?

Being exposed to really interesting work that involved both an understanding of the law and cutting-edge science and technology appealed to me greatly. The nature of the work offered at DCC stood out because, at that time, DLA didn't have a core IP practice—they were more focused on commercial technology law, like privacy and software agreements. The clerkship at DCC was very IP litigation-focused from day one, which meant I could see the immediate impact of combining technology and law in court disputes. That experience confirmed that this was the right career for me.

Were there any other activities at university that prepared you for a career in intellectual property law?

Certainly, taking all the IP electives and related subjects is important if you're considering a path in IP law. I completed the available IP subjects at the time—one focused on patents and designs, and another on copyright and trademarks. Additionally, I took technology-related law electives like Biotechnology and the Law, and Legal Issues in Medicine. These subjects were both important and interesting.

When selecting candidates for our clerkship program, we look for those who have demonstrated a genuine interest in IP by taking these electives. It shows they've made the effort to delve into the field

Would you recommend that students interested in IP law focus on these electives?

Definitely. For a specialist IP firm like ours, we heavily consider whether applicants have taken IP subjects when deciding who to invite into our clerkship program.

You mentioned completing an Honours thesis at Monash University. How did that contribute to your career?

Yes, in my final year, I completed an Honours thesis in the area of IP, particularly patents, supervised by Professor Mark Davison, who previously taught the patents course. He's well-connected in the IP industry. Unbeknownst to me, when I did my clerkship at DCC, the partners noticed my thesis under his supervision. They reached out to him for feedback and references about me, which I believe helped my standing with the firm.

For someone completely unfamiliar with intellectual property law, could you explain what it is and what a day in your life as an IP lawyer looks like?

At first glance, IP law might seem narrow, but it's actually very broad and diverse. It requires knowledge and experience in various areas of substantive law, including the core IP statutes like the Trademarks Act and the Patents Act. Beyond that, a solid understanding of contract law, administrative law, constitutional law, and consumer law is essential, as they all play a role in advising clients.

Broadly, IP law can be divided into two areas: "front end" and "back end." Front-end work involves commercialization and contract matters, such as assisting clients with due diligence, research and development contracts, licenses, assignments of intellectual property, non-disclosure agreements, and protecting confidential information. This work draws heavily on principles of equity and contract law.

Back-end work focuses on enforcement, which involves enforcing granted intellectual property rights or defending against infringement claims. This typically starts with correspondence with the opposing party and may escalate to litigation in court. Most of my practice is in litigation, handling matters that end up before the court.

In IP litigation, there's a diverse range of work and required skills. This includes preparing detailed written evidence from both fact witnesses and expert witnesses—who are usually leading experts in the relevant science or technology field, such as pharmacologists, chemists, or doctors in pharmaceutical patent disputes. Working closely with these experts is a unique and fascinating aspect of being an IP lawyer, as it allows you to engage with cutting-edge science and technology.

Does having a science degree help when working with experts in the field?

While having a science or engineering degree isn't essential to being an IP lawyer, it can be beneficial. Many of our lawyers don't have such degrees. However, students with science backgrounds are often more inclined towards IP law.

It's rare to work on cases directly related to the specific technology you studied at university. For instance, I seldom deal with genetics cases, despite my background. The main advantage of a science degree is gaining a general understanding of scientific principles and the scientific method, which can be helpful. Ultimately, anyone with a genuine interest in IP can practice in this area, regardless of their undergraduate degree.

What sets intellectual property law apart from other legal fields?

One particularly interesting aspect of IP law is the opportunity to work closely with experts in science and technology—doctors, scientists, chemists—as well as patent attorneys who often have advanced degrees and a strong understanding of IP law. Collaborating with these professionals provides unique perspectives and enriches the work we do.

In the patent space, the matters are often high-stakes and may be part of global disputes. This allows us to interact with lawyers worldwide and contribute to overarching global litigation strategies. Learning how IP law operates in other countries like the US, UK, and across Europe is both interesting and valuable.

Because these cases are significant to our clients, we have the opportunity to delve deeply into both the legal and factual aspects over extended periods. This depth of engagement is something you might not experience in other legal areas, especially when dealing with smaller matters.

Could you describe a typical day in your office?

Every day is different and exciting. Your role evolves as your career progresses, which is a rewarding aspect of the law—you aren't doing the same tasks for decades.

As a junior lawyer in IP, you'd engage in legal research, prepare memoranda, brief barristers, attend strategy meetings, and handle correspondence with opponents. For example, you might draft cease and desist letters in trademark infringement cases and engage in subsequent negotiations to resolve disputes without court intervention. If litigation becomes necessary, you'd prepare court documents, brief barristers, participate in case management hearings, and potentially engage in mediation. This culminates in preparing for and attending trials, involving extensive work on both written and oral submissions.

As you become more senior, your role shifts toward managerial responsibilities, developing strategies, and delegating tasks to junior team members. Interestingly, in IP litigation, senior practitioners often remain hands-on with legal work, such as assisting with expert evidence and submissions, more so than in some other legal fields where senior roles may focus more on business development and high-level strategic advice.

Do you enjoy the transition to more managerial and strategic responsibilities?

I've enjoyed every stage of my career. While I miss conducting in-depth legal research—which becomes less feasible at senior levels due to cost considerations—I find working within a team highly rewarding. Collaborating with principals, senior associates, associates, and junior staff allows us to develop comprehensive strategies. Thinking several steps ahead, anticipating opponents' arguments, and preparing accordingly is both challenging and fulfilling.

Have you noticed any trends in IP law, particularly regarding legislation or dispute resolution processes in recent years?

There are ongoing efforts to make litigation more efficient and cost-effective, especially in the Federal Court. Judges are taking a more hands-on approach to case management, exerting greater control over proceedings. They may require parties to narrow down issues early and aim to reduce the number of hearing days.

In patent litigation over the past five to ten years, there's been a shift towards utilizing independent expert witnesses. Experts now often meet before hearings—without lawyers present—to identify key areas of agreement and disagreement, documented in joint expert reports. This process narrows the issues and forms the basis for oral evidence at trial.

Additionally, the use of concurrent evidence sessions, or "hot tubs," has become common. Experts from both sides testify together, allowing for a more interactive and efficient examination. This method helps the court better understand the experts' positions and facilitates a more effective resolution of disputes.

Do you have any tips for students applying for clerkships at DCC, such as what to include in cover letters or resumes, or how to approach interviews?

As a specialist IP firm, we're looking for candidates with a genuine interest in IP law who are fairly certain they want to pursue a career in this field. Demonstrating this interest can be done by taking IP electives, attending related conferences and seminars, and tailoring your application materials to reflect an understanding of what our firm does and stands for.

We compete with top-tier general service firms that offer rotations in various practice areas. If you're uncertain about specialising in IP, you might prefer a firm where you can explore different fields. However, if you're committed to IP law, we believe we're the best place to practise it.

Reflecting on your journey, what advice would you give to your younger self starting out in university or your early career?

It's important to recognize that the legal community, especially in specialised areas like IP, is relatively small. Building a reputation as a fair, knowledgeable, and reasonable practitioner is crucial. Avoid adopting an overly adversarial approach; instead, strive to be firm yet fair with colleagues and opponents.

Maintaining professionalism not only aligns with your obligations to the court but also serves your clients' best interests. Being unreasonable or difficult for its own sake can be counterproductive. Litigation is inherently adversarial, but balancing assertiveness with reasonableness leads to better outcomes and fosters a positive professional reputation.