WOMEN IN IP

It is well reported that women face many hurdles in achieving equality in the workplace.  Intellectual property is one area where women are still generally under-represented.  A study from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research published in 2016 concluded that women are greatly under-represented as patent holders.  For example, in 2010, only 18.8% of all patents included at least one woman inventor.  While the representation of women as patent holders varies greatly among patent classes, only one class (chemistry: natural resins or derivatives) includes at least 50% of all patents having at least one female inventor.
While such a disparity between male and female inventors is likely caused by under-representation of women in STEM fields, other factors may be at play also.  A recent study looked at the number of interruptions that occur during the proceedings of the Supreme Court.  The study looked at interruptions between justices and also advocates arguing in front of the justices.  The study found that women were more likely than men to be interrupted, and that men were more likely to interrupt than women.
This disparity in male-female interactions at the Supreme Court highlights the hurdles women may face in creating and securing intellectual property rights for their ideas.  For example, if women are routinely interrupted during brainstorming sessions, their ideas may not be heard.  While some women may adapt the way they interact with their coworkers to be sure they are heard (as suggested in the Supreme Court study), it is plausible many women may choose to not speak up at all, or to pursue other career paths, further limiting their success at gaining intellectual property rights.
What are your experiences?  Are you a female inventor?  Have you experienced challenges in having your ideas be heard or acknowledged?  Do you think women are under-represented in your field?



Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi...
Read more

Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions

Image
Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.   Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.   After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.   The news only got worse… or so it appeared.   The Office action was something called an “ Ex Parte Quayle action.”   Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection. To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.   Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.   In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.   Accordingly, the mailing of these actions close...
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to r...
Read more