I went from electrical engineering (logic design and then aerospace) and went to law school (night school) specifically for patent law. I now have 14 years as a patent attorney writing patents. It is definitely a change of pace from designing circuits to a largely technical writing career.
However, (with a small "boutique" firm) the hours are more flexible, the work is rewarding due to always learning new technology at the bleeding edge, and you get to interact with engineers/developers in the industry. Having a strong engineering/science background helps you in getting up to speed on new technology quickly, and having a strong writing background is a required skillset (but that can be developed over time). As with many careers, having good mentor(s) does make a difference. The "lawyer" part is definitely present, but more in the background for drafting/obtaining patents (referred to as "prosecution") vs. litigation work. For prosecution, "the law" is more about learning a set of "operating rules" and applying those rules to your daily work to both comply with the requirements and to anticipate litigation issues in the future. Patent work can also encompass licensing, employment agreements, trademarks, portfolio strategy, competitor analysis - all of which vary from firm to firm on how deeply that sort of work crops up. For litigation, you are definitely more involved in traditional attorney work, sometimes courtroom work/sometimes behind the scenes.
To become a patent agent, passing the Patent Bar Exam is required, and takes a bit of studying - it is not trivial and largely learning a set of rules/procedures to practice in the field. Of course, adding the "attorney" title requires yet another more comprehensive Bar Exam (state-by-state) and most states also require attending a law school prior.
I think it really depends on which part of the industry you are working on, the stuff you describe matches my experience as an "inventor". I think there are two patent industries now:
One is writing patents for new, novel, and interesting things and doing all the other things you describe.
The other is churning out crappy patents as quickly as possible and flooding the patent office with whatever will stick.
What are your thoughts about the "two tier system" others are mentioning? I haven't heard of that before, but it seems like doing prosecution is not desirable? Some law firms offer to pay for your law school, so it doesn't seem bad doing prosecution while you attend law school, but I have no idea. The opportunity I was proposed is in patent prosecution, but it seems people transition into something else quite frequently.
If by two-tier, you refer to the prosecution (i.e. drafting) vs. litigation (i.e. lawsuit) tiers, there is a clear separation in the industry. I do prosecution exclusively, and can't answer if it is inherently desirable (inasmuch as any career path is desirable), but I don't find litigation appealing. On the litigation side of the world, you might find a faster-paced, higher-stressed, higher-compensated environment which has more significant deadlines and "stakes" especially when involved in court proceedings. However, I would also imagine that a more flexible career path is tied to such work since litigation can translate broadly to other lawyerly endeavors vs. the more specialized prosecution.
But, to stress again, the work is inherently different on prosecution vs. litigation. Prosecution also has its work deadlines, but these can be managed more flexibly in practice. Prosecution is a joy for someone like me who prefers to largely work independently (once you learn your craft sufficiently), attempt a good work-life balance, learn new tech every day, apply that knowledge to writing about it in a very specialized manner, compartmentalize tasks (each patent can have its own mental silo), and still do some limited "lawyerly" work dealing with examiners at patent office to attempt to get patents allowed in light of the prior art. Plus, depending on the firm and your ambition, you can branch into anything - litigation, licensing, contracts, etc.
I should note that you don't need to pass the patent bar exam to do litigation, but you would eventually need that for prosecution (agent, attorney). So some say that it can be harder to switch from litigation to prosecution because of that barrier.
However, (with a small "boutique" firm) the hours are more flexible, the work is rewarding due to always learning new technology at the bleeding edge, and you get to interact with engineers/developers in the industry. Having a strong engineering/science background helps you in getting up to speed on new technology quickly, and having a strong writing background is a required skillset (but that can be developed over time). As with many careers, having good mentor(s) does make a difference. The "lawyer" part is definitely present, but more in the background for drafting/obtaining patents (referred to as "prosecution") vs. litigation work. For prosecution, "the law" is more about learning a set of "operating rules" and applying those rules to your daily work to both comply with the requirements and to anticipate litigation issues in the future. Patent work can also encompass licensing, employment agreements, trademarks, portfolio strategy, competitor analysis - all of which vary from firm to firm on how deeply that sort of work crops up. For litigation, you are definitely more involved in traditional attorney work, sometimes courtroom work/sometimes behind the scenes.
To become a patent agent, passing the Patent Bar Exam is required, and takes a bit of studying - it is not trivial and largely learning a set of rules/procedures to practice in the field. Of course, adding the "attorney" title requires yet another more comprehensive Bar Exam (state-by-state) and most states also require attending a law school prior.