Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

According to a published in UNSW Law Journal, feminized names are less likely to be granted a patent in Australia. The study investigated female patenting rates in Australia over a period of 15 years. Although similar studies Ìęhave been conducted in Europe and the United States, such a study had not been done in Australia. However, recent advances in computing technology and open data polices allowed the study to be done. Furthermore, studies performed by the US Patent and Trademarks Office typically analyzed patents from a majority of US residents. However, this Australian study better reflects worldwide applications because most Australian patent applications are from international inventors who have filed patents in several jurisdictions.

In order to investigate gender bias, analyzed 309,544 patent applications from 2001-2015 and then categorized approximately one million inventor names based on whether they sounded female or male. The study revealed that male sounding names were much more likely to have their patents granted. Additionally, having an number of male sounding names listed on the team inventors correlated with an increased likelihood of having the patent granted. Patent applications with an increased number of female-sounding names listed on the team of inventors did not significantly correlate with a change in success of patents granted.

The study postulated as to why this gender bias may exist. Researchers considered that women were working in technical fields that typically have a lower patent success rate, such as life sciences. Their investigation found that a majority (greater than 60%) of female inventors were working in life sciences. In particular, women were concentrated in four technical fields: chemistry, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and medical technology. However, once the data was statistically controlled to account for the effect of the patents being in a less patentable field, it was determined that inventors with male-sounding names were still more successful in obtaining patents than those with female sounding names.

This study demonstrated that despite the advances women have made in obtaining positions and credit in STEM fields, there is still a gender bias against women in obtaining patents. have hypothesized that a major reason for this disparity lies with the patent examiners and that they are biased against women, and thus suggest that the patent prosecution process should name-blind applications to hide the gender identity of the inventors. ÌęHowever, some feminist legal scholars believe that the reasons for this disparity go deeper. argue that certain intellectual property agreements, such as TRIPS, exclude domains of female inventorship by focusing on “mechanical, technical, and industrial aspects” of “products and processes.” Other scholars that female patentees have less funds, stamina and mentoring to deal with objections from the patent office, which may result in abandonment of a patent application and thus less accepted applications overall.

Several studies and real life experiences attest to the fact that the gender bias still exists in academia and life science disciplines. Overall, Ìęgender bias observed in the patent landscape appears to be at least partially a downstream effect of the institutional bias in STEM.

The post Gender Bias Persists in the Global Patent Landscape appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Zdeněk Macháček ()

Meena Alnajar is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On Wednesday, March 9, I attended the “Breaking the Bias in IP: Reflections from Women in Leadership” held by ChIPs’ Toronto chapter. is a global not-for-profit organization dedicated to showcasing women in leadership positions in intellectual property and technology careers. ChIPs’ is to advance and connect women in technology, law, and policy. They aim to through diversity of thought, participation, and engagement. The organization currently has over members in Canada, the United States, and Europe. ; still, it is important to understand the lived experiences of women-identifying professionals in this area of law in order to bring about change and awareness to this issue.

This event was structured as a question-and-answer panel, with some questions from the hosts and some from the 90+ audience participants on Zoom. The panelists were three women in the intellectual property and technology fields: Sheema Khan, a patent agent currently working at Kinaxis and previously at Stratford Managers Corporation; Judith Robinson, a senior consultant with Fineberg Ramamoorthy LLP focusing on patent litigation; and Alexandria Daoud, a patent agent and vice president of intellectual property and regulatory affairs at Anyon Systems Inc. The event was opened and closed by Daphne Lainson, a partner and chair of Smart & Biggar LLP, and moderated by Beverley Moore, the national leader of BLG’s intellectual property litigation group. It was inspiring to see women from diverse career paths, as not all started as IP professionals or were even sure of entering the IP space.

The Pool Problem

A common concern regarding diversity in many career fields is ‘the pool problem’. Companies put forth that they have a limited number of qualified applicants who are diverse and this drives to disparities in the workplace, as opposed to peoples’ internal biases. The pool problem has especially grown in intellectual property and technology law, with one study reporting that of patent attorneys and agents are women. The pool problem starts early, with less women than men enrolling in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics () programs for their bachelor’s degrees. While the pool problem persists, the panelists shared experiences and advice that demonstrate that the pool problem does not have to allow gender disparities to persist in the IP space.

Supporting Women in IP

Each panelist provided not only words of encouragement for women in IP, but also words of action and change. The participants were encouraged to look beyond the statistics and actually ask about women in the workplace. They suggested participants observe who is the project leader, who clients are asking for, and recommend women for these spaces where they are not considered. For instance, where a project consists of an all-men team, despite there being qualified women for the job, one can ask why women were not considered or excluded and encourage that change if possible. Similarly, they can let clients know that there are qualified women to take on their files. There are existing initiatives that encourage firms to create reference sheets for clients consisting of leading women lawyers in certain sectors, like the program.

Implementable Changes

Allyship and authenticity were two recurring themes for change at this event. Allyship should manifest in both mentorship programs, but also through colleague support such as having men in the office join committees that ensure women’s fair treatment in IP workspaces. The workplace should also welcome authenticity, in the sense that it should acknowledge women’s roles beyond billable hours, including their contribution to fostering committees within the workplace. These elements can help create positive work environments that encourage more women to follow IP careers.

Organizations like ChIPs demonstrate that women in IP can be leaders and successful, all while being themselves. Events such as Breaking the Bias are safe spaces to have these difficult, but real conversations about IP’s gender disparity, and attendees can learn implementable changes that can ameliorate this disparity in the future.

