The Patent Gender Gap by the Numbers
29% of the STEM workforce. 12.8% of patent inventors. The gap is not talent.
A Nature study of 3.7 million U.S. patents found that women's patents demonstrate higher novelty, originality, and technological generality than men's. Mixed-gender teams produce the most disruptive inventions. The inventions exist. The system loses them.
This is a data brief. The numbers below come from USPTO, WIPO, Nature, Science, and peer-reviewed studies spanning millions of patents across decades. Sources are linked at the bottom.
This article presents published research data for educational purposes. It is not legal, policy, or investment advice.
The Gap at a Glance
Historical Trend
Progress is real but slow. The U.S. women inventor rate has grown less than 8 percentage points in 40 years.
United States: Women Inventor Rate
| Year | Women Inventor Rate | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 1980 | ~5% | USPTO |
| 2016 | 12.1% | USPTO Progress & Potential |
| 2019 | 12.8% | USPTO Progress & Potential |
Global: Women PCT Inventors
| Year | Women PCT Inventors | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 9.9% | WIPO |
| 2010 | ~13% | WIPO |
| 2022 | 17.1% | WIPO |
| 2024 | 18% | WIPO PCT Yearly Review |
Regional Parity Projections
| Region | Projected Parity Year |
|---|---|
| North America | 2055 |
| Asia | 2056 |
| Latin America | 2068 |
| Europe | 2088 |
| Oceania | 2088 |
Source: WIPO, 2023
The Quality Paradox
Women's patents score higher on objective quality measures. They receive less recognition.
Higher Quality
Women's patents show higher novelty, originality, and technological generality. Mixed-gender teams generate the most disruptive inventions.
Fewer Citations
Patents with common female names are cited 30% less frequently. Patents with rare female names are cited ~20% more frequently.
Examination Bias by the Numbers
| Finding | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Lower approval chance (common female names) | -8.2% | Jensen/Yale |
| Lower approval (rare female names, gender less obvious) | -2.8% | Jensen/Yale |
| Less likely to appeal after rejection | -2.5% | Jensen/Yale |
| Narrower claims when granted | More words added | Scientific Reports, 2024 |
Where It's Worst (and Best)
The 12.8% average hides wide variation across technology fields.
| Field | Women Inventor Share |
|---|---|
| Chemistry | ~18% |
| Pharmaceuticals / Biotech | ~15-18% |
| Design patents | ~17% |
| Medical devices | ~12-15% |
| Electrical engineering | ~8-10% |
| Software / ICT | ~7% |
| Mechanical engineering | ~6% |
Sources: USPTO Progress & Potential (2020), Nature (2025), OECD
The ICT and AI Gap
- Women obtain 7% of ICT patents in G20 countries. The global average is 2%.
- Women are 13x less likely to file an ICT patent than men.
- Women represent 22% of AI talent globally. Less than 14% hold senior executive AI roles.
- AI subfield gender splits: machine learning (85% men), pattern recognition (98% men), computer vision (67% men), neural networks (70% men).
Who We Don't Invent For
The gender gap does not just affect who invents. It affects what gets invented.
All-female inventor teams are 35% more likely to focus on women's health than all-male teams.
If patent parity had existed 1976-2010, approximately 6,500 more female-focused biomedical inventions would have been produced.
All-male teams produced 373,774 biomedical patents from 1976-2010. Women produced 56,286. Women's share rose from 6% to 16% over this period.
The Prosecution Pipeline
Gender disparities compound at every stage of patent prosecution.
| Stage | Finding | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Filing | 12.8% of inventors vs. 29% of STEM workforce | USPTO / Science |
| First Office Action | Female inventors more likely to receive rejections | Scientific Reports, 2024 |
| Response | Women 3.7-6.9pp less likely to continue after rejection | MIT Press, 2024 |
| Appeal | Women 2.5% less likely to appeal | Jensen/Yale |
| Grant | Lower aggregate grant rate for female inventors | Scientific Reports, 2024 |
| Claim Scope | Granted patents with female inventors have narrower claims | Scientific Reports, 2024 |
| Post-Grant | Cited 30% less frequently (common female names) | Jensen/Yale |
Each stage individually contributes to a lower aggregate outcome. The effect is cumulative.
One consistent finding: university-filed applications show increased gender parity in allowance rates. Large entities exhibit the greatest gender gaps. The institution matters.
What Actually Works
These interventions have measured results, not just intentions.
First-ever randomized controlled trial at the USPTO. 15 senior examiners trained to assist pro se applicants. Women's patent grant rate increased 12%. First-time applicants increased 17%.
Women in Innovation & Technology program. Patent filings on behalf of women faculty increased 129%. Women faculty interactions with technology transfer office up 27%.
Women's share of invention disclosures tripled over 50 years: 6.5% to 19.7%. Still below the 30% female faculty rate. Progress is real but incomplete.
50 global companies signed the USIPA Diversity Pledge: Microsoft, Google, Meta, P&G, Lenovo. Microsoft increased women inventors by 3.5 percentage points. Meta reached 17.6% inventorship rate.
Structural Fixes
The interventions with the lowest cost and highest impact are structural:
- Prepopulate disclosure forms with names of all lab members. When people are prompted to consider all contributors, they include inventors they would otherwise overlook.
- Proactive outreach from TTOs, not reactive waiting. Women are less likely to self-identify as inventors. The system needs to find them.
- Examiner training in encouraging language and interview prompts. The USPTO RCT showed a 25% increase in interview requests from both genders.
- Collect and publish gendered patent data at every institution. What gets measured gets managed.
Source: Goodman, Science, 2022
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does the 12.8% number come from?
The 12.8% figure comes from the USPTO's "Progress and Potential: 2020 Update on U.S. Women Inventor-Patentees." It measures the share of individual patent inventors who are women, based on name-gender inference across all U.S. utility patents as of 2019. It is the most recent official USPTO figure.
Why is the WIPO number (17.7%) higher than the USPTO number (12.8%)?
Different methodologies and different populations. The USPTO figure counts all U.S. domestic patent filings. The WIPO figure counts international PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) filings only. PCT applications skew toward larger organizations and multinational teams, which tend to have more mixed-gender inventor groups. Neither figure is wrong. They measure different things.
Which fields are closest to gender parity in patenting?
Chemistry (~18%), pharmaceuticals and biotechnology (~15-18%), and design patents (~17%) have the highest shares of women inventors. These fields tend to have stronger university pipelines and more women in the underlying research workforce. Mechanical engineering (~6%) and software/ICT (~7%) have the lowest shares.
What can my organization do right now?
Three steps with measured results: (1) Prepopulate invention disclosure forms with all team member names instead of requiring self-nomination. (2) Proactively reach out to researchers rather than waiting for disclosures to arrive. (3) Collect and publish gendered patent data within your organization. The Washington University WIT program saw a 129% increase in women's patent filings using approaches like these.