G404 Women in IP Symposium Survey

OMB Control No.: 0651-0080

Expiration Date: XX/XX/XXXX

Subject: Post-Event Evaluation: Women in IP Symposium

Dear Colleagues,

We want to express our sincere appreciation for your participation in the Women in IP Symposium. Your presence and engagement contributed to the overall success of the event.

In our ongoing commitment to enhance future editions of the symposium, we kindly invite you to complete a brief post-event evaluation. Your feedback is instrumental in shaping our future events to better cater to your needs and address topics that are relevant to you.

To complete the evaluation, please click [Insert Evaluation Link]. The survey should take no more than [ 10 minutes ], and please rest assured that all responses will be treated with the utmost confidentiality.

Your insights are of great value to us, and we eagerly anticipate incorporating them into our future initiatives. We also hope to have the pleasure of welcoming you back at next year's event!

Thank you for your time and valuable input.

Best regards,

[Name of USPTO Lead]

[USPTO Contact Information]

PRA Statement

A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with an information collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, unless the information collection has a valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 0651-0080. Public burden for this survey is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 or email [email protected].

Page 1

Q.1 Which day(s) did you attend the conference?

□ Day 1, Wednesday, March 6, Collaborative DEIA Awareness

□ Day 2, Thursday, March 7, DEIA and Public-Private Partnerships

□ Day 3, Friday, March 8, IWD Celebration, Leadership, Creativity, Collaboration

Page 2:

Day 1, Wednesday, March 6,

Collaborative DEIA Awareness

[If respondent selects “Day 1” in Q.1, Page 2 appears.]

Q.2.1 For each of the following presentations or workshops, indicate your level of agreement with this statement: The topics presented had relevant information to me.

	Strongly Agree	Agree		Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Not Applicable
Session 1.1 | Introduction of participants and Opening remarks Errica Miller (USPTO)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.2 | Keynote: USPTO Leadership from OPIA and Trademarks Sharon Israel (USPTO) Angela Wilson (USPTO)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.3 | “Diversity Download” Podcast: Gender gap in IP - increasing access to jobs and innovation Konstantinos Georgaras (CIPO) Valencia Martin Wallace (USPTO)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.4 | IPO panel- Education and outreach to youth and underrepresented communities, including indigenous peoples Michael Schwager (IP Australia) Clyphendie Pierre-Louis (CIPO) Emmelina Masanque (IPO PHL)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.5 | [NOT HYBRID] Facilitated conversations and Working Lunch Sharon Watson (USPTO)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.6 | Women’s Entrepreneurship (WE) International: Global initiatives and opportunities for women Vivienne Katijuongua (BIPA Namibia) Claudia Franco (DINAPI Paraguay) Clyphendie Pierre-Louis (CIPO) Felicita Aguilar (IPO PHL)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.7 | Building an IP mindset among K-20 STEAM students internationally (Workshop) Joyce Ward (USPTO)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.8 | Panel: Investing in the future of IPO leadership to support DEIA Denisse Pérez Fierro (INAPI Chile) Sara Callegari (WIPO)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.9 | IPO presentation – “From inclusion to belonging” Jennifer Hutchinson (IP Australia)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.10 | Day one wrap-up and Video addresses from IPO leadership USPTO	○	○	○		○	○	○

Q.2.1.1 [If respondent selects “strongly disagree” or ‘’disagree’’ in Q.2.1, then Q.2.1.1 appears]

You've indicated disagreement with the relevance of one or more topics to you. Can you please share more details about your perspective?

Q.2.2 For each of the following presentations or workshops, indicate your level of agreement with this statement: The topics were presented in an easy-to-understand manner.

	Strongly Agree	Agree		Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Not Applicable
Session 1.1 | Introduction of participants and Opening remarks Errica Miller (USPTO)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.2 | Keynote: USPTO Leadership from OPIA and Trademarks Sharon Israel (USPTO) Angela Wilson (USPTO)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.3 | “Diversity Download” Podcast: Gender gap in IP - increasing access to jobs and innovation Konstantinos Georgaras (CIPO) Valencia Martin Wallace (USPTO)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.4 | IPO panel- Education and outreach to youth and underrepresented communities, including indigenous peoples Michael Schwager (IP Australia) Clyphendie Pierre-Louis (CIPO) Emmelina Masanque (IPO PHL)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.5 | [NOT HYBRID] Facilitated conversations and Working Lunch Sharon Watson (USPTO)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.6 | Women’s Entrepreneurship (WE) International: Global initiatives and opportunities for women Vivienne Katijuongua (BIPA Namibia) Claudia Franco (DINAPI Paraguay) Clyphendie Pierre-Louis (CIPO) Felicita Aguilar (IPO PHL)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.7 | Building an IP mindset among K-20 STEAM students internationally (Workshop) Joyce Ward (USPTO)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.8 | Panel: Investing in the future of IPO leadership to support DEIA Denisse Pérez Fierro (INAPI Chile) Sara Callegari (WIPO)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.9 | IPO presentation – “From inclusion to belonging” Jennifer Hutchinson (IP Australia)	○	○	○		○	○	○
Session 1.10 | Day one wrap-up and Video addresses from IPO leadership USPTO	○	○	○		○	○	○

