sprog is correct. To be a patent lawyer (i.e., to take the registration examination), you must have an undergraduate degree in either a science (e.g., biology, physics, or chemistry) or engineering. There is a provision to allow you to petition the patent office to take the patent bar exam because you have obtained an equivalent number of credits that is essentially the same as having the "science/engineering" degree. For that reason, many lawyers go back to college to take extra undergrad courses in science or engineering to enable them to sit for the patent bar examination. That said, you can do patent litigation in federal court without being registered to practice before the US Patent Office. For patent litigators, having the extra credential of "Patent Attorney" is more of a marketing thing, because you can learn the substantive law of patents without being a practicing patent attorney. But even as a patent litigator, you have to have at least SOME skill and desire to learn how things work (having the inventor teach you how a semiconductor chip works down to the most excruciating detail can be a very painful process if you don't possess either the capacity or the interest to learn it). It is also tougher to make a name for yourself as a patent litigator if you don't have the patent attorney credential, not to say it can't be done. My former boss was a former Navy SEAL, NROTC grad, but an
English major -- he led the largest patent department in the world at the time representing many of the largest companies such as IBM, Apple, Motorola, TI, General Electric, etc. He knew more about semiconductors and about how cell phones work than anyone I've ever met.
Every year, unfortunately, many colleges advise their students to enroll in a "pre-law" program if they want to become a lawyer. But it is not until those students are enrolled in law school that they find out that they're WAY behind the power curve, if they want to become an IP lawyer. The fact is that one of the best undergrad majors to have for applying to law school right now is science and engineering. This is because that is where the hottest jobs are right now in the legal marketplace (for statistical purposes, law schools want to admit students who find jobs quickly, and IP lawyers have in recent years found jobs the quickest).
In short, to become a patent attorney, you must (a) pass the state bar exam in your state, and (b) pass the patent bar exam with the USPTO (incidently, patent law is the only specialty in the law requiring two bar exams).
goaliedad is correct, too. His point is that you have to enjoy your work. If you have a passion for it, chances are more likely than not that you will read up on the latest developments in your area and maintain a high level of skill. This knowledge, in turn, will translate to being better at what you do. If Claude Monet had been an engineer, he likely would not have excelled the same way he did with painting.
Back to the point about Chinese law, bruno and aghalad and others have very good points about it being an augmentation skill. I think if the real interest is international relations, then the student should focus on that and augment that study with language skills. But then again, patent law is now an international practice. In one of my cases, for example, we had 5 disputes going on simultaineously in Europe, 2 in Asia, and 8 in the US -- it is very common nowadays to have world-domination patent fights like this one:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/20/apple-now-suing-samsung-over-tablet-and-phone-case-designs/ Guess who steers the ship in these kinds of worldwide global disputes -- US patent lawyers (although local counsel from the various countries is inevitably involved), almost none of whom speak the local language (that's what Chinese lawyers are for).
P.S. International trade disputes are almost always handled by lawyers, many of whom are patent lawyers. I spent almost half of my career arguing before the International Trade Commission.
).