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.

 

Steve Gledhill

Partner

Steve Gledhill
"At FB Rice we have a number of high calibre European Qualified Attorneys who are also registered Australian and New Zealand Patent Attorneys. These attorneys have many years’ experience successfully securing strong IP rights and translating Australian and New Zealand patenting issues to clients filing from or into Europe and the United Kingdom."
"At FB Rice we have a number of high calibre European Qualified Attorneys who are also registered Australian and New Zealand Patent Attorneys. These attorneys have many years’ experience successfully securing strong IP rights and translating Australian and New Zealand patenting issues to clients filing from or into Europe and the United Kingdom."
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.
16 March 2017
The Cost of Sufficiency
In Australia, sufficiency is a requirement for patentability and goes to whether a patent specification provides adequate information to the skilled person to perform the claimed invention. Legislative change in 2013 ushered in new patentability standards including a raised test for sufficiency.
In Australia, sufficiency is a requirement for patentability and goes to whether a patent specification provides adequate information to the skilled person to perform the claimed invention. Legislative change in 2013 ushered in new patentability standards including a raised test for sufficiency.
Prue Cowin

Patent Attorney

Prue Cowin

Prue is a registered Australian Patent and Trade Marks attorney in our Biotechnology group. She completed her PhD at Monash Institute of Medical Research, investigating the effects of environmental chemicals on prostate disease.  Her comprehensive PhD led to a number of publications in high-ranking field specific peer-reviewed journals.

Prue is a registered Australian Patent and Trade Marks attorney in our Biotechnology group. She completed her PhD at Monash Institute of Medical Research, investigating the effects of environmental chemicals on prostate disease.  Her comprehensive PhD led to a number of publications in high-ranking field specific peer-reviewed journals.

12 April 2017
April 2017 Public Holidays in Australia and New Zealand
The Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth offices of FB Rice will be closed on the following days due to Australian national public holidays: Friday 14th April 2017 – Good Friday Monday 17th April 2017 – Easter Monday Tuesday 25th April 2017 – ANZAC Day
The Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth offices of FB Rice will be closed on the following days due to Australian national public holidays: Friday 14th April 2017 – Good Friday Monday 17th April 2017 – Easter Monday Tuesday 25th April 2017 – ANZAC Day
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.