Q.2.2.1 [If participants select “strongly disagree” or ‘’disagree’’ in Q.2.2, then Q.2.2.1 appears]

You've indicated disagreement with the clarity of one or more topics to you. Can you please share more details about your perspective?

Page 3 :

Day 2,Thursday, March 7

DEIA and Public-Private Partnerships

[If respondent selects “Day 2” in Q.1, page 3 appears.]

Q.3.1 For each of the following presentations or workshops, indicate your level of agreement with this statement: The topics presented had relevant information to me.

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Not Applicable
Session 2.1 | Panel: Private Sector Initiatives and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) in the Innovation Economy Margo Bagley (Emory University School of Law) Colleen Chien (Berkeley Law School) Jenny Simmons (INTA) Kelly Anderson (GIPC) Debra Hughes (INTA) Joana De Mattos Siqueira (INTA)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.2 | Lessons learned from Private Sector Initiatives and PPP and how to improve them (Workshop) Joan Toth (ChIPs Network) Ricardo Fischer (ASIPI) Kelly Anderson (GIPC) Debra Hughes (INTA) Joana De Mattos Siqueira (INTA) Vital Voices USPTO	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.3 | Panel: “Best practices on DEIA within the innovation economy” Joan Toth (ChIPs Network) Vankita Brown (NOAA) Susan Harrison (USIPA) Zoe Dean-Smith (Vital Voices) Ricardo Fischer (ASIPI)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.4 | [NOT HYBRID] Photo session / Working Lunch / Diversity Showcase & Fair / Networking Cassandra Downs (USPTO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.5 | CIPO’s Research on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Elias Collette (CIPO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.6 | Using studies and data: CIPC South Africa - collecting demographic data in patent applications Amanda Lotheringen (CIPC South Africa)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.7 | Japan’s Current Situation on DEIA and JPO’s initiatives Mai Miyaoka (JPO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.8 | Chile’s studies on IP Data: A Gender Perspective  Alvaro González López (INAPI Chile)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.9 | Retrospective Study of Women Patenting in LATAM countries (Colombia, Mexico and Chile) Esteban Santamaria (CAIINNO and GLIPA)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.10 | Empowering women: fueling inventive activity Roberta Romano-Götsch (EPO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.11 | Women in Design Carolina Arias Burgo (EUIPO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.12 | Demo of WIPO’s IP and Gender Policy Initiatives database Aikaterini “Katerina” Kanellia (WIPO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.13 | Facilitated Workshop to discuss collecting and sharing data to demonstrate the importance of DEIA Adriana Fleitas (DINAPI Paraguay) USPTO	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.14 | IPO Presentation: U.S Copyright Office Maria Strong (USCO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.15 | Recap of AIPLA’s 2024 DEIA Colloquium Meghan Donohoe (AIPLA) Ann Mueting (AIPLA)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.16 | Day Two wrap-up and Video addresses from IPO leadership USPTO	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.17 | [NOT HYBRID] Reception in Honor of International Women's Day	○	○	○	○	○	○

Q.3.1.1 [If respondent selects “strongly disagree” or ‘’disagree’’ in Q.3.1, then Q.3.1.1 appears]

You've indicated disagreement with the relevance of one or more topics to you. Can you please share more details about your perspective?

Q.3.2 For each of the following presentations or workshops, indicate your level of agreement with this statement: The topics were presented in an easy-to-understand manner.