The post ChIPs’ Breaking the Bias in IP Event: Listening and Learning from Leading Women in IP appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Gayatri Malhotra ()

Emily Chow is anÌęIPilogueÌęWriter and a 1L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.Ìę

Ìę

The (“NIHF”) has released its list of 2022 inductees, which notably includes two Black Female inventors for the . As the NIHF has never inducted Black woman before, I intend to provide some preliminary historical context, an overview of Black women’s contributions to STEM, and to gesture towards contemporary movements which aim to unpack the sociopolitical, economic, cultural, racist, and sexist underpinnings of STEM education and health inequity. Ìę

A cursory search of previous inductees led to unsurprising results. In 1973, the year of the NIHF’s inception, only was recognized. In 1991, became the first (white) female inductee, three years after she was awarded a Nobel Prize in Medicine alongside her male collaborators Ìę

Fast forward to the present: the late Patricia Bath and Google VP of Engineering Marian Croak, with over 205 US patents between them, join the ranks of over 600 NIHF inductees.

Patricia Bath’s reveals that she was the first Black woman physician to receive a medical patent, as well as the and the in America. Her invention, , a minimally invasive, low-risk cataract removal procedure, is still used today. Her career and numerous achievements, especially with the development of Community Ophthalmology—in response to that Black populations experienced disproportionately higher rates of visual impairment—collectively demonstrate her whole-hearted commitment to improving access to healthcare for Black, Hispanic, and other marginalized groups in America.Ìę

VP of Engineering at Google and creator-lead of Google’s , Marian Croak is being recognized for her work in —the digital codification of human voices and sound into data that can be transmitted through the internet. Given the ongoing pandemic and shift to remote office work and schooling, we owe much of our adaptive capacity to her hard-earned expertise. In 2012, she penned an open letter titled Dear Young Women in Technology, Welcome From a 30-year Veteran that discussed gender identity in a male-dominated field. She revisited gender stereotypes in a more recent , where she notes how critics doubted the feminized utility of “toy like technology” created by her team at Netscape. Now, she is proud to offer representation to people who can now “see someone that looks like themselves on some dimension.”

According to , NIHF designates and works with inductees with the intent to “infuse their stories, insights, and passion into our STEM education programs”, to ultimately provide “authentic, impactful experiences that help tomorrow’s innovators realize their potential.” As well-intended as this mandate is, its wording suggests that they aim to assimilate and co-opt Black, Indigenous, POC experiences, appropriating the transmission of knowledge and claiming the power to dispense and designate expertise. In effect, this process hinges on the ingenuity of racialized persons without providing the resources necessary to tell their own stories, facilitate their own workshops, and create opportunities to work directly with their own communities.

Furthermore, this mandate frames human potential as purely self-originating, rather than something fostered, supported, and/or uplifted. How then do non-traditional forms of knowledge, such as (especially oral histories and collective knowledge) fit within an individualized, colonial system? What inventions were who, being denied citizenship, were barred from filing their own patents? How can we best develop intersectional approaches to expand access to education and healthcare for racialized groups?

Rather than seeking a singular, normative answer, the following resources offer interested readers some starting points of engagement. Congratulations to all the 2022 inductees.

Further Reading

91ŃÇÉ«/Osgoode Hall Law School announces launch of Centre for Indigenous Knowledges and Languages (CIKL):

IPilogue Writer Emily Xiang writes about protecting culture in IP:

IP Osgoode’s IP Innovation Clinic Client intake information page:

The American Bar Association’s overview of “colorblind” patent systems and Black innovation:

Black Health Alliance, a charity working to address healthcare inequities for Black communities in Canada:

DMZ’s Black Innovation programs for entrepreneurs:

Black Innovation Capital, an investment fund that seeks to support Black founders and address barriers for minority communities:

Patent Racism, an episode from NPR’s Planet Money tracing histories of Black innovation:

Information about NIHF’s STEM programs:

The Assembly of First Nations’ discussion paper on Aboriginal knowledge and IP:

Canada’s Indigenous Intellectual Property Program grant:

The Canadian Government’s introductory materials to IP Rights and Indigenous Knowledge and Cultural Expressions in Canada:

The post Amplifying Black Female Innovators: Engineer Marian Croak and Dr. Patricia Bath appeared first on IPOsgoode.

, the Bergerons’ gift will create 100 fellowships over the next ten years to support 91ŃÇÉ« students in STEM majors who show great promise and leadership potential. In addition to one of a kind experience, graduates of the Bergeron Science and Technology program will earn a Bergeron Distinction in Entrepreneurship and New Ventures and the top two scholars will be awarded the Bergeron Entrepreneur Medal. Both the distinction and medal will be recognized at graduation.

Douglas Bergeron is currently the CEO and largest shareholder of , and was born in Windsor, Ontario. He obtained his undergraduate degree at 91ŃÇÉ« in 1983, with a major in computer science. His wife, Sandra Bergeron, is a venture partner with , a director of and , chairman of , and a highly regarded female technology leader in Silicon Valley.

IP Osgoode applauds this investment in the next generation of entrepreneurial engineers and looks forward to supporting 91ŃÇÉ«'s students on the intellectual property and technology front.

The post Bergeron Entrepreneurs in Science and Technology (BEST) Program Launches at 91ŃÇÉ« appeared first on IPOsgoode.