Inequality & disparity in patent applications are pervasive, but the reasons for this are unclear. While the patenting process has a high number of female inventors, this does not necessarily reflect the diversity of the inventor population. Here we review some reasons for the gender disparity. These include: Common names of inventors; Highly cited inventors; and lack of patents for women.
\nIdentifying the inventor of a patent application should begin with the disclosure of the research involved. Many academic research groups collaborate, which can lead to issues regarding patent ownership. These issues must be addressed early in the process. The inventorship criteria are different from those used for authorship of scientific papers, so it is important to carefully consider who contributed the most to the development of the invention. The following guidelines are intended to assist you in the process of identifying the correct inventor.
\nIn addition to identifying the author, the patent application should identify the legal applicant. In some cases, the legal applicant may have an academic title, but if the student has a common name, they do not qualify as an inventor. However, it is important to note that an undergraduate student may have rights under an employment contract or legislation. If this is the case, the student can be named as the applicant.
\nUsing the USPTO web site to identify patents, an individual can also search for inventions that were patented after 1976. A patent application with the same name of an employee may be listed as the INVENTOR or the ASSIGNEE, which is the university or company the person worked for. By selecting the year, you can view the full text and images of the patent.
\nOne example is an experiment conducted at Pittsburgh by a team of researchers. They had been studying adipose-derived stem cells and had filed a patent application on the concept. Both groups claimed the same method for the differentiation of these stem cells into various types of cells, including nerve cells. In addition to the UCLA application, two groups of researchers, Katz, Llull, Futrell, and Hedrick, filed patent applications on adipose-derived stem cells. The Pittsburgh application included information from Hedrick regarding differentiation into nerve cells. The UCLA application also contained the concept of differentiation, which Hedrick had not conducted himself. Futrell was sued by the University of Pittsburgh and eventually voluntarily dismissed the suit.
\nThe order of names is crucial. A patent application must be filed with the correct name of the inventor. If the incorrect name is listed, the invention may not be granted. Failure to do so could result in the invalidation of the patent. Whether a particular person is the inventor of a patent is a legal issue and must be decided by a patent attorney. The order in which the names appear in a patent application can be changed by amendments or clarifications.
\nAnother gray area of naming co-inventors is the attribution of intellectual property rights to students. Sometimes the inventors’ names change over time, but it is important to make sure the co-inventors’ names were part of the final conception of the invention. A patent application requires a description of how the invention is reduced to practice. The claims describe the scope of the invention.
\nIf there are more than one creators of a commercial work or invention, it is common for more than one of the creators to share the Net Proceeds. In such cases, the Inventors’ share of the Net Proceeds must be equally shared. Inventors must also agree upon this allocation in writing. Drexel Applied Innovation must agree to the allocation among the Inventors’ shares.
\nThe highly cited inventors in patent applications have significant value to innovators. They are likely to receive high number of citations, implying their patents will have positive development potential and value. Highly cited inventors in patent applications have high-quality innovations that will benefit from further research and development. Here is a summary of their work and implications for innovators. Several researchers have published findings that demonstrate the value of highly cited inventors in patent applications.
\nInterestingly, citations to patent applications can also be used to measure the impact of an invention. Researchers have found that the greater the number of patents citing a patent, the more impact it has on the overall market. This research has shown that citations can have a direct effect on market value, but researchers should be careful when interpreting the data from patent applications. Specifically, researchers must carefully read the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (EPO) website before undertaking research on EPO citations.
\nOther researchers have used similarity measures to determine the importance of a patent. They found that the number of citations per patent increased as the innovation increased. They also found a strong correlation between patent citation intensities and yield improvements. However, this research did not account for early patents and failed to identify concepts that focus on the inventive process. For these reasons, highly cited inventors in patent applications are important to society.
\nJoydeep Ray has a master’s degree in computer engineering from Carnegie Mellon University and is currently a Graphics Architect at the Intel Corporation. He previously worked for AMD as an MTS Design Engineer, Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation as a Technical Representative, and IBM as a Design Engineer. Among other highly cited inventors, Craig Trim is one of the most well-known in patent circles. This young engineer is known for his high success and is an IBM Master Inventor.
\nInventions that have the potential to change the world are often attributed to the work of highly cited inventors. However, these contributions can be difficult to prove. This is particularly true if the invention was invented by an individual who has extensive experience in the field. Many high-quality inventions do not have obvious applications, so a highly cited inventor is crucial to the success of the invention. There are many ways to prove the value of an invention.
\nThe study considered patents citations that were issued from 1995 to 1998. However, not all patent applications were examined during the study period. In fact, there were a handful of 1996 patent applications citing a 1995 patent. This would result in an intermediate level of per-patent citations. This may explain the delayed rise in citations to these patents. But it does not mean that the highly cited inventors are necessarily less productive in patent research than inventors of high-value patents.
\nHigh-cited inventors in patent applications may be a signal for the invention’s impact on the technology field. Patents represent the exclusive right of an inventor to market their product in a given market. But, citation metrics can be ambiguous and misleading. They may not account for the actual inventive process, which is cumulative. Each invention builds upon and enhances the others. In other words, a high-cited inventor can potentially prevent a competitor from marketing a product in that market.
\nA highly cited inventor in patent applications is unlikely to be a common occurrence. Patents that are worth keeping are those that have been cited the most. They are valuable patents that spur innovation in the field and are paid maintenance fees. The highest-cited inventors are usually those who are unusually talented and creative. It is therefore important to identify highly cited inventors in patent applications to make the most out of their patents.
\nWhile there are many examples of highly cited inventors in patent applications, they are typically associated with chemical or drug industries. Those in the chemical and drug fields are often more likely to search for prior art than those in the mechanical, electronic, and computer industries. Applicants in these industries are likely to be citing the work of other highly cited inventors, even though their inventions are not as useful as others.
\n\n https://www.ycombinator.com/documents/
\n https://techcrunch.com/
\n https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/startup-resources
\n https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/plan-your-business/fund-your-business
\n https://hbr.org/1998/11/how-venture-capital-works
\n http://patentpc.com/
\n http://uspto.gov/
\n
Inventors and Patents From the City of Roseville
\n Inventors and Patents From the City of Park Ridge
\n Free Patent Filing Assistance In Anchorage
\n Inventors and Patents From the City of Fort Collins, Colorado
\n Free Patent Filing Assistance In Charleston