[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LOST EINSTEINS: LACK OF DIVERSITY IN PATENT
INVENTORSHIP AND THE IMPACT ON
AMERICA'S INNOVATION ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS,
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET
of the
COMMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 27, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-12
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available http://judiciary.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-359 WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia,
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Ranking Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Wisconsin
Georgia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
KAREN BASS, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana KEN BUCK, Colorado
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
ERIC SWALWELL, California MATT GAETZ, Florida
TED LIEU, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington TOM McCLINTOCK, California
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, BEN CLINE, Virginia
Vice-Chair KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LUCY McBATH, Georgia
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
Brendan Belair, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Georgia, Chair
LOU CORREA, California, Vice-Chair
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida MARTHA ROBY, Alabama,
CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana Ranking Member
HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
TED LIEU, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio
GREG STANTON, Arizona JOHN RADCLIFF, Texas
ZOE LOFGREN, California MATT GAETZ, Florida
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
KAREN BASS, California ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
ERIC SWALWELL, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia
Jamie Simpson, Chief Counsel
Thomas Stoll, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 27, 2019
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Henry C. Hank Johnson, Jr., a Representative in the
Congress from the State of Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee
on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet............. 1
The Honorable Martha Roby, a Representative in the Congress from
the State of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet................ 3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in the Congress
from the State of New York, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 4
WITNESSES
The Honorable Michelle Lee, Former Under Secretary of Commerce
for Intellectual Property and Director U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Professor Lisa D. Cook, Associate Professor of Economics and
International Relations, Director, American Economic
Association Summer Training Program, Department of Economics,
Michigan State University
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Statement............................................. 23
Professor Ayanna Howard, Professor and Chair, School of
Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology
Oral Testimony................................................. 40
Prepared Statement............................................. 42
Ms. Susie Armstrong, Senior Vice President, Engineering,
Qualcomm, Inc.
Oral Testimony................................................. 45
Prepared Statement............................................. 47
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared statement for the record from the Honorable Doug
Collins, a Representative in the Congress from Georgia, and
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 73
APPENDIX
material submitted for the hearing record
Questions to witnesses for the Record from the Honorable Martha
Roby, a Representative in the Congress from the State of
Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts,
Intellectual Property, and the
Internet....................................................... 78
Response to questions for the Record from The Honorable Michelle
Lee, Former Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director U.S. Patent and Trademark Office......... 80
Response to questions for the Record from Professor Lisa D. Cook,
Associate Professor of Economics and International Relations,
Director, American Economic Association Summer Training
Program, Department of Economics, Michigan State University.... 83
Response to questions for the Record from Professor Ayanna
Howard, Professor and Chair, School of Interactive Computing,
Georgia Institute of Technology................................ 87
Response to questions for the Record from Ms. Susie Armstrong,
Senior Vice President, Engineering, Qualcomm, Inc.............. 88
LOST EINSTEINS: LACK OF DIVERSITY IN PATENT INVENTORSHIP AND THE IMPACT
ON AMERICA'S INNOVATION ECONOMY
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2019
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet,
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry C.
``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Johnson of Georgia, Nadler,
Deutch, Jeffries, Stanton, Lofgren, Correa, Roby, Chabot,
Jordan, Reschen-thaler, and Cline.
Staff Present: Jamie Simpson, Chief Counsel; David
Greengrass, Senior Counsel; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk;
Rosalind Jackson, Professional Staff Member; Thomas Stoll,
Minority Chief Counsel; and Andrea Woodard, Minority
Professional Staff Member.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Good morning, everyone. The
subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the Chair
is authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittee at any
time.
We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on ``Lost
Einsteins: Lack of Diversity and Patent Inventorship and the
Impact on America's Innovation Economy.''
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the first hearing in the
116th Congress of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee
on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. I am proud
that we begin our Committee's work on a topic that is of
paramount importance to the future of our country, ensuring
that everyone has the same equality of opportunity to
participate in our Nation's innovation economy, a right so
important that it is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Our
long-standing commitment to the innovation economy has made the
United States a world super power. We have a duty to ensure
that everyone has an equal chance to participate fairly in this
vibrant part of our economy without misuse or abuse. Women,
minorities, and other underrepresented groups of people should
not be excluded from the patent system or face unnecessary
barriers. Moreover, if we are to stay the world leader, we
cannot afford to leave innovative talent behind.
As the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, we come at
this question from a particular angle, looking at who is named
as inventors on U.S. patents. Because the first Patent Act
passed in 1790, shortly after this country's founding, we have
a large documentary history of data to use. The good news is
that this data shows that the patent system has long played a
role in enabling marginalized but ambitious and inventive
people the ability to participate in the innovation economy
through the receipt of a patent. For example, while the
majority of African Americans were still enslaved, the first
patent believed to be awarded to an African American was in
1821 to Thomas L. Jennings for his new method of dry cleaning
clothes. Another example: well before women obtained the right
to vote, the first patent believed to be awarded to a woman was
in 1793 to Hannah Wilkinson Slater for her new method of
producing cotton sewing thread.
The bad news, however, is that, in modern times, data shows
that there has not been a good track record of progress towards
having equal protection from these groups in the patent system.
The USPTO's recent report on gender diversity shows that, even
today, the total number of inventors who are women in the
United States is only 12 percent. It has not substantially
increased over the last 15 years.
For other underrepresented groups, collecting data on
patenting has been more challenging. The USPTO does not collect
demographic data on who applies for patents. In the gender
space, researchers have often relied upon algorithms to
estimate if an inventor's name is male or female. This is not a
perfect approach, but it is even harder for researchers to
associate inventor data with other demographics such as race or
ethnicity.
I am pleased that one of our witnesses today, Professor
Lisa Cook, has nonetheless conducted research on how many
African Americans are named as inventors on patents. This body
of work, including Professor Cook's research, documents that
there is underrepresentation here as well.
I look forward as well to hearing from the rest of the
accomplished witnesses on this panel about their own stories of
being a woman or minority in fields where they might have had
few peers who look like them. I want to understand the
challenges they faced and their ideas for improvement and,
indeed, where they have already taken steps to improve
participation, like former USPTO director Michell Lee's All in
STEM initiative to address gender diversity.
Congress has certainly taken notice of this issue before. I
was proud in the last Congress to work with the gentleman from
Ohio, Mr. Chabot, and other Members of this Committee on the
passage of the SUCCESS Act, which called for the USPTO to put
together a comprehensive survey on patenting by women,
minorities, veterans, and low-income individuals.
But it also seems that there is much more that we can do,
and I hope to learn more about potential steps we can take from
our witnesses as well.
I have often heard, for example, that many from
underrepresented groups leave STEM fields once they are in them
because they find themselves in an unwelcoming work
environment. Research shows that this is just one of many
reasons why there might be underrepresentation. And there is no
doubt that this is a complicated issue, but it is also
critically important.
I think the title of the hearing speaks directly to this,
``Lost Einsteins.'' When women and minorities are not in the
innovation pipeline or if they leave because they don't feel
welcome, we are losing sources for increased innovation. We are
leaving talent on the table, and, frankly, we are leaving
talent behind. The lack of diversity calls into question
whether there is an equal opportunity for all of these
underrepresented groups to live up to their full potential if
being an inventor or an innovator is what they want to do. I
believe we can and should do better.
Thank you, and I look forward to your testimony.
And it is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member
of the Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Alabama, Mrs. Roby,
for her opening statement.
Mrs. Roby. I thank the Chairman, and I thank all of the
witnesses for being here with us today.
Patents are one of the key drivers of innovation in this
country. And by protecting inventions from theft, they provide
the incentive necessary for individual inventors and small and
large companies alike to invest the time and resources needed
to develop lifesaving and life-enhancing products and helps the
United States maintain its position in the world as the world's
undisputed innovation leader.
To realize our full potential, America needs to tap into
the inventive genius found in the great minds of all our
citizens, great minds like that of NASA chemist Barbara Askins,
a graduate of the University of Alabama and a Huntsville
resident, who, in 1978, was recognized as the first national
inventor of the year. Ms. Askins invented the autoradiograph
technology to create very high contrast images used in space
photography and to vastly improve X-ray images. She was the
sole inventor on the project and alone received a patent.
