Kevin Keller is General Counsel at Super, a Series B startup with business verticals in travel, fintech and commerce. Before Super, Keller worked at many notable technological companies, such as Facebook, Microsoft, Instacart and Amazon. He is a first-generation college graduate who obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from Brigham Young University and JD from New 91ŃÇÉ« School of Law. Keller generously offered his time to the IPilogue to discuss his experiences to inspire law students interested in supporting startup companies.

How has your background as a first-generation college graduate influenced your approach to your legal career?

Those of us who are first-generation graduates can fall into one or two groups; some may be overly cautious and conservative with their approach because they’ve gone so far, learned so much, secured the job, and obtained the education. They have already taken so much risk, going outside every expectation, that turning down a solid and more predictable path is one step too far. Then there’s a group of people who will take every chance because they have nothing to lose - you get a lot of entrepreneurs that are first-generation.

I started my career a little more conservative. But, as I went further along, I got more comfortable with risks and decided that I could lean on my own skills and experiences. Taking those risks has, by and large, led to greater outcomes for me and my career, but it can be hard to do as a first generation.

What’s the story behind how you became one of the founding members of InSITE, one of the world's first technology incubators/launchpads?

I realized mid-way through law school that there was a part of me that was entrepreneurial.

I shared this feeling with Alex Cohen from Columbia Law, and we decided that if something didn’t exist that gave us the opportunity, we would have to create it. We went to both the law and business schools of our schools and put up posters claiming that we were starting an elite group, with venture capitalists and the hottest startups in the city. We had none of that, but we decided that’s what we were going to have. We eventually got Fred Wilson on board and got some law firms to provide us with space and funding. It came together, partially through force of will because we wanted to create something that didn’t exist.

Oftentimes, when I’m looking at resumes during a hiring process, I look for whether in absence of something, [the applicant] created it - if they were entrepreneurial in some fashion.

You spent 11 years at Amazon and were the first attorney hired by Amazon’s Lab126. You were also named as an inventor on 17 issued and 6 pending Amazon patents. What was it like being a part of the legal and engineering team?

Lab126 was formed by Amazon to develop its hardware products. When I joined, I was sitting alongside everyone. It’s one of the things about joining a start-up that is kind of unique and fun for attorneys - you’re there in the thick of it with the rest of the employees. This environment led me to think of ideas for how the products could work together or how we could make something that might help us around a regulatory problem in a customer friendly way. I was super privileged to be able to participate in that creative process.

You have seen a lot of major tech companies in their initial stages of development. What key roles do you think the legal team had in ensuring the success of these companies?

It’s a fine balance. A good legal team will identify significant risks, but also allow start-ups to be start-ups - they’re going to take some risks and that’s ok. Even with experience, it’s still nerve-wracking as an attorney to know that there are rocks that you haven't overturned, but you have limited time and resources so it’s necessary for you to apply your judgment to best posit which are most likely to harbor significant risks.

Can you briefly describe your company Super? What advice would you give to students who are interested in pursuing a legal career in a start-up?

Super is a startup with business verticals in travel, fintech and commerce. Altogether, we have SuperCash, SuperTravel, and SuperShop, and they are all under the umbrella of “Super” with the overall mission to help people save and build credit.

For people who want to go into start-ups, you’re probably not going to be right out of law school. The first attorney, the start-up hires because they’re going to want someone who can jump in and do everything across the board. Even if you are that one person with experience, it’s difficult to have all that experience - employment, real estate, compliance, corporate, security, intellectual property… hopefully not bankruptcy. There’s a combination of classes that could be helpful: venture capital or corporate finance courses that talk about funding would be very helpful. Some general knowledge of IP would also help, it doesn’t have to be deep. I would consider myself an IP expert at this point in my career, and the only course I took in school was Trademarks.

I just hired someone in November who was largely in corporate security and M&As. Now she’s two months in supporting our marketing team, doing some trademarks analysis, dealing with consumer complaints, working on our end-user agreements and thinking about privacy and doing a great job of learning that stuff quickly. You’re not gonna have everything but you need to realize that even without everything, you have that one core skill set of being able to learn things fast, and that’s something valuable you can bring to the start-up.

Note from the Interviewer:

I would like to express my gratitude to Kevin Keller for taking the time to participate in this interview and sharing his valuable insights into his experiences across various roles within the tech and start-up industries.

The post Working In-House at a Start-up: an Interview with Kevin Keller appeared first on IPOsgoode.

I can definitely understand the points provided in support of imposing a limit like the one proposed above, however, I think that the imposition of a limit of this sort would unduly constrain access to the patent bar by many capable and interested individuals. For instance, many law students are completely unaware of the opportunities available in patent law until they are actually enrolled in law school, so imposing a limit on them at such an early stage seems premature and unfair. I believe that a better solution to this age-old debate would be for various law schools to design and implement (similar to the one that is set to commence in winter 2010 at Osgoode). Offering a program of this sort would be a great way to ensure that those who are interested in practising patent law (but lacked the foresight to realize this interest during or prior to commencing their undergraduate studies), would not be barred prematurely from doing so. Resources permitting, these LLM programs could be further divided into more specific streams of IP, namely; patents, trademarks, copyright, etc. The patent sub-specialty program could ultimately be broken down into various areas such as chemical, biological, computer/software, mechanical, etc. Of course, the viability of such a program would depend fully on the accessibility of necessary resources, demand from students and the availability of full-time faculty members who possess a requisite degree of knowledge within each niche area. Practitioners could also be recruited to teach in areas where the specific knowledge of full-time faculty is lacking.

Rather than imposing such a drastic limit on students at such an early stage of the game, IP firms could impose the requirement that any new associate (lacking the requisite technical background) who wishes to practice patent prosecution within any specific niche area, must attain an accredited LLM in that area prior to doing so.

However, while I believe that imposing the LLM requirement is certainly preferable to limiting access to the patent bar to lawyers who have completed undergraduate degrees in science/engineering, this solution is not without its defects. The pursuit of higher education is a costly endeavour, both in a monetary sense and in terms of time-spent. By the time they have completed their JD, many law students are so far in debt that the last thing on their mind is continuing legal education at the masters level. Therefore, imposing a differential graduate education requirement on non-science/engineering grads that is both costly and time-consuming may act as an effective bar in and of itself.

The post Should Formalized Training in Science or Engineering be a Prerequisite to the Practice of Patent Law? appeared first on IPOsgoode.