Patent & Trade Mark
Attorneys
We are
Experts in Navigating IP in the Asia Pacific Region
Thanks to many years of global experience, FB Rice has a network of trusted advisors in all key jurisdictions. We turn to those advisors when assisting our clients to promote their interests.

For specific information on our Asia Pacific capability, click here.

 

 
One door to South East Asia
For a seamless service for filing and prosecuting patent and trade mark applications in South East Asia, click here.

 

John Landells

Partner

John Landells
“Changes to New Zealand’s patent law and practice in 2014 has brought New Zealand more into alignment with Australia, significantly raising the threshold for patentability in New Zealand. Most of our attorneys are registered to represent our clients in both Australia and New Zealand, which ensures that our clients get the best protection of their assets across both jurisdictions.”
“Changes to New Zealand’s patent law and practice in 2014 has brought New Zealand more into alignment with Australia, significantly raising the threshold for patentability in New Zealand. Most of our attorneys are registered to represent our clients in both Australia and New Zealand, which ensures that our clients get the best protection of their assets across both jurisdictions.”
Inventorship – a muddy concept at best
Inventorship has been described as “one of muddiest concepts in the muddy metaphysics of the patent law.” Mueller Brass Co. v. Reading Industries, Inc., 352 F.Supp. 1357, 1372 (E.D.Pa. 1972). Determining inventorship is a complex issue that is undertaken on a much stricter basis than authorship of a scientific publication. It can also be a particularly contentious issue when people are not named as inventors. Not only can this lead to alienation, but it can also lead to legal issues. For example, a patent may be invalid if incorrect inventors are intentionally named. During litigation, a defendant may also be able to identify an unnamed inventor and obtain an assignment from them, thereby qualifying as a co-owner of the patent and no longer subject to the litigation.
Inventorship has been described as “one of muddiest concepts in the muddy metaphysics of the patent law.” Mueller Brass Co. v. Reading Industries, Inc., 352 F.Supp. 1357, 1372 (E.D.Pa. 1972). Determining inventorship is a complex issue that is undertaken on a much stricter basis than authorship of a scientific publication. It can also be a particularly contentious issue when people are not named as inventors. Not only can this lead to alienation, but it can also lead to legal issues. For example, a patent may be invalid if incorrect inventors are intentionally named. During litigation, a defendant may also be able to identify an unnamed inventor and obtain an assignment from them, thereby qualifying as a co-owner of the patent and no longer subject to the litigation.
06 June 2017
Two new Administrative Appeal Tribunal cases shed light on eligibility of R&D activities and claimants
Today, we write about two new cases from the AAT. The first, Rix’s Creek Pty Ltd; Bloomfield Collieries Pty Ltd and Innovation and Science Australia (2017) AATA 645, gives good insight into how the AAT has recently treated the eligibility requirement around R&D activities and the need for appropriate supporting documentation and records. The second, DZXP, KRQD and QJJS v Innovation and Science Australia (2017) AATA 573 highlights the importance of ensuring you are claiming under the correct entity. We discuss these cases and conclude with three key lessons.
Today, we write about two new cases from the AAT. The first, Rix’s Creek Pty Ltd; Bloomfield Collieries Pty Ltd and Innovation and Science Australia (2017) AATA 645, gives good insight into how the AAT has recently treated the eligibility requirement around R&D activities and the need for appropriate supporting documentation and records. The second, DZXP, KRQD and QJJS v Innovation and Science Australia (2017) AATA 573 highlights the importance of ensuring you are claiming under the correct entity. We discuss these cases and conclude with three key lessons.
Nabiha Elias

Technical Specialist

Nabiha Elias

Nabiha is a Chemical Specialist in our Sydney Chemistry Group with a keen interest in the interplay between intellectual property, legislature, business, and science.

Nabiha is a Chemical Specialist in our Sydney Chemistry Group with a keen interest in the interplay between intellectual property, legislature, business, and science.

10 May 2017
No news is good news - Budget 2017/18 and the R&D tax incentive
It is good news that there were no negative announcements about R&D tax in the budget, we are still waiting to see if the Government will continue to support innovation and R&D in Australia and will finally put to bed uncertainty in the program to allow companies to move forward with R&D in Australia.
It is good news that there were no negative announcements about R&D tax in the budget, we are still waiting to see if the Government will continue to support innovation and R&D in Australia and will finally put to bed uncertainty in the program to allow companies to move forward with R&D in Australia.
Interfering RNA (iRNA) is no interference to manner of manufacture in Australia
The Australian Patent Office (APO) has determined that claims directed to a composition comprising double-stranded RNA (so-called “interfering RNA” or “iRNA”) is a manner of manufacture (patent eligible subject matter) in accordance with Section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act.
The Australian Patent Office (APO) has determined that claims directed to a composition comprising double-stranded RNA (so-called “interfering RNA” or “iRNA”) is a manner of manufacture (patent eligible subject matter) in accordance with Section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act.