Unfortunately, while U.S. women earn almost half of all the
undergraduate degrees in science and engineering and 39 percent
of all new Ph.D.s in this field, even today they are not
receiving a proportionate share of patents. The USPTO's recent
study on the issue found that, in 2016, a woman was named on
only 21 percent of all patents granted, and women inventors
made up only 12 percent of all inventors. It concluded that
gains in participation in science and engineering occupations
and entrepreneurship are not leading to significant increases
in women inventors receiving patents. We have to do a better
job of unlocking this potential to both help all of our
citizens enjoy the fruits of their labor while also helping the
U.S. to maintain its position as the technology leader.
To that end, just last year, this committee passed a bill
that was signed into law with that goal in mind. The SUCCESS
Act instructed the USPTO to work with the Small Business
Administration to study the issue and report to Congress on
recommendations for promoting the participation of women,
minorities, and veterans both in entrepreneurship and in
applying and obtaining patents. I look forward to receiving
that report and its recommendations.
Today, we all look forward to hearing from our esteemed
witnesses on their experiences with the patent system and how
our great female minds value the patent system but have
experienced challenges fully participating in it and their
recommendations on what can be done to promote the creation of
new inventions by women and minorities in the patenting of
those inventions.
So, again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank you again, all of the witnesses, for appearing
here today. And we look forward to not only your testimony but
having the opportunity to engage with each of you.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Representative Roby.
I am now pleased to recognize the Chairman of the Full
Committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for his
opening statement.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this important hearing to investigate why there is a
lack of diversity among patent holders in the United States.
Unlike many issues in Congress, there is bipartisan
agreement on the need to protect American intellectual property
and to foster innovation. So many entrepreneurs today rely on
intellectual property to fuel their businesses, and these
businesses are increasingly the engine of economic growth in
our Nation. Statistics underscore how important IP is to our
economy.
In 2016, the U.S. Commerce Department reported that IP-
intensive industries contributed more than $6 trillion of value
to the U.S. gross domestic product. With so much of our economy
dependent on IP-related industries, it is critical that
everyone share in the economic opportunities that these
industries offer. Promoting greater inclusion in the innovation
ecosystem is good for our economy, good for underserved
communities, and good for all Americans.
Unfortunately, research shows that many segments of our
society continue to be underrepresented as inventors on
patents. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's recent report
on gender diversity finds that women are very much
underrepresented as patent holders. Analyzing data on U.S.
patents granted between 1976 and 2016, the report shows that
women compromised only 12 percent of the named investors on
patents in 2016, representing an increase of only 2 percent
over the last 16 years. Clearly, whatever progress is being
made is happening far too slowly, and much needs to be done to
promote greater gender diversity among inventors.
Moreover, the USPTO's research shows that the
underrepresentation in patenting is not solely a function of
women entering science and engineering fields at lower rates
than men, although that continues to be a problem. In 2015,
women compromised nearly 28 percent of the total science and
engineering workforce but only 12 percent of inventors granted
patents.
Even when women are in the fields most associated with
patenting, they are patenting at the same rate as their male
colleagues. This shows that the gender gap in patenting is
likely to be caused by many factors, not just because there are
fewer women scientists and engineers. Unfortunately, because
the USPTO does not collect demographic data on inventors, it
has been more challenging to study racial and ethnic diversity
among U.S. inventors. Nonetheless, the studies that have been
done also show significant disparities in patenting rates along
racial and ethnic lines.
I hope to learn more from the witnesses about how we can
improve data collection on this issue and learn more about the
causes of these disparities since the first step toward solving
the problem is understanding its scope and root causes. For
example, one study found that exposure to innovation during
childhood has a major impact on an individual's desire to
become an inventor, that a child's likelihood of becoming an
inventor increases if he or she grows up in one of our
country's technology hubs. I am proud that New York City, where
my district is located, counts as one of these hubs, and I hope
we can figure out how to replicate this sort of inventive
environment elsewhere throughout the United States.
As the title of this hearing suggests, there may be many
lost Einsteins in our country. The loss in economic value and
innovation to say nothing of the missed opportunities for these
individuals who are left behind presents a significant
challenge that must be addressed.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses not just about
the barriers that underrepresented groups may face in the
innovation ecosystem but also about how we can begin to address
this serious problem. We can and we must do better, and that
starts with hearings like this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The statement of Chairman Nadler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
I will now introduce today's witnesses.
Michelle K. Lee is the Former Director of the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office and Former Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property. In that role, Ms. Lee was the principal
advisor to the President through the Secretary of Commerce on
domestic and international intellectual property policy matters
and is the first woman to serve as the Director of the USPTO in
the country's 220-plus-year history. She is also a veteran of
Silicon Valley experienced in scaling fast-growing companies
with disruptive technologies and an expert in intellectual
property. She was the Deputy General Counsel for Google and,
before that, worked at the law firm of Fenwick and West LLP.
She currently serves as a public company board of directors for
alarm.com, a provider of a cloud-based software as a service
solution. Before building her legal career, Ms. Lee worked as a
computer scientist at Hewlett-Packard research laboratories as
well as at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory. She holds a B.S. and also an M.S. in
electrical engineering and computer science from MIT as well as
a J.D. from Stanford law school.
Professor Lisa D. Clark teaches at both James Madison
College and in the Department of Economics at Michigan State
University. After receiving a B.A. from Spelman College, she
was a Marshall Scholar at Oxford University, where she obtained
a B.A. in philosophy, politics, and economics. She received a
Ph.D. in economics from the University of California at
Berkeley and was a Postdoctoral Fellow and Visiting Assistant
Professor at the Kennedy School of Government and Deputy
Director for Africa research at the Center for International
Development at Harvard University. Her current research
interests include the economics of intellectual property
rights, economic growth, and development, financial
institutions and markets, and economic history. Dr. Cook is the
author of a number of published articles, books, chapters, and
working papers, and has edited and contributed to the Harvard
World Economic Forum Global and Africa Competitiveness Reports.
Dr. Ayanna Howard is a Professor and Chair of the School of
Interactive Computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
She is also the Chief Technology Officer of Zyrobotics. She has
made significant contributions in the technology areas of
artificial intelligence, computer vision, and robotics. Her
published research numbers over 250 peer-reviewed publications.
Her accomplishments have been highlighted through a number of
awards and articles as well as being named an MIT technology
review top young innovator and recognized as one of the 23 most
powerful women engineers in the world of Business Insider as
well as one of the top 50 U.S. women in tech by Forbes. Prior
to Georgia Tech, Dr. Howard was a Senior Robotics researcher
and a Deputy Manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Dr.
Howard received her B.S. from Brown University, her MSEE from
the University of Southern California, her Ph.D. in electrical
engineering from the University of Southern California, and her
M.A. from Claremont University Drucker School of Management.
Susan M. Armstrong is a Senior Vice President in
Engineering at Qualcomm. She started at Qualcomm working on
Globalstar and then early CDMA base station projects. She was a
pioneer in bringing internet protocols to the cellular industry
resulting in the first web surfing on a cellular phone in 1997
and Qualcomm's commercialization of packet data in 1998. Since
then, she has held various leadership positions, first as the
head of software engineering in Qualcomm's mobile chipset
division and then as the head of worldwide customer customer
engineering, the group that integrates and commercializes the
company's products and phones and other wireless devices.
Recently, Ms. Armstrong has joined Qualcomm's government
affairs group, where she brings an engineering and product
background to policy work. Prior to joining Qualcomm in 1994,
Ms. Armstrong worked for 10 years at the Xerox systems
development department and the Xerox Webster Research Center.
Ms. Armstrong holds a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science
from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.
And, I hope that I have got that name right. Qualcomm?
Ms. Armstrong. Qualcomm, yes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. Thank you.
We welcome all of our distinguished witnesses and thank you
all for participating in today's hearing.
Before proceeding with testimony, I hereby remind each
witness that all of your written and oral statements made to
this Subcommittee in connection with this hearing are subject
to penalties of perjury pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1001,
which may result in the imposition of a fine or imprisonment of
up to 5 years or both. Please note that each of your written
statements will be entered into the record in its entirety.
Accordingly, I ask that you summarize your testimony in 5
minutes. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing
light on your table. When the light switches from green to
yellow, you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. And when
the light turns red, it signals your 5 minutes have expired.
