What is your take on the slow pace of growth in global patent filings? Do you see it as a cost issue, a policy gap, or simply a mentality in how innovation is protected today? I am curious to hear how others interpret this change in momentum.
The slow growth in global patent filings likely reflects a combination of factors beyond the remit of this newsletter. Cost remains a major barrier, especially for small entities and inventors in emerging markets, as international protection under the PCT can be expensive and complex. At the same time, some countries may lack supportive national IP policies or legal infrastructure to encourage global filings, but I also think we are seeing a change in mentality. Some innovators are opting for trade secrets, defensive publishing, or regional filings instead of broad international coverage, especially in fast-moving sectors like software and AI. Additionally, patent saturation in some fields may be making applicants more selective. It is not necessarily a sign of less innovation, but a recalibration of how and where innovation is protected.
Great points, especially about cost and changing strategies. Still, I think the slowdown might be less about recalibration and more about uncertainty. With frequent tech changes and AI rules, and geopolitical tensions, many innovators may be holding back on filings until the political environment feels clearer. Rather than choosing trade secrets over patents, some might just be pausing.
What a fantastic article! One data here shows a low percentage of women listed as inventors. If you work in tech, research, or academia, I keep wondering what practical steps can help to actually increase recognition and inclusion? I would love to gather ideas and experiences that go beyond just awareness (lip service) into action.
One practical legal step is ensuring that institutional IP policies clearly define inventorship and include procedures to audit contributions at the drafting stage. In many research environments, women contribute significantly but are not always listed due to unclear attribution practices or hierarchical lab structures. We really believe that legal training for supervisors and managers on inventorship criteria under patent law can help reduce oversight. Additionally, creating mandatory IP disclosure forms that track contributions from all team members will go a long w ay to support fairer recognition. Then, legal teams should also be involved earlier in the research process to identify and validate inventorship based on contribution, not just based on seniority or authorship. The solution is really multifaceted.
That is a feasible approach, but I would add that legal fixes alone may not be enough. Cultural change matters too. Even with clear policies, some teams still exclude contributors due to bias or assumptions. Maybe encouraging open dialogue and inclusive lab practices can work alongside legal reforms to make real progress. But every country will be different, that's the issue to be honest.
Absolutely agree that cultural change is essential. Legal frameworks can only go so far if team dynamics or biases prevent fair recognition from the start.
What is your take on the slow pace of growth in global patent filings? Do you see it as a cost issue, a policy gap, or simply a mentality in how innovation is protected today? I am curious to hear how others interpret this change in momentum.
The slow growth in global patent filings likely reflects a combination of factors beyond the remit of this newsletter. Cost remains a major barrier, especially for small entities and inventors in emerging markets, as international protection under the PCT can be expensive and complex. At the same time, some countries may lack supportive national IP policies or legal infrastructure to encourage global filings, but I also think we are seeing a change in mentality. Some innovators are opting for trade secrets, defensive publishing, or regional filings instead of broad international coverage, especially in fast-moving sectors like software and AI. Additionally, patent saturation in some fields may be making applicants more selective. It is not necessarily a sign of less innovation, but a recalibration of how and where innovation is protected.
Great points, especially about cost and changing strategies. Still, I think the slowdown might be less about recalibration and more about uncertainty. With frequent tech changes and AI rules, and geopolitical tensions, many innovators may be holding back on filings until the political environment feels clearer. Rather than choosing trade secrets over patents, some might just be pausing.
Of course, these are all relevant points that may be slowing down patent registration.
What a fantastic article! One data here shows a low percentage of women listed as inventors. If you work in tech, research, or academia, I keep wondering what practical steps can help to actually increase recognition and inclusion? I would love to gather ideas and experiences that go beyond just awareness (lip service) into action.
Glad you loved the newsletter.
One practical legal step is ensuring that institutional IP policies clearly define inventorship and include procedures to audit contributions at the drafting stage. In many research environments, women contribute significantly but are not always listed due to unclear attribution practices or hierarchical lab structures. We really believe that legal training for supervisors and managers on inventorship criteria under patent law can help reduce oversight. Additionally, creating mandatory IP disclosure forms that track contributions from all team members will go a long w ay to support fairer recognition. Then, legal teams should also be involved earlier in the research process to identify and validate inventorship based on contribution, not just based on seniority or authorship. The solution is really multifaceted.
That is a feasible approach, but I would add that legal fixes alone may not be enough. Cultural change matters too. Even with clear policies, some teams still exclude contributors due to bias or assumptions. Maybe encouraging open dialogue and inclusive lab practices can work alongside legal reforms to make real progress. But every country will be different, that's the issue to be honest.
Absolutely agree that cultural change is essential. Legal frameworks can only go so far if team dynamics or biases prevent fair recognition from the start.