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.

 

Brett Lunn

Managing Partner

Brett Lunn
“FB Rice has a long and strong tradition of assisting Australian entities with their patent, trade mark and IP strategy needs. The R&D Tax Incentive is relevant to many of these existing clients, and hence FB Rice sees a strong synergy between our existing service offerings and our new R&D Tax Consulting group”.
“FB Rice has a long and strong tradition of assisting Australian entities with their patent, trade mark and IP strategy needs. The R&D Tax Incentive is relevant to many of these existing clients, and hence FB Rice sees a strong synergy between our existing service offerings and our new R&D Tax Consulting group”.
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.
20 June 2017
Australian Technologies Competition | Semi Finalists Announced
Partner Rachel Hooke and the judging panel have shortlisted thirty-eight of Australia's leading and innovative technology companies for the Australian Technologies Competition 2017 Business Accelerator. The semi-finalists are up and coming game-changers working across the sectors of energy, manufacturing, food & agritech, mining, medical technologies, cyber security and smart cities.
Partner Rachel Hooke and the judging panel have shortlisted thirty-eight of Australia's leading and innovative technology companies for the Australian Technologies Competition 2017 Business Accelerator. The semi-finalists are up and coming game-changers working across the sectors of energy, manufacturing, food & agritech, mining, medical technologies, cyber security and smart cities.
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.

07 June 2017
Patentability of software inventions
Software patents have been the subject of controversy for some time. According to the most recent Australian court decision Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd1 (RPL Central), the relevant question is whether the invention is in substance a scheme or plan or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology.
Software patents have been the subject of controversy for some time. According to the most recent Australian court decision Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd1 (RPL Central), the relevant question is whether the invention is in substance a scheme or plan or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology.
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.