Once again, I thank you all for being here.
And, Ms. Lee, you may begin.
Ms. Lee. Good morning.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And if you would turn on your
microphone.
Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE MICHELLE K. LEE, FORMER UNDER
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR,
U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE; LISA D. COOK, ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, DIRECTOR,
AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION SUMMER TRAINING PROGRAM,
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY; AYANNA
HOWARD, PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, SCHOOL OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTING,
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; AND SUSIE ARMSTRONG, SENIOR
VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING, QUALCOMM, INC.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHELLE K. LEE
Ms. Lee. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member
Roby, and Members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be
with you here today and thank you for hosting a hearing on such
an important topic. Invention is a cornerstone of America's
continued economic prosperity and well-being. Our world faces
numerous challenges, including global warming, food insecurity,
and cybersecurity, but also a number of attractive
opportunities, including finding new cures for diseases and
providing greater mobility for those with disability.
But solving those problems will require all the talent and
all the ingenuity that we can muster. Yet when it comes to
technological innovation, we are rowing with one hand behind
our back. We have all seen the numbers. The percentage of women
who are awarded patents in the U.S. is extremely low, anywhere
from 12 to 21 percent, depending upon the study and depending
upon how you count. And one recent study indicated that, at
this rate, it would take 118 years for us to reach parity in
gender in terms of patenting.
Why are the numbers so low? Number one, fewer girls and
fewer women pursue STEM careers. And even those that do face
high attrition rates. There are a myriad of reasons for this
including differences in upbringing, societal expectations,
fewer role models, unconscious bias, and even images in the
media. Both these factors contribute to the low numbers in
terms of women patent inventors.
If you think about it, in order to earn a patent, you have
to have a pretty good understanding of your field, the
technology, and how a product or process works. And then you
have to come up with an insight that no one else has ever
thought about on how to make it better, faster, cheaper, more
cost-effective. And these insights don't often come to you in
your first several years of practice in the profession. So, to
the extent that women are leaving STEM careers earlier and at
faster rates, that negatively impacts their patenting numbers.
Another contributing factor is the way organizations
solicit invention disclosures. Based upon my experiences as in-
house counsel, there are generally two ways: first, as a
voluntary inventor-initiated submission and, second, as a
manager-initiated brainstorming session inviting the relevant
team members to brainstorm to harvest the inventions. The
latter method, manager-initiated brainstorming sessions, tended
to be much more productive in terms of getting invention
disclosures from women.
Left to their own devices, women tended to discount the
novelty and usefulness of their inventions and were less
willing to dedicate the time to submit an invention disclosure
and to process the patent application and viewed such
activities as extracurricular professional activities. This has
implications on our economy. IP-intensive industry support one-
quarter of all jobs in the U.S. and make up one-third of our
gross domestic product.
So what can we do? Personally, as a woman who has spent her
career in tech and as the first woman head of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office in our country's 200-plus-year
history, I felt a heightened calling to address some of the
problems I had seen. This led me to launch, as Chairman Johnson
said, the first All-in-STEM initiative at the PTO. Its purpose:
to encourage more girls and more women to pursue STEM education
so that they could become inventors, STEM leaders, and
entrepreneurs. Programs included camp invention to teach our
kids to design and build and create; a Girl Scout intellectual
property patch to teach our young girls about IP and invention;
workshops for women inventors and entrepreneurs so that they
know of the resources and they have the support they need to
carry out their work.
But there are ways that all of us can contribute. In-house
patent counsel can measure and track the relevant statistics
and be thoughtful on how invention disclosures are gathered. We
can all be conscious of the disparate ways in which we raise
our boys and girls, from the toys they play with, to the
activities they pursue, to our expectations of them. We can
broaden the image of inventors by sharing stories of successful
women inventors, mentoring students in STEM to the maximum
interest and potential of these individuals; and, within
organizations that hire STEM talent, try to find ways to reduce
unconscious bias and to recruit and retain these women and, if
in alignment with your organization's priorities, including
patenting as a factor to consider in the promotion and tenure
decisions.
I am not advocating for gender parity in patenting numbers
simply for the sake of achieving parity. Rather, I believe we
need to nurture, develop, and harness all of our nation's
technical, innovative talents in whatever shape, age, gender,
background, or other demographic in which it may come.
As the title of your hearing suggests, our society and
world cannot afford to leave behind any future Einsteins.
Thank you. I will be glad to answer your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Lee follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Professor Cook, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF LISA D. COOK
Ms. Cook. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Roby, and
eminent Members the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today about ``Lost Einsteins: Lack of Diversity and
Patent Inventorship and the Impact on America's Economy.''
While we have my cousin, Percy Lavon Julian, to thank for
cortisone, which he developed in the 1950s, it was difficult
living and being an African American inventor at that time. His
home in Oak Park, Illinois, was fire-bombed twice. We as a
society have made progress since that time, but invention and
innovation could be more inclusive and beneficial to everyone
as a result.
Unequal access to invention and innovation can lead to
suboptimal outcomes for individuals and for the economy as a
whole. My research with Kongcharoen offers evidence that women
and underrepresented minorities are less likely to participate
in invention and innovation at each stage of the inventive
process: education and training, the practice of invention, and
commercialization of invention.
For women and minorities or would-be participants in this
category, this can result in an earnings, income, and
employment wealth gap. For the economy as a whole, this can
result in lower output and living standards. My and others'
research calculates that the size of the economy could be 3 to
4 percent higher if women and underrepresented minorities were
included in the innovative process from beginning to end. That
is living standards could be higher for all Americans with a
more inclusive innovative economy. My research was the first
study to systematically examine racial and gender gaps in
invention and innovation.
Allow me to say a little about my and related research. In
the early stages of education and training in STEM fields,
women and underrepresented minorities lag in participation in
nearly every STEM field. In 2014, women were awarded 35 percent
of bachelor's degrees in STEM fields, and 16 to 17 percent of
those in computer science and physics, and 23 percent of
doctoral degrees in engineering. For African Americans, this
was 4 percent of all STEM Ph.D. Degrees.
The recent literature on the gender and racial gap related
to participation in STEM fields attempts to identify the
factors affecting these differences including the impact of
social norms and gender stereotypes, peer effects, and
professors' gender on test scores and college majors.
With respect to practicing invention and creating new
knowledge or products, women and African Americans not only
engage at generally lower levels than their counterparts, but
they also earn less and are employed less than their
counterparts.
In 2010, the median salary for Whites was $72,000, and for
African Americans it was $56,000, which was 78 percent of the
median salary for Whites. In 2015, the share had only moved
slightly to 79 percent. In 2015, the median salary for men was
$87,000 and $62,000 for women, which was 71 percent of the
median male salary.
Among scientists and engineers, in 2015, African American
unemployment was 4.7 percent compared to 2.9 percent for
whites. The unemployment rate for African American women is
nearly double that of all scientists and engineers and more
than double that of White women scientists and engineers.
Unemployment for underrepresented minority men was just about 4
percent, which is higher than that for White and Asian men and
higher than the average for all scientists and engineers.
A few papers in the last decade have focused on the
misallocation of talent among inventors and other high-skilled
workers. My research found that coed patent teams are more
productive than single sex male or single sex female patent
teams. Hunt, Garant, Herman, and Munroe investigate the gender
gap for commercialized patents and show that the gender gap
among S&E degree holders is due primarily to women's
underrepresentation in patent-intensive fields and patent-
intensive job tasks. They also find that closing this gap would
increase U.S. GDP per capita cap by 2.7 percent.
My 2018 research shows that closing that gap--using more
recent data, closing that gap would be 0.6 percent to 4.4
percent higher--GDP would be 4.4 percent higher if more women
and African Americans received STEM training and worked in
related jobs.
Workplace issues for women and minorities go beyond the
opportunity to participate in invention and innovation.
Recently, tech workers in the U.S. have demonstrated to protest
sexual harassment and misconduct, lack of transparency,
including forced arbitration for sexual harassment claims,
workplace culture, and pay and opportunity inequality. Among
the Forbes list of richest people in the world, 5 of the top 10
derive their wealth primarily from the innovative economy.And
nine tech firms last year were valued at roughly $36 billion.
