Understanding Women’s Participation in Innovation and IP

The women inventor rate (the share of inventors who are women) rose from 12 percent in 2014 to 18 percent in 2024. Meanwhile, the share of patents with at least one woman among the inventors showed larger growth, climbing from 25.6 percent in 2014 to 37 percent in 2024.

Participation of women inventors in published PCT applications (2014-2023)

Source: WIPO Statistical Database

What does it tell us? First, although the share of patents with at least one woman inventor is higher than the women participation rate, over the past 10 years both indicators grew at a similar rate (around 4 percent). Nevertheless, the increase in women’s participation in innovation seem to be driven by an increased participation in teams rather than individual applications.

Women's participation varies considerably across technological fields. In 2024, the share of patents with at least one woman inventor reached its highest levels in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology (63 percent) and chemistry and materials (47 percent). In contrast, participation was the lowest in mechanical engineering (26 percent).  Although women's representation in information and communication technologies and electrical and electronic engineering stood at 35 percent and 30 percent, respectively, these fields have experienced the most dramatic improvements since 2014. The share of patents with at least one woman inventor grew by 13 percentage points for information and communication technologies and 12 percentage points for electrical and electronic engineering. This trend indicates that while women inventors continue to concentrate in pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and chemistry fields, they are increasingly gaining ground in new technological domains.

Participation of women in published PCT applications (Share of patents with at least one woman inventor), by technology in 2014, 2019 and 2024

Source: WIPO Statistical Database. The 35 technology fields are grouped into 6 macro categories. Chemistry & Materials: basic materials chemistry, chemical engineering, food chemistry, macromolecular chemistry and polymers, materials and metallurgy, organic fine chemistry, and surface technology and coating. Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology: biological materials, biotechnology, medical technology, micro-structural and nanotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. Mechanical Engineering: civil engineering, engines, pumps and turbines, environmental technology, machine tools, mechanical elements, other special machines, textile and paper machines, thermal processes and apparatus, and transport. Electrical & Electronic Engineering: control, electrical machinery, apparatus and energy, measurement, optics, and semiconductors. Information & Communication Technology: audio-visual technology, basic communication processes, computer technology, digital communication, IT methods for management, and telecommunications. Consumer Goods & Other Technologies: furniture and games, handling, and other consumer goods.

Why do women participate less than men in innovation and IP?

Women's limited participation in IP systems centers on structural barriers: educational obstacles, employment disparities, restricted credit access, discrimination, and inadequate recognition for contributions. Despite increasing numbers of women earning STEM degrees, they remain dramatically underrepresented in the intellectual property system. Research indicates this is not due to lack of talent, but rather institutional and structural barriers.

Women's patent applications face higher rejection rates and require more amendments during prosecution, ultimately reducing their scope and value. Their patents receive fewer citations and are less likely to be maintained long-term. In collaborative inventions, women's contributions sometimes go completely uncredited—a phenomenon so pervasive it earned its own name, the "Matilda Effect". Economic returns compound these disadvantages. Women inventors earn 14 to 20 percent less than male counterparts in R&D roles (Hoisl and Mariani, 2016; Toivanen and Väänänen, 2012), while women designers make 13 percent less than men (EUIPO, 2023). These disparities persist throughout careers, leading to slower progression for women and higher exit rates, effects that exceed what can be explained by family responsibilities or skill differences alone.

Yet structural barriers represent only one dimension of the problem. Increasingly, researchers recognize that early exposure to innovation shapes career trajectories, with parental role models significantly influencing children's likelihood of becoming inventors. Notably, this impact is substantially stronger for boys than girls, driven partly by parents' gendered perceptions about returns from inventorship. Moreover, lack of IP awareness prevents many from patenting, particularly small businesses and women entrepreneurs. Women entrepreneurs often do not recognize the market value of IP rights or understand how to leverage them for business growth and may not view commercialization of ideas as aligning with their career goals. If women are unaware of IP benefits or hold negative perceptions about the system, they will avoid seeking protection for their innovations regardless of talent or opportunity.

References

Balahadia, F. F., R. R. Fiscal, J. N. Olayta, M. C. Pablo, M. R. Valmote, and J. A. C. Ganibo. 2022. “University Students’ Awareness on Intellectual Property Rights.” International Journal of Academe and Industry Research 3(3): 28-42.

Bell, A., R. Chetty, X. Jaravel, N. Petkova, and J. Van Reenen. 2019. “Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 134(2): 647-713.

Bloom, N., C. I. Jones, J. Van Reenen, and M. Webb. 2020. “Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?” American Economic Review 110(4): 1104-1144.

Carpentier, É., J. Brant, U. Bahl, and A. Kanellia. 2024. “Closing Innovation and Intellectual Property Diversity Gaps: A Global Literature Review”. Economic Research Working Paper No. 86.

EUIPO. 2023. “Women in Design”. European Union Intellectual Property Office, Alicante, Spain.

Hoisl, K., H. C. Kongsted, and M. Mariani. 2023. “Lost Marie Curies: Parental Impact on the Probability of Becoming an Inventor.” Management Science 69(3): 1714-1738.

Hoisl, K., and M. Mariani. 2017. “It’s a Man’s Job: Income and the Gender Gap in Industrial Research.” Management Science 63(3): 766-790

Hunt, J. 2016. “Why Do Women Leave Science and Engineering?” ILR Review 69(1): 199-226.

IWPR. 2018. “Closing the Gender Gap in Patenting, Innovation, and Commercialization: Programs Promoting Equity and Inclusion”. Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Washington, D.C.

Jensen, K., B. Kovács, and O. Sorenson. 2018. “Gender Differences in Obtaining and Maintaining Patent Rights.” Nature Biotechnology 36(4): 307-309.

Koning, R., S. Samila, and J. P. Ferguson. 2021. “Who Do We Invent For? Patents by Women Focus More on Women’s Health, but Few Women Get to Invent.” Science 372(6548): 1345-1348.

Osei-Tutu, J. J. 2017. “Using Intellectual Property Law to Promote Human Flourishing for Market Women.” Landslide 10: 38.

Pitkethly, R. H. 2012. “Intellectual Property Awareness.” International Journal of Technology Management 59(3/4): 163-179.

Rossiter, M. W. 1993. “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science.” Social Studies of Science 23(2): 325-341.

Toivanen, O., and L. Väänänen. 2012. “Returns to Inventors.” Review of Economics and Statistics 94(4): 1173-1190.