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 most 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.

 

Connie Merlino

Partner

Connie Merlino
“With its strategic geographical position, Australia is the fifth largest Information and Communication Technology (ICT) market and is ranked second in Asia Pacific in terms of protection of intellectual property rights. FB Rice contributes to this success by working closely with pioneering ICT hubs such as Australia’s Federal ICT research centre of excellence NICTA and Australia’s national science agency CSIRO to ensure their innovations are protected.”
“With its strategic geographical position, Australia is the fifth largest Information and Communication Technology (ICT) market and is ranked second in Asia Pacific in terms of protection of intellectual property rights. FB Rice contributes to this success by working closely with pioneering ICT hubs such as Australia’s Federal ICT research centre of excellence NICTA and Australia’s national science agency CSIRO to ensure their innovations are protected.”
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.
19 December 2016
Green Light for Trans-Tasman Patent Attorney Regime
On 15 November 2016, the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (“Bill”) passed its final reading in New Zealand’s Parliament, and is due to come into force no later than 24 February 2017.
On 15 November 2016, the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (“Bill”) passed its final reading in New Zealand’s Parliament, and is due to come into force no later than 24 February 2017.
Rachel Montgomery

Senior Associate

Rachel Montgomery

Rachel is a Senior Associate in the Melbourne office and has practised in the field of engineering patents for over 15 years. Rachel’s practice is broadly based and extends from household consumer products to laser and optical instrumentation. More specifically, Rachel’s area of work includes patent applications directed to oil and gas industry products and services, cement and mineral industries, analysis equipment, and sensing systems for monitoring of environmental conditions.

Rachel is a Senior Associate in the Melbourne office and has practised in the field of engineering patents for over 15 years. Rachel’s practice is broadly based and extends from household consumer products to laser and optical instrumentation. More specifically, Rachel’s area of work includes patent applications directed to oil and gas industry products and services, cement and mineral industries, analysis equipment, and sensing systems for monitoring of environmental conditions.

20 December 2016
Intellectual Property Arrangements Report released by Australian Productivity Commission
Outcomes impacting inventive step threshold, the innovation patent, and trade mark non-use provisions included in the Australian Productivity Commission report on Intellectual Property Arrangements.
Outcomes impacting inventive step threshold, the innovation patent, and trade mark non-use provisions included in the Australian Productivity Commission report on Intellectual Property Arrangements.
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.