Page 41 - T-I JOURNAL19 4

WOMEN INNOVATOR PROGRAMS IN ACADEMIA 689

Types of Data Collected and Segmentation Additionally, the OTM had the responsibility
Data used in the study was collected from the to decide to file an international patent application
period of July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2016. The (i.e., a PCT application) or a U.S. non-provisional
university starts a fiscal year on July 1 and ends a fiscal patent application. Only the converted applications
year on June 30 (e.g., fiscal year 2011 began on July (i.e., not national phase applications) are included in
1, 2010, and ended on June 30, 2011). In this paper, this data. Most often, the OTM chose to file either a
all years in defined text and graphs refer to the given PCT application or a U.S. non-provisional applica-
fiscal year. tion. In rare instances, the OTM chose to file both a
All identifying information from the initial inven- PCT application and a U.S. non-provisional patent
tion disclosures, from WUSTL HR, and from searches application from the same provisional patent appli-
was delivered into the appropriate field in KSS. Data cation. For the purposes of (d) above, the PCT and
was selected in order to create the following data sets: the non-provisional patent applications were counted
as two distinct applications.
(a) Total number of unique creators
(b) Total number of serial creators (those creators RESULTS
submitting two or more disclosures over the time
period assessed) The creator population is inclusive of all the indi-
viduals who fall under the intellectual property policy
(c) Total number of invention disclosures of the university. At WUSTL, the policy includes
(d) Total number of patent applications and a all graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, faculty,
breakdown of patent type including provisional, and staff, but it specifically excludes undergraduate
converted patent cooperation treaty (PCT)
applications, and U.S. non-provisional patent students. We evaluated the total creator population
applications (For the purposes of this study, if a over the span of 2011 through 2016. The total cre-
provisional patent application was converted to ator number increased by 48.6% during this time
a PCT application, the non-provisional patent period, but the individual representation of gender
remained constant, with female creators accounting
application that might have been filed in the U.S. at
the time of national phase filings was not counted for 20% to 24% and male creators 76% to 80%. At
in the non-provisional data.) the inception of the WIT program in 2013, there
(e) The conversion rate of disclosures to provi- were 26 female faculty creators and 32 non-faculty
sional patent applications female creators versus 145 male faculty creators and
96 non-faculty male creators. In 2016, each popula-
All data sets (a)-(e) above were stratified by gender tion of creators had increased. Female faculty creators
and population (faculty, student, or staff). increased to 33, female non-faculty creators increased
to 55, male faculty creators increased to 172, and
Patent Application Decision-Making male non-faculty creators increased to 119 (Table
For (c) above, the number of invention disclosures 1). By 2016, the representative percentage increase in
was assessed by excluding intellectual property that overall female creators (faculty and non-faculty) was
would be solely commercialized through a mate- over 50% as compared to 2013, while the percentage
rial transfer agreement (MTA). Exclusion of MTAs increase in overall male creators was only 20% as
resulted in a subset of invention disclosures that had compared to 2013. Within the female faculty popu-
the potential to be protected by a patent application lation alone, there was an increase of 27%, which was
and/or copyright. Of these disclosures, the OTM eight percentage points higher than the male faculty
had the responsibility to make a decision to file or population increase of 19%. The biggest population
not to file a patent application (e.g., a provisional increase occurred in the non-faculty female popula-
patent application). The decision to file is generally tion, which was 72% higher in 2016 over 2013 (Figure
based on the likelihood of obtaining a patent and 1).
the commercial potential of the idea or technology
described.