If the aforementioned losses to GDP were being tolerated,
firms, technology offices, and patent teams are not being good
stewards of America's human capital and inventive capacity.
This is a classic coordination problem and market failure.
Public policy can help in the research, analysis, and promotion
of diverse participation and inventive activities.
I look forward to talking to you more about finding the
lost Einsteins as well as the hidden figures, such as Katherine
Johnson.
[The statement of Ms. Cook follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Dr. Howard, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF AYANNA HOWARD
Ms. Howard. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member
Roby, and full Committee Chairman Nadler.
My name is Dr. Ayanna Howard, and I am professor and 569
Chair of the School of Interactive Computing at the Georgia
Institute of Technology. I also have served as the associate
571 director of research for the Institute for Robotics and
Intelligent Machines and Chair the robotics Ph.D. Program.
From 1993 to 2005, I was at NASA's jet propulsion 574
laboratory where I held the titles of senior robotics 575
researcher and deputy manager in the Office of the Chief
Scientist. I hold a degree in engineering from Brown
University, an M.S. and Ph.D. in electrical engineering from
the University of Southern California, and an MBA from the
Drucker Graduate School of Management.
My research concentrates on robotics, assistive
technologies, and artificial intelligence, which has resulted
in over 250 publications. In 2013, I founded Zyrobotics, a
Georgia Tech spinoff company which designs AI-powered STEM
tools and learning games for children with diverse learning
needs. My research has been supported by various industry and
government funding agencies ranging from NASA and the National
Science Foundation to the Georgia Research Alliance, and
Microsoft.
I regularly consult and sit on the advisory boards of a
number of organizations concerned with robotics, AI, and
workforce development. My work has also been highlighted
through a number of awards and articles, including highlights
in Vanity Fair, USA Today, and Time Magazine, as well as being
recognized as one of the 23 most powerful women engineers in
the world by Business Insider and one of the top 50 U.S. women
in tech by Forbes.
Despite all these successes, I only hold three patents,
which will now be the subject of discussion. I would like to
focus on my experience with the patent system. I do consider
myself an innovator and an entrepreneur. Invention is core to
what I do, and yet I only hold three patents. Even though there
has been a gain in female participation in science and
engineering, findings have shown that there has been not a
corresponding increase in female patent inventors.
My story corroborates with this claim. My first application
was filed in 2003 while I was still a graduate student and
designed an encryption system using fingerprint biometrics with
a small startup company. Given that neither of us had great
financial resources, we put together a patent application that
was filed. We eventually dropped pursuit of the application
after our patent claims were denied. After all, in the world of
logic, a rejection means just that: patent denied.
It wasn't until 10 years later in 2013 that I pursued my
next patent. And the only reason that came about was that I
needed to submit a provisional patent in order to compete for
the NSF I-Corps program, which is basically a boot camp
entrepreneurship program for academics and university-derived
IP.
I developed at that time a device that enabled children
with motor disabilities the ability to interact with tablet
devices without requiring pinching, swiping, or touching. A
year later in 2013, when the provisional patent was to expire,
after much discussion, Georgia Teach moved forward with filing
the patent application. Although it is now 2019, almost 6 years
later, it has still not been granted.
So what about the other patents that have been granted?
Well, I discovered a little bit of a trick. I hired a great
patent lawyer. So, when Zyrobotics, the Georgia Tech spinoff
company was founded, it licensed the IP from that first patent.
Given that I knew to be competitive, the company had to possess
its own IP, we hired an extremely talented patent attorney.
Although quite expensive, we secured two patents within a 2-
yeat timeframe. And I finally understood how the process
worked, how the back-and-forth dance with the patent examiner
evolves, how denial really means ``find another way, find
another way, find another way,'' and how persistence can lead
to success.
Unfortunately, the price tag is not very sustainable for a
startup company in the education space. I also think it is not
that sustainable for an academic institution in which the
return on investment is not well defined.
So, given my personal experience in this space, it comes as
no surprise to me that women still make up a small percentage
of the patent inventors. Reports state that U.S. female-founded
startups raise just 2.2 percent of venture capital investment
in 2018. Without sufficient capital, how, then, would you
prosecute a successful patent application given that the price
tag is so high?
I strongly believe, beyond educating entrepreneurs and
given the state of affairs that currently we have, a more
robust pro bono patent attorney agent program for small
businesses would immensely help inventors compete in this
patent world. It would also help level the playing field just a
bit for women and underrepresented entrepreneurs.
In closing, I appreciate the committee's attention to this
topic.I stand ready to answer your questions and work with you
on moving forward to help create a patent system where more
researchers like myself can find success navigating the ins and
outs of pursuing a patent.
[The statement of Ms. Howard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Dr. Howard.
Ms. Armstrong, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF SUSIE ARMSTRONG
Ms. Armstrong. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Roby, and
Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Susie Armstrong, and I
am a Senior Vice President of engineering at Qualcomm. Thank
you for inviting me to testify today on this critical topic of
diversity and innovation.
As the leading U.S. company engaged in foundational
research and development of 5G, Qualcomm believes that diverse
innovation is an imperative. We can only solve the world's
toughest engineering problems if we bring together teams with
different backgrounds and different perspectives.
Our CEO, Steve Mollenkopf, said recently: With 5G, new and
previously unsolvable problems will be solved, new generations
of innovations and innovators will be born. And we need more
great technology minds, and that means getting the next
generation, in particular women and underrepresented
communities, excited and prepared for the world to come.
Since starting Qualcomm in 1994, I have held various
leadership positions at the company but first consider myself
an engineer and an inventor. In my experience, invention rarely
involves people working alone to develop brilliant ideas. More
often, invention is a team effort that requires the creativity,
the interaction, the debate, and the multiple perspectives that
different collaborators bring to recognize a technical problem
or opportunity.
My own invention, called simple packet data, allowed
cellular phones to connect to the internet and resulted in the
first internet surfing of the 1997 CTIA show on this phone. I
created a simple way for a base station to set up a packet data
call by bringing to our engineering team my background in a
completely separate field, computer communications and
ethernet. That invention was impactful. 20 years later, mobile
internet has revolutionized the way we communicate, paving the
way for 5G and the wireless economy of the future.
But not everybody has equal access to careers in
innovation. Multiple studies have shown that women, people of
color, and people from lower income families patent at lower
rates than those that are White, male, and wealthier.
At Qualcomm, given the complexity of the fundamental 5G
technologies we research and develop, we must promote a culture
of creativity, risk-taking, and diversity. We simply cannot
afford to miss out on those engineers and inventors in
underrepresented groups.
We focus our efforts on four key areas to develop inventors
both for Qualcomm and for its 5G foundational technologies and
also for the industries and applications in use cases that use
that ecosystem.
First, as many inventions come from the STEM field, we
believe we must encourage STEM education. To spark that
interest in such invention careers, we created the Qualcomm
Thinkabit Lab, a hands-on program aimed at inspiring the next
generation of inventors, where students learn about 5G, the
Internet of Things, tech career, and they create their own
Internet of Things invention. The response has been so positive
that we have partnered with school districts, universities, and
libraries to create Thinkabit Labs in underrepresented
communities across the Nation.
Second, we have examined our hiring processes, especially
on-campus recruiting. Last year, we added a Historically Black
College and University--and two universities with high Hispanic
populations to the top schools that we actively recruit at. And
we also recruit at the Grace Hopper Conference for Women and
Computing. We strive to send recruiting teams that reflect the
excitement of wireless and semiconductor fields, reflect the
existing diversity in the company and the diversity that we
hope to achieve.
Third, we focus on retention and new project opportunities
for our diverse employees. We know from research and experience
that mixed-gender teams are innovative. So we strive to spread
these best practices. We develop employee-led networks to
promote professional development. We work on engineering the
bias out of our review and project rotation systems. We strive
to ensure that diverse employees have access to coaching,
mentorship, and career development opportunities and that they,
in turn, pass those on.
Finally, we work to create and maintain a strong culture of
invention and patenting across the company. We have a strong
inventor development program with both online and in-person
patenting classes and encourage our patent holders to coach and
mentor others. We also recognize our inventors as a way to
celebrate them and encourage others. Engineers are proud to
have their special badge and business cards with the inventor
mark, and their status as patent holders appears in the company
directory. Executives send a congratulatory letter to each
inventor who obtains a patent, and we hold celebrations for
inventors.