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Not Applicable
Session 2.1 | Panel: Private Sector Initiatives and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) in the Innovation Economy Margo Bagley (Emory University School of Law) Colleen Chien (Berkeley Law School) Jenny Simmons (INTA) Kelly Anderson (GIPC) Debra Hughes (INTA) Joana De Mattos Siqueira (INTA)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.2 | Lessons learned from Private Sector Initiatives and PPP and how to improve them (Workshop) Joan Toth (ChIPs Network) Ricardo Fischer (ASIPI) Kelly Anderson (GIPC) Debra Hughes (INTA) Joana De Mattos Siqueira (INTA) Vital Voices USPTO	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.3 | Panel: “Best practices on DEIA within the innovation economy” Joan Toth (ChIPs Network) Vankita Brown (NOAA) Susan Harrison (USIPA) Zoe Dean-Smith (Vital Voices) Ricardo Fischer (ASIPI)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.4 | [NOT HYBRID] Photo session / Working Lunch / Diversity Showcase & Fair / Networking Cassandra Downs (USPTO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.5 | CIPO’s Research on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Elias Collette (CIPO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.6 | Using studies and data: CIPC South Africa - collecting demographic data in patent applications Amanda Lotheringen (CIPC South Africa)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.7 | Japan’s Current Situation on DEIA and JPO’s initiatives Mai Miyaoka (JPO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.8 | Chile’s studies on IP Data: A Gender Perspective  Alvaro González López (INAPI Chile)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.9 | Retrospective Study of Women Patenting in LATAM countries (Colombia, Mexico and Chile) Esteban Santamaria (CAIINNO and GLIPA)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.10 | Empowering women: fueling inventive activity Roberta Romano-Götsch (EPO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.11 | Women in Design Carolina Arias Burgo (EUIPO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.12 | Demo of WIPO’s IP and Gender Policy Initiatives database Aikaterini “Katerina” Kanellia (WIPO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.13 | Facilitated Workshop to discuss collecting and sharing data to demonstrate the importance of DEIA Adriana Fleitas (DINAPI Paraguay) USPTO	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.14 | IPO Presentation: U.S Copyright Office Maria Strong (USCO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.15 | Recap of AIPLA’s 2024 DEIA Colloquium Meghan Donohoe (AIPLA) Ann Mueting (AIPLA)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.16 | Day Two wrap-up and Video addresses from IPO leadership USPTO	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 2.17 | [NOT HYBRID] Reception in Honor of International Women's Day	○	○	○	○	○	○

Q.3.2.1 [If respondent selects “strongly disagree” or ‘’disagree’’ in Q.3.2, Q.3.2.1 appears]

You've indicated disagreement with the clarity of one or more topics to you. Can you please share more details about your perspective?

Page 4 :

Day 3, Friday, March 8

IWD Celebration, Leadership, Creativity, Collaboration

[If respondent selects “Day 3” in Q.1, Page 4 appears.]

Q.4.1 For each of the following presentations or workshops, indicate your level of agreement with this statement: The topics presented had relevant information to me.

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Not Applicable
Session 3.1 |2024 International Women’s Day Recognition Aikaterini “Katerina” Kanellia (WIPO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 3.2 | Closing Day Remarks and Global IP Leaders Panel Valencia Martin Wallace (USPTO) Katherine K. Vidal (USPTO) Rowel Barba (IPO Philippines) Claudia Franco (DINAPI Paraguay) Vivienne Katjiuongua (BIPA Namibia) Rakhat Kerimbaeva (Kyrgyzpatent) Michael Schwager (IP Australia)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 3.3 | Demo of USPTO’s Diversity Information Platform (DI platform) Stephen Koziol (USPTO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 3.4 | Panel: Supporting Women in IP Enforcement Amanda Lotheringen (CIPC South Africa) Michelle Sara King (ITA) Molly Ply (GSA) Miranda Richardson (DCIS)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 3.5 | [NOT HYBRID] Facilitated Workshop and Working Lunch USPTO	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 3.6 | Panel - Creativity and Entrepreneurship Stephanie Leparmentier (INFPI France) NaThanya Ferguson (USPTO) Patricia Bianco (USPTO) Holly Fechner (Invent Together) Miriam Lord (USCO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 3.7 | Taking our work forward: Diversity Pledge and Day three wrap-up event closing (Workshop) Valencia Martin Wallace (USPTO)	○	○	○	○	○	○

Q.4.1.1 [If respondent selects “strongly disagree” or ‘’disagree’’ in Q.4.1. then Q.4.1.1 appears]

You've indicated disagreement with the relevance of one or more topics to you. Can you please share more details about your perspective?

Q.4.2 For each of the following presentations or workshops, indicate your level of agreement with this statement: The topics were presented in an easy-to-understand manner.

