[richardfontana]

Agreed. For those who don't know, the term "patent prosecution" is US legal industry jargon referring to the process of applying for and obtaining a patent. The term is used as a shorthand to refer to a common specialty area that focuses on that kind of work and certain related non-litigation matters. Patent prosecution specialists sometimes also get involved in litigation but typically in a secondary or supporting role. This to some degree reflects the two-class system I referred to. From personal experience and anecdote it is common for patent prosecution specialists to seek to get involved in litigation because, essentially, it is "easier to make your hours" as I remember one colleague putting it, but often opportunities are limited because of the unofficial two-class system that exists.

Patent litigation is an important sub-area of litigation work and practitioners in that area are not especially likely to have STEM backgrounds (unlike patent prosecution specialists) and are not expected to be USPTO-registered. You can see evidence of the two-class system in the academic backgrounds of the lawyers involved -- patent prosecution specialists are more likely to have attended less prestigious law schools than the patent litigation specialists at a given firm. It's my sense that outside the US the equivalent of patent prosecution lawyers are typically not members of the legal profession and often work in small firms focused entirely on patent and trademark procurement grunt work.