In summary, it is a strategic and economic imperative for
Qualcomm, for the 5G wireless ecosystem, and for the United
States to ensure that inventors from all backgrounds and
perspectives participate in solving these challenging
engineering problems. Qualcomm is committed to ensuring the
diverse people have every opportunity to bring their talents to
that imperative.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and
I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Armstrong follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Ms. Armstrong.
And, I want to thank all of the panelists for their
testimony today.
We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions.
I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Professor Cook, thank you for your pioneering work on how
many African American inventors there are on patents. In your
opinion, is there enough data available to understand the scope
of the underrepresentation of racial minorities in patenting?
Ms. Cook. There is not.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. What can be done to improve data
collection? And are there any actions that Congress should
consider?
Ms. Cook. I think there are a few.
First, I think it is imperative that we collect the data--
and suggesting that this be collected separately. These
demographic data being collected on gender, race, ethnicity,
and so on would be--I think would be very useful.
I would add that adding veteran status and disability
status would also be useful because the literature that I have
talked about was burgeoning and is burgeoning, Assessment 2010.
But there is a lot less on making an inclusive economy in other
ways.
So, yes, I think that this is a big first step in
identifying African American inventors and other inventors.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Director Lee, do you have an opinion on that question?
Ms. Lee. I do agree that collecting the data is critically
important. From my time in government and also in the private
sector, there is nobody that collects data better than the
government in terms of accuracy and consistency over the
decades. So, if the USPTO could collect demographic
information, gender, and so forth, ethnicity, that combined
with knowing what technology area the patent is in could give
policymakers, agency leaders, private sector leaders, and
academics a road map as to areas that are doing well, areas in
need of improvement. And we can even compare data to
international data points because patents from all over the
world flow in through the United States Patent and Trademark
Office.
So that sort of insight could be very, very influential and
impactful.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
This question I will pose to all four of the witnesses.
What do you think is the biggest obstacle to getting more
women and minorities to participate in the patent system,
beginning with you, Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. There are many. How many of our children--how many
of our girls grow up dreaming to be inventors? I ask that
question. How could we get more of them to? How can we give
them more STEM skills education? How can we recruit and retain?
How can we give them the know-how so that once they are
professionals in STEM, they know about how to obtain a patent,
that it need not be as expensive as one thinks, that there are
discounts that are offered to small entities and micro
entities. Really getting the information out there that anybody
can file for a patent.
As you mentioned, Chairman Johnson, you don't even have to
be a free person to get a patent. There is no age restriction.
There is no gender restriction. Everybody should be able to get
one, and they should know how to participate in the innovation
economy.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Professor Cook.
Ms. Cook. I think there are a number of things that could
be done. I am on the board of the Lemelson Center for the Study
of Invention and Innovation. And it has a spark lab. And I
think that it has satellites all over the country. And it does
this important work of showing students and schoolchildren how
to not only invent but to innovate.
And I think this is the point at which you get in students'
heads and children's heads that they can do this. And this is
the research that was referenced before by Teddy et al., in
terms of exposing children to innovation.
I certainly think knowing an inventor, a famous inventor
like Percy Julian, certainly had this primordial--or planted
this primordial seed to possibly study this. So I think it is
really important to do this as early as possible.
I also think being vigilant with respect to making sure
that the EEOC is paying attention to these issues related to
workplace harassment and to discrimination. It is not just the
pipeline that is the problem. What we are hearing from workers
is that it is the climate that exists when they are adults.
This unemployment rate, this difference is, I think, primarily
due to issues like this.
So your keeping your eye on the ball and making sure that
the Federal Government, the agencies tasked with doing so, keep
their eyes on the ball with respect to harassment and
discrimination will be extremely useful.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Dr. Howard.
Dr. Howard. So, one, it has to be part of the DNA. And the
way that you do that is you bring in successful women, patent
owners, and inventors from very early on because there are so
many things that a woman entrepreneur has to deal with that
patents is not in the purview. That is such a ``I don't
understand that value'' a lot of times.
So, by exposing early, you at least start to dig a little
bit into the problem.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Ms. Armstrong.
Ms. Armstrong. And I would say I would echo what has been
said along the table about the culture and getting children and
minorities and girls into the STEM areas that tend to yield in
patents.
I think there is also--and I think a lot of girls and
minorities don't see themselves in those careers. And they
don't necessarily see themselves as inventors. And they don't
know anything about patents. And that actually applies, I
think, also to early career women and minorities as well.
Unless you are in a company that stresses patenting and
invention, every company stresses creativity and ambition, but
I think there is a lack of access to practical tangible tools,
perhaps pro bono work for the legal aspects of doing patents.
But also, in so many of these incubators that I see, there is a
relatively small number that seem to have actual patenting
classes or coursework to help their entrepreneurs write
patents.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
We will next hear from the Ranking Member. Well, actually,
we will go to Mr. Chabot for questions.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
you going--I want to thank our Ranking Member for allowing me
to go. We have got a Small Business Committee that I am the
Ranking Member on after this, and so it was very kind of them
to let me go.
I want to thank the panel members for their excellent
testimony here this morning. I really did appreciate it.
And as you may know, we passed some legislation. Introduced
it, but there were a lot of members involved. I want to thank
the chair for his involvement and Ms. Velazquez and Mr.
Schneider and Mr. Gohmert and a bunch of others for their
involvement in it. It is called the SUCCESS Act, which
basically stood for Study of Underrepresented Classes Chasing
Engineering and Science, SUCCESS Act. We always make these
things very long names. But, in essence, it called for a study
within the next year on what we can do to increase women,
minorities, veterans, and others in obtaining patents. Because
as the testimony from the witnesses was, it is very challenging
to accomplish that.
And so I guess my first question would be, as we are
waiting for--and I will go to you, if I can, Dr. Howard,
perhaps, first. And our congratulations, really, on your hard
success and being a small business owner yourself and your
years of dedication as a NASA scientist and all your other
accomplishments, we commend you for that. So I will go to you
first, I guess.
As we are waiting for this legislation and study to be--the
legislation has passed. It passed the House. It passed the
Senate. The President signed it into law. So it is the law. And
it extended the patent, the fee structure for 8 years. But it
also did what I just mentioned, to encourage women, minorities,
and veterans to be able to obtain patents themselves.
As we are waiting for this study, what other things can we
be doing in the meantime before the study comes back to
accomplish some of those things so that folks aren't waiting
for a year to get started? What would you suggest?
Dr. Howard. So there is a lot you can do with women and
underrepresented entrepreneurs with boots on ground, as they
say. So a lot of times we don't even know that this is an
issue. I think that there is enough patent owners that would be
like: I can come and I can talk to my local community, my local
entrepreneurs in my area and work with them, because we have
gone through it, and so we know the pain. And we are more than
willing, most of us, to come back and help the community. So
some of it making those connections.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
In your testimony, you mentioned that one of the things
that you would suggest, obviously get a good patent attorney,
and they are expensive. You know, I wasn't a patent attorney,
but I practiced law for almost two decades out there. Of
course, I wasn't expensive. But in any event, I mean, we
charge. Yes, I did pro bono cases periodically. And you
mentioned that it would be great if, perhaps, patent attorneys
would do things pro bono, if we could find a way to do. And
that is great. And some will.
But if you can't get enough of them to do that, then the
only other way is paying those high fees or getting somebody
else to do it, which means the taxpayer, meaning we have some
government program that does it. Those are tough. We have got a
$22 trillion debt. So what can we do--and I will open this up
to any of the other panelists as well.
If lawyers aren't going to provide free services, and we
don't have the money to do it at the government because we got
this $22 trillion debt hanging over our heads, what can we do
either to get lawyers to be more helpful or other things
besides that?
Dr. Howard. So one thing, and this is just a wild
suggestion. So most small businesses do have SBIR grants. Part
of that is--there is no way to use it for patents or even
partially for patents. And so it might be that that is part of
the solution, right? Like, we have this overhead. Like, maybe
we can use some of that somehow for patents. And so, yeah, it
increases a little bit, but it is already part of the budget,
is already part of your DNA. It is a wild suggestion.
Mr. Chabot. Very good. Not that wild. Pretty good.
Any of the other panelists?