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Not Applicable
Session 3.1 |2024 International Women’s Day Recognition Aikaterini “Katerina” Kanellia (WIPO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 3.2 | Closing Day Remarks and Global IP Leaders Panel Valencia Martin Wallace (USPTO) Katherine K. Vidal (USPTO) Rowel Barba (IPO Philippines) Claudia Franco (DINAPI Paraguay) Vivienne Katjiuongua (BIPA Namibia) Rakhat Kerimbaeva (Kyrgyzpatent) Michael Schwager (IP Australia)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 3.3 | Demo of USPTO’s Diversity Information Platform (DI platform) Stephen Koziol (USPTO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 3.4 | Panel: Supporting Women in IP Enforcement Amanda Lotheringen (CIPC South Africa) Michelle Sara King (ITA) Molly Ply (GSA) Miranda Richardson (DCIS)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 3.5 | [NOT HYBRID] Facilitated Workshop and Working Lunch USPTO	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 3.6 | Panel - Creativity and Entrepreneurship Stephanie Leparmentier (INFPI France) NaThanya Ferguson (USPTO) Patricia Bianco (USPTO) Holly Fechner (Invent Together) Miriam Lord (USCO)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Session 3.7 | Taking our work forward: Diversity Pledge and Day three wrap-up event closing (Workshop) Valencia Martin Wallace (USPTO)	○	○	○	○	○	○

Q.4.2.1 [If respondents select “strongly disagree” or ‘’disagree’’ in Q.4.2, then Q.4.2.1 appears]

You've indicated disagreement with the clarity of one or more topics to you. Can you please share more details about your perspective?

Page 5

Q 5.1 Is this your first Women in IP Symposium?

○ Yes [Proceed to page 7 ]

○ No [Proceed to page 6]

Page 6

Q.6.1 Overall, how would you rate this year's event in comparison to previous years?

○ Much Better

○ Somewhat better

○ About the same

○ Somewhat worse

○ Much worse

○ Unsure/no comment

Q.6.1.1 [If respondents select “somewhat worse” or ‘’much worse’’ in Q.6.1, then Q.6.1.1 appears.]

You've indicated this year’s event was worse than in previous years. Can you please share more details about your perspective?

Page 7

Q.7.1 Did you attend any of the networking activities associated with the event?

○ Yes [Proceed to page 8]

○ No [Proceed to page 9]

Page 8

Q.8.1 For each of the following networking activities, indicate your level of agreement with this statement: The networking activities provided opportunities to connect with relevant professionals.

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Not Applicable
Rise and Shine: Morning Mixer with USPTO Leadership (Day 1)	○	○	○	○	○	○
USPTO Formal Reception: National Inventors Hall of Fame Museum (Day 2)	○	○	○	○	○	○
Formal networking event (Day 3)	○	○	○	○	○	○

Q.8.1.1 [If respondents select “strongly disagree” or ‘’disagree’’ in Q.8.1, then Q.8.1.1 appears]

You've indicated disagreement that the event provided opportunities to connect with relevant professionals. Could you share how this could be improved?

Q.8.2

Q.8.2 To what extent did the networking activities enhance the overall event?

• Much better

• Somewhat better

• About the same

• Somewhat worse

• Much worse

• Unsure/no comment

Page 9

Q 9.1 Overall, how useful was this year’s Women in IP Symposium to you.

○ Very Useful

○ Useful

○ Neutral

○ Not useful

○ Not at all useful

Q.9.1.1 [If respondents select “not useful” or ‘’not at all useful’’ in Q.9.1, then Q.9.1.1 appears.]

You've indicated this year’s event was not entirely useful to you. Specifically, what aspects or elements do you feel could be improved, and are there any suggestions you have for enhancing the overall utility of the event in the future?

Q.9.2 Are there specific topics or subjects you would like to see addressed in future events?

Q.9.3 What factors or improvements would contribute to making your attendance at future events more convenient or accessible?

Q.9.4 Do you have any additional comments or feedback you would like to share regarding the Symposium?

PAGE 10

Demographics

Q.10.1 How did you attend the conference?

○ In-person [End survey]

○ Online [If selected proceed to page 11]

○ Hybrid (both in-person and online) [If selected proceed to page 11]

Q.10.2 From which region did you attend the conference?

○ Africa

○ Middle East

○ Asia / Pacific

○ Europe

○ North America

○ South America

PAGE 11

Q.11.1

To what extent would you agree with the following statement: Overall, it was easy to contribute to the conversation as a virtual participant?

• Strongly Agree

• Agree

• Neutral

• Disagree

• Strongly Disagree

Q11.1.1 [If respondents select “strongly disagree” or ‘’disagree’’ in Q.11.1, then Q.11.1.1 appears.]

You've indicated that it was difficult to contribute to the conversation. Specifically, what aspects or elements do you feel could be improved in future events?