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.
24 March 2017
Women in Life Sciences come together to celebrate in Sydney
FB Rice is delighted to be part of the second annual AusBiotech Women in Life Sciences lunch in Sydney. Quickly becoming a fixture in the NSW Life Sciences calendar, the lunch seeks to celebrate women working in the broad area of Life Sciences. We applaud the work that AusBiotech does to support and foster achievement in all areas of Life Sciences.
FB Rice is delighted to be part of the second annual AusBiotech Women in Life Sciences lunch in Sydney. Quickly becoming a fixture in the NSW Life Sciences calendar, the lunch seeks to celebrate women working in the broad area of Life Sciences. We applaud the work that AusBiotech does to support and foster achievement in all areas of Life Sciences.
Ian Rourke

Partner

Ian Rourke
Ian prepares and prosecutes patent applications internationally, evaluates the external patent landscape and intellectual property positions of competitors, conducts complex patent invalidity, infringement, due diligence and freedom-to-operate analyses.
 
Ian is a registered Australian Patent Attorney.
Ian prepares and prosecutes patent applications internationally, evaluates the external patent landscape and intellectual property positions of competitors, conducts complex patent invalidity, infringement, due diligence and freedom-to-operate analyses.
 
Ian is a registered Australian Patent Attorney.
07 March 2017
How to support your R&D Tax claim - an overview of the legislative and regulatory environment
There are still few cases that have been decided through the AAT in relation to the R&D Tax Incentive program since its inception in 2011. The two main entities that have brought actions are Innovation Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. These cases each involved the legislative requirement that companies maintain contemporaneous documentation of their experimental activities and associated costs in order to claim the R&D Tax Incentive offset. In view of these decisions, we set out the key points to remember in claiming the R & D Tax Incentive.
There are still few cases that have been decided through the AAT in relation to the R&D Tax Incentive program since its inception in 2011. The two main entities that have brought actions are Innovation Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. These cases each involved the legislative requirement that companies maintain contemporaneous documentation of their experimental activities and associated costs in order to claim the R&D Tax Incentive offset. In view of these decisions, we set out the key points to remember in claiming the R & D Tax Incentive.
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.