Ms. Lee. As the lawyer on the panel and as a former head of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office, there are a lot
of resources that are available to inventors. At the agency, I
helped launch an initiative to offer pro bono services. Of
course, it is never quite enough, right, given the demand. But
there are discounted fees.
And I am very proud to say, during my tenure at the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office, I helped launch three of the four
regional offices, one in Silicon Valley, one in Denver, one in
Detroit, one in Dallas. And you know what? That is getting
resources out into the local community so that those
individuals there can have workshop training programs, can
reach out into the schools, can educate the students on what is
intellectual property, who can be an inventor, what does an
inventor look like. We distribute baseball, but inventor,
collectable trading cards at schools with images of women and
minority inventors, right? And we have workshops where people,
including women workshops, where they come in, they learn the
basics of intellectual property: What is a patent, trademark,
copyright, trade secret? How do I figure this out so I could be
smarter so that when I engage that lawyer, I can be much more
efficient, and I can even write the patent application myself
should I so choose?
So there are a lot of resources that are available. There
is a lot that can be done. But everybody should have access to
the intellectual property system.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
We will now hear from the gentlelady from California,
Representative Zoe Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Director Lee, it is good to see you again. This is my
second iteration on the PTO report on women inventors. We had
the current director out at the San Jose patent office, and we
were talking about the role we both played in making sure that
office got open. And I will tell you, it is a huge success. So
thank you for the efforts that you made, and the community is
very supportive.
And one of the things that is so helpful is to have the
patent examiners right in San Jose. I mean, the big companies
can afford to send people out here to the D.C. area. But for
the smaller inventors, the proximity is really a big deal. So
it is filling a good mission.
You know, as I am thinking through and thinking back on the
discussion we had at the San Jose office, we are falling short
in diversity from the beginning with--and it actually gets
worse the older people get. We have got girls coding, but the
actual number of women entering computer science programs at
the university level is declining. And we know we have a
problem in industry as well as academia.
So the question is, what can we do about that? And I don't
think there is any one answer. But I do think, just focusing on
the role of business, because most patents are filed out of the
business sector. Comparing even the patent innovation in the
academic setting to the business sectors, the business sector
does not appear to be doing what it needs to do.
And after the policy discussion we had in San Jose, a lot
of the representatives from the companies we were asking, we
will need to examine our own procedures because not only is
this not good for the country; it is not good for these
companies. They are losing out as well.
So I am wondering--you know, I always remember a convention
I went to with my then-chief of staff, who was female, at the
Santa Clara--city of San Jose convention center. Huge, huge
room. It was engineers, electrical engineers, in the valley.
And we walked in, and it was like a sea of men. And we looked,
and there were like maybe 10 women of the thousands of
engineers who were--who kind of glommed together. And I
thought, you know, you don't have to have a hostile work
environment in the legal sense to not have a welcoming
environment.
How do we go about setting metrics to change that? I mean,
we can't tell employers how to run their businesses directly.
But what could we do as a Congress to kind of help companies
move a different direction?
Michelle, you have been at the office. You have been at
Google. You have been a patent lawyer. What are your thoughts?
Ms. Lee. Yes. So thank you, Congressman Lofgren. And thank
you also for your leadership in establishing the Silicon Valley
office. That was a great partnership.
I do think it is critically important that the data be
gathered, because companies, even if they gather it, they
sometimes don't publish it.
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Ms. Lee. And if the government could gather it across the
board, across the country, across all ethnicities, across all
demographics, and compare that to countries across the world--I
understand that in Romania, the number of researchers in
engineering who are women is 44 percent.
Ms. Lofgren. Right. Canada is also different. I mean, it is
not about gender; it is about what we are doing.
Ms. Lee. Correct. So I think it is important to record the
data, track the progress, and, therefore, pinpoint and focus by
technology area, by industry, because it varies. In the life
sciences, the numbers are higher.
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Ms. Lee. In computer science, it is much lower. So let's be
specific, let's be granular. And Federal agencies, like I say,
they collect data over decades, and it is accurate. And that is
a very good starting point. So then private sector,
policymakers, academics, they can all look at how to improve,
where do we need to improve.
Ms. Lofgren. So one thing that I want to explore is, you
know, as we looked at the diversity issue in Silicon Valley, in
my district, we said, you know, if you can't measure it, it
doesn't exist. I mean, you have to start measuring it, and the
big companies did. I mean, Google, in particular, went on a
huge effort. I am not saying they succeeded completely, but
they have, on diversity and the hiring, published their data
and the like.
We could--I think we have jurisdiction, because of our EEOC
jurisdiction, to require publication of some of this data. Is
that a step that the four of you would recommend?
Ms. Cook. Yes. Excuse me. If I can answer, yes, that would
be a huge boon to researchers, but the way they release the
data, I can't do anything with them. I can make some good
charts, the charts that they make, but I can't do any sort of
analysis. Typically, for race and ethnicity, for example, they
are bundled into the world workforce.
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Ms. Cook. Women are often not divided by technical fields
and other fields. And what we know is that they are typically
in marketing and in human resources. So I think if you are
asking the question about what we can do now, I think one of
the things that we are doing in the economics profession is
doing a climate survey and coming up with results that are
being circulated widely.
And I think it is the climate. I really think it is the
climate. It is not the--the supply side. We figured that out.
There are a lot of women who would like to be in the tech
field, for example, or be an entrepreneur, inventor. This is
what I was doing at the--at the White House when I was working
on small businesses. But we don't have as much information, and
we don't have as much sway. And you all would with the EEOC
data, for example, to do something about the climate in
particular.
Ms. Lofgren. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. We will next hear from
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentlelady from
Alabama, Mrs. Roby. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Chairman. And again, thank you all
for being with us today.
I want to pick up where we left off, Director Lee. We were
talking about, with my colleague, the patent pro bono program
which provides the free legal services to eligible inventors,
the PTO's pro se assistance program which allows inventors to
file their own application and seek the assistance of the
patent examiner to identify patentable invention, and the PTO's
law school clinic program which allows supervised law students
to help inventors file applications. And I guess what I want to
hear from you is about, do inventors know that these programs
even exist? And if more inventors were aware of these programs,
would it likely result in more women and other underrepresented
groups filing more patent applications?
And I would go a little bit further to say, it is buried in
the website. You have to go through several different clicks
before you actually find this information. And so if today's
hearing is about making this information more accessible, to
me, on the surface, that seems like a really easy fix in terms
of the USPTO making this information more readily available. So
if you want to weigh in on that, that would be great.
Ms. Lee. Right. Well, thank you for raising the point. So I
do not believe that as many people who should know about the
programs do know about the programs. So there is a lot more
work to be done. And one of the reasons why I was so passionate
about the regional offices of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Offices is because we have inventors and potential inventors
all over this country. And the distribution geographically of
patent holders is not equal.
So those offices, the vision is not just to put examiners
in a room and have them process patent applications. When I
defined the vision for those regional offices, it was to engage
with the community. Having been a user of the USPTO services
for the entirety of my career, they offer all these amazing
services that, oftentimes, people do not know about.
So through the regional offices and through a lot of hard
work at the headquarter office, a core part of the USPTO's work
is to get the word out there about the many programs that are
available and to tap communities that are underrepresented. So
there is more work to be done, but there are great programs,
more programs to be developed, but you really have to get the
word out there.
Mrs. Roby. Well, and just to reiterate the point, I mean,
if you are--if expense is already an issue and traveling to the
regional offices is part of the expenses associated with
pursuing this, it makes sense, when we all do everything on
this----
Ms. Lee. Right.
Mrs. Roby [continuing]. All day long, that it could be as
easy as visiting the website and having access to that
information.
But would it make sense to take the opportunity as well,
while the PTO is on campus recruiting science and engineering
students, to promote the benefits of patenting by these
students and to bring their attention, at the same time, to the
existence of many of these assistance programs, so that later
in life, even, the students and their businesses can be PTO
customers?
Ms. Lee. Absolutely. Any touch point you can have with the
local communities, particularly the underrepresented ones,
including at career recruiting services, or when they are in
elementary school, giving them an inventor baseball card so
that one day, they think, huh, there is the Patent and
Trademark Office and if I have an idea, guess what, I can file
for a patent through that agency. Any touch point is good.
