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.

 

Patrick McManamny
"The pharmaceutical patent landscape is complex and constantly evolving. At FB Rice, we work with our clients to ensure they are aware of these changes and their effect on their business and goals, whether this is obtaining patent rights or being aware of, or avoiding, third party rights."
"The pharmaceutical patent landscape is complex and constantly evolving. At FB Rice, we work with our clients to ensure they are aware of these changes and their effect on their business and goals, whether this is obtaining patent rights or being aware of, or avoiding, third party rights."
Should defensive trade marks be part of your portfolio protection strategy?
There are three main reasons to consider including defensive registrations in trade mark portfolio protection strategies.
There are three main reasons to consider including defensive registrations in trade mark portfolio protection strategies.
14 June 2016
New Zealand Divisional Filing Practice Warning
New Zealand is currently in transition between its former 1953 Patents Act (“old Act”) and its new Patents Act 2013 (“new Act”) and significant differences exist in practice including for divisionals. What does this mean for you?
New Zealand is currently in transition between its former 1953 Patents Act (“old Act”) and its new Patents Act 2013 (“new Act”) and significant differences exist in practice including for divisionals. What does this mean for you?
Will Morgan

Overseas Qualified Attorney

Will Morgan

Will is a qualified European and UK Patent Attorney specialising in analog and digital electronics, communications technology, semiconductor device design, software, firmware, user interfaces, medical imaging, and atomic force and scanning probe microscopy. He is also a qualified European Design Attorney with substantial experience in the prosecution of registered designs around the world.

Will is a qualified European and UK Patent Attorney specialising in analog and digital electronics, communications technology, semiconductor device design, software, firmware, user interfaces, medical imaging, and atomic force and scanning probe microscopy. He is also a qualified European Design Attorney with substantial experience in the prosecution of registered designs around the world.

06 May 2016
Budget update: Good news for Australian SMEs
This week’s Federal Budget had some good news for Australian companies with the introduction of the reduction in company tax rate from 30% to 27.5% for companies with a turnover of less than $10M. This follows on from last year’s budget in which companies with a turnover of less than $2M saw a reduction to 28.5% now decreased to 27.5%.
This week’s Federal Budget had some good news for Australian companies with the introduction of the reduction in company tax rate from 30% to 27.5% for companies with a turnover of less than $10M. This follows on from last year’s budget in which companies with a turnover of less than $2M saw a reduction to 28.5% now decreased to 27.5%.
Australian High Court approves the Full Federal Court RPL Central decision and rejects appeal
Now that the RPL Central decision has been endorsed by the High Court, we expect IP Australia to refer to this decision more often during examination of computer implemented inventions. In particular, we expect IP Australia to raise patentable subject matter objections to claimed inventions where the substance of the invention is in the idea or business method, rather than in a new and useful effect in a computer.
Now that the RPL Central decision has been endorsed by the High Court, we expect IP Australia to refer to this decision more often during examination of computer implemented inventions. In particular, we expect IP Australia to raise patentable subject matter objections to claimed inventions where the substance of the invention is in the idea or business method, rather than in a new and useful effect in a computer.