Mrs. Roby. That is great. And then just building upon
that--because you mentioned it, Dr. Howard, --in your
testimony--can you let us know, when did you become aware of
the PTO pro bono program, its law school clinic program, and
its pro se assistance program?
Dr. Howard. Alas, I can say about a week ago. Actually,
basically trying to figure out what--reading the report that
came out in terms of women and underrepresentation, which is--
and I am in this world, and I mentor a lot of young students,
women entrepreneurs in Georgia and at Georgia Tech, and,
unfortunately, I didn't hear about a lot of these programs.
Mrs. Roby. So I think you just put the exclamation point on
my point, that someone as knowledgeable as you are didn't even
know the existence of these programs.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest again that there are some
pretty easy fixes here in terms of accessibility.
If anybody else--I have got 10 seconds--wants to weigh in,
but I think this is a really important point. These programs
exist and can be expanded, and we ought to be looking at ways
that we can do that.
Ms. Cook. I would just add that the SBIR and STTR programs
are also not very known to inventors and to entrepreneurs,
especially underrepresented minorities.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
We will next have Representative Stanton from the great
State of Arizona.
Mr. Stanton. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for highlighting this incredibly important topic and
how, if we can help to work on this issue and do better on the
issue that these outstanding witnesses have discussed, how it
will benefit the American economy.
I am lucky enough to represent the district that includes
Arizona State University, is ranked number 17 of all
universities worldwide for U.S. patents, so in the top 20.
Includes MIT, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, and Harvard. So I am
extremely proud to represent an innovative community that cares
so deeply about advancing ideas that will undoubted have a
significant impact not only in Arizona, but across the globe.
However, we are lucky in Arizona and across the country, we
are growing in diversity. It is one of our great competitive
strengths, but if that is not represented in the growing number
of patents, we are not doing our job. It is simply not
acceptable that women investors made up only 12 percent of all
inventors on patents granted in 2016.
There is no good reason why leaders in our African
American, Hispanic, and other minority communities, why they
are so extremely underrepresented in the patent system of our
country. There is no good reason why we don't do a better job
of collecting information so we can provide better solutions so
that the great diversity that we are lucky enough to have in
our country can be better represented in our patent system.
So thank you for holding this hearing to talk about these
important subject matters and what we in Congress and America
can do to help solve this issue.
Ms. Cook, Professor Cook, I wanted to ask you a particular
question. I read your testimony in advance. I hope it wasn't
covered when I wasn't here, but I was mostly interested in what
you indicated about the loss to the American economy. If we
don't have greater diversity in our patent representation, it
is not just a loss to the individual scientist; it is a loss to
all of America. And I wanted to give you a chance to maybe
expound upon that point to better explain to people watching
here and to Congress how this hurts the American economy.
Mr. Cook. So it is interesting that you would pick up on
that. One of the most stark results that I had early on in my
research was that single-sex teams were less productive than
co-ed teams, and that is what I was being invited to Silicon
Valley firms to talk about the most. And I think that makes the
economic argument on a micro level. We are leaving--and you
know economists hate to do this--we are leaving $20 bills
everywhere. I would say they are Benjamins; they are not even
$20 bills--displaying them everywhere, and we are not picking
them up.
This is invention that is going undone. This is higher
living standards that are going missed by all Americans. So we
should certainly consider that from a policymaking perspective
and from the work perspective, the firm's perspective, that it
is not making use of this human capital and of America's
inventive capacity.
Mr. Stanton. I think that is a great point. America is the
world's leading economy, we want to keep it that way. And
working with you and others to solve this issue, to make sure
that the great diversity that we are blessed to have in America
is better represented in our innovation ecosystem, including in
patents, that will make the American economy more competitive
on a global scale. It is really important.
Thank you for your testimony.
I yield back.
Ms. Armstrong. Representative Stanton, could I add
something to that?
Mr. Stanton. Please do.
Ms. Armstrong. I think it is--I love the research data that
shows the economic benefit, and I also think it is a very--it
is a global issue. And it is a very strategic issue. If you
look at the WIPO report, in Korea and China, the numbers for
women patenters--patent holders are much higher and growing
significantly. And I think we can't afford, strategically as
well, to let that trend go unnoticed.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. I guess I still have a
minute. So other witnesses, comments on the impact, on the
America economy that we are not doing a better job of making
sure that women, people of color, are more represented in the
innovation ecosystem.
Ms. Lee. Yeah. Just one final point is, not only is it an
imperative in an increasingly competitive international
landscape, but some of our most innovative companies cannot
hire the technical talent they need, and they are turning
overseas to fill the gaps. And they are turning to Congress to
alter immigration laws and so forth. So clearly there is an
economic imperative as well as a social imperative.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
We will now hear from the great Representative from
Virginia, Mr. Cline, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank the witnesses for being here today. This has been
very interesting testimony on a very important subject.
As the father of two 7-year-old daughters, I want them to
have every opportunity to succeed in whatever field they go
into, and I very much encourage the foray into sciences. They
are already taking coding classes in school. I didn't even--I
couldn't even believe it, in first grade, that they are already
teaching coding in the schools, and that is fantastic.
But I am intrigued by the numbers, and I am looking forward
to the report, because I think it will provide a little bit
more information about, as you were saying, Professor Cook,
about the different areas of research. And while women may make
up an equal number of scientists in biological and life science
fields but not in other areas of science, like engineering,
what I am interested in, we have made some progress, and the
PTO's recent report indicates that the percent of patents with
at least one woman inventor increased from 7 percent in the
1980s to 21 percent by 2016. Would you consider that to be a
positive sign, and why has the growth rate slowed since 1998,
from 14 percent to 21 percent in 2016, while more and more
women are entering scientific fields?
Ms. Cook. So that is a--that is a really good question.
And, in fact, that was the starting point of my research in
2010. I saw all of these women going into biological sciences.
At the time, I was at Stanford, and I just thought, there is so
many opportunities in biotech, why aren't we seeing women among
the inventors? So I think that this is definitely a big issue.
I think making sure that there are interesting things for
your 7-year-old girls to do, that are just like the things that
men would like to do, boys would like to do, I think is a big
deal. If we walk down the aisles of a party goods store and you
are looking for items for parties, all the pink stuff is
princess stuff and all the interesting stuff, like Star Wars
and having to do with innovation, is for boys. So I am--I think
we really have to start early in terms of the messages we give
to students.
And my professors, my colleagues, who talk about having
hackathons, say that women typically don't come because they
don't find these interesting problems that they are trying to
solve. So for all the coding that the women are learning, there
are no outlets for them that they find interesting. And I am
not going to say the bar is higher for women in terms of
interesting projects, but I think at least one can be sensitive
to that.
Mr. Cline. And to the numbers in the recent slowing of the
growth rate since 1998, do you think--I mean, do you have any
explanation for that? Does it have to do with developments in
certain segments of the industry? What would you say to that?
Ms. Cook. I think the patent teams are getting larger, and
we know that, patent teams are getting larger. And I think that
is just a feature of patent teams getting larger, that women
happen to be on them. And I think you just met an equilibrium--
the stagnation equilibrium. But what we know from other STEM
fields is that there are fewer women going into the fields and
going into Ph.D. Programs. So that may be a reflection of what
is happening on the front end too.
Mr. Cline. Would anyone else like to add to that?
Ms. Lee. So there was an interesting statistic that in
computer science in particular, in the 1980s, like in every
other scientific discipline, the numbers were going up, in some
areas faster than others, but in computer science, it went
down, and people are asking why. And if you look back, there
was an article written that, at the time, the personal computer
was being introduced, and affluent parents bought their sons
personal computers and they learned how to program. So when
these kids then go to college and take computer science
classes, if you have had experience computer programming, you
are going to do pretty well in that computer science class, but
if you have never touched a computer, it is going to be a lot
harder. So even if you have the intention to enroll in a
computer science program, when you have that first class, it is
hard.
So what we buy our kids, in terms of toys and activities we
engage them in, matter tremendously. And also, if you think
about it, the images in the media, about that time, you know,
Revenge of the Nerds, the images of computer geeks, antisocial,
if you are a woman or a girl, who wants to be that? So a lot
has to do with image, but a lot too has to do with the toys,
the programs, the activities we give to our boys versus girls.
Mr. Cline. We are buying a lot of Legos in the house right
now, but I am also glad in culture--and I see Ms. Lofgren has
stepped away, but talking about the climate, I am glad that
Captain Marvel is a woman. And that movie is coming out now, so
I can't wait to take my girls to see that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Next up will be the Chair of the Democratic Caucus, New
York Representative, Mr. Jeffries, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jeffries. I thank the distinguished Chair of the IP
Subcommittee and all of the witnesses for your presence here
today.
It seems when you address this diversity challenge that we
are confronting in the STEM industry, that there is a
recruitment issue that is problematic, that many of you have
spoken to, but there is also a retention issue. And if you
solve the recruitment issue but don't deal with the retention
issue, you know, at the end of the day, you haven't really
meaningfully addressed the problem.
And, you know, maybe starting with Professor Cook, but I
would be interested in everyone's perspective, what are some of
the retention challenges that people of color and women face in
the innovation economy?
Ms. Cook. So thank you for your question. I think that one
of the things that is becoming more and more evident is that
the climate in many of these patenting firms is not what it
should be. And because they are demonstrating--because there
are workers from these companies demonstrating, we should
listen to them. And if you can do anything, have any sway over,
say, the EEOC pursuing these claims, I think that would make a
big difference.
There has to be some outside force, because they have not
been able to police themselves in this way. We can make the
argument--I can go to these firms and talk about the money that
is being left on the table because patent teams are single sex
rather than co-ed. I can talk about that. I make the profit
maximization argument, but I think on the other hand, there has
to be enforcement, EEOC enforcement. And there seem to be a lot
of things going on that need a watchful eye.
Mr. Jeffries. Director Lee, can you comment on sort of the
culture at these institutions that may be impacting the ability
to retain talented women and/or people of color?
Ms. Lee. Yeah. I mean, it is hard when you don't see people
who look like you, and it is hard when they don't look like you
in more ways than one. So to the extent--now, that shouldn't
stop us from, you know, inspiring those underrepresented
minorities to pursue these fields, but greater networks,
greater support, greater retention efforts, greater
consciousness, measuring the data, focusing on areas that need
improvement, it is--it should be within the priorities of a
business to want to have these diverse teams. Because as
Professor Cook says, diverse teams, if you are thinking about
creating something innovative that has never been done before,
you get the greatest innovation--and studies have been done on
this--with people with different perspectives, who don't look
at the problem the same way.
Mr. Jeffries. Ms. Armstrong.
Ms. Armstrong. Being from one of these companies who
struggles, frankly, to not only recruit, but to maintain a
diverse workforce, there is a lot of challenges that have been
talked about here as well. And one of them, frankly, is, how do
you create this snowball effect. You know, when I was always
the only woman in the room, especially when you work overseas,
and how do you create an environment where, especially some of
the younger people want to work in--people want to work in an
environment where they see a diverse team or a set of people
that look like them as well.
And so, you know, it is very hard to come up with a set of
magic bullets, but there is a number of things that we are
working on. Implicit bias does exist. I am sure it exists in
all of us. So we are trying to engineer that bias out of our
systems, out of our review systems, and out of our project
rotation systems, and then certainly recruiting and also trying
to show that Qualcomm is a--and semiconductor and wireless
technology is a really wonderful place to have a career. But it
is a challenge.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
And, Professor Howard, if you can just comment briefly in
connection with your testimony about sort of the high cost of
obtaining a patent and that as a barrier to entry for greater
levels of diverse participation. I think you have spoken of
sort of the patent fees as well as the cost of representation
as challenges that people face, women or people of color.
Dr. Howard. Yeah. So the patencies themselves I wouldn't
claim is as much of a challenge, but it is basically
prosecuting, i.e., going, doing the dance with the patent
examiner to finally get the patent issued, that is really the
problem. That is the majority of the problem. And if you are a
small business, especially women or underrepresented, every
single dollar you have is primarily so that you can support the
business, especially since the angel MVC is not as on par with
other groups.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, hopefully that is one of the things that
we can examine in moving forward, in terms of barriers to
entry. And I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
At this time, we will hear now from the Representative from
the State of California, the great State of California,
Representative Lou Correa, 5 minutes.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
And I want to thank you for putting on this most important
hearing. And I want to thank the members of the panel. I have
really enjoyed your comments.
I come from California, central Orange County. I represent
a district that is essentially very, very blue collar, heavily
immigrant, folks that are just trying to make it on a day-to-
day basis. That is a doughnut hole. The doughnut, I am
surrounded by biotech, high tech, and our challenge is to make
that jump. It is very difficult to make that jump from getting
our young men and women graduating from high school to work in
the biotech sector.
Ms. Lee, I was very pleased to hear that there is all these
programs out there, that are very well kept secret, and I hope
the Chairman and Ranking Member, all of us can work to get the
message out that these programs are there.
As I thought of your comments, I thought back to my days
getting my MBA, the concept of actual versus perceived risk.
Getting an MBA, a lot of my colleagues, top-class engineers,
scientists, getting their MBAs, top schools, all of us dream of
hitting it big, the entrepreneurship, you know, the American
Dream. Yet a couple of years out, after you stumble a couple of
times, you say, you know what, I am going to go after that
steady paycheck. I am not going to go and risk my family. I
want to start a family. Actual versus perceived risk.
Later on we find out, 15, 20 years later, that you are
going to get laid off from that big company, so maybe you
should have gone and become an entrepreneur, started your
business, so your destiny would have been in your own hands.
That is what I am saying, actual versus perceived risk.
And I ask all of you--Ms. Cook, I think you said we got to
start out early. But I think we have got to change the
mentality of our young folks that are getting their education,
which is, we need to develop, not tolerance, but the
expectation that in your life, you should be able to take these
kinds of risks, do research and development. And maybe the
Qualcomms of the world can step up and say, you know what, we
are going to, not subsidize, but we are going to invest in R&D
and diversity, not because it is the right thing to do, but
because it is a smart business thing to do.
You look at a problem from a different perspective, whether
it be cultural, societal, language or otherwise, you are going
to come up with a great idea that is going to sell. Good
business. The challenge is, how do we get our young people to
understand that it is safe. It is not really that risky to be
an inventor, to go off and engage in being an entrepreneur.
So I am running out of time here, but I would ask all of
you to think--I would love to talk to you later on offline
about how we roll out some of these programs. I close my eyes,
I envision my high schools in my district. I started a program
called Young Congressional Leaders. I meet with the kids
Saturday mornings to go show them the biotech, the other career
opportunities. But we don't talk much about being inventors.
You know why? Because I have a lot of friends that tried to be
inventors many decades ago and they fell flat and they ran for
cover. And we need to teach those young folks, instead of
running for cover, push harder and become inventors.
Our country is essentially founded on entrepreneurship. Our
country is founded on innovation. And we need to push those
folks in the doughnut holes in our society to move on and take
command of their lives and our communities.
So I have 45 seconds left. But, again, love to sit down and
talk to you. I am going to take names, I am going to take
numbers. I want to talk to you about how do we roll out--Ms.
Lee, how we teach our kids about these programs. I want to see
my schools, my high schools, actually implement some of your
programs. The pushback I get is, we don't have any money, Lou,
we can't do this. And you are saying that there is money out
there. We got a disconnect.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Next, we will hear from Ranking Member Roby once again.
Mrs. Roby. Well, I just--thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have one other statement that I want to make. The
infrastructure for the law school clinic and the pro-se
assistance programs that we have already discussed, that
infrastructure, Mr. Chairman, is already in place. So expanding
these programs to other universities would be of no additional
expense to either the taxpayer or the patent applicants, and I
think that is an important point to make as well. So if we are
really serious about access to this information and to these
programs, then this can be done already. So that is all I had
to say.
Thank you again for being here. Really appreciate your
participation. Look forward to continuing to work with each of
you to how we can do this better.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
This has been a very important first hearing for this
Subcommittee. I would like for us to continue on this topic as
we proceed through this session of Congress, and on into other
sessions of Congress to come. I want to thank our witnesses for
being here today.
And without objection, all members will have 5 legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses,
or additional materials for the record. And the hearing is now
adjourned.
[The information follows:]
[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
MR. COLLINS STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
APPENDIX
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]