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.

 

Joanne Martin

Partner

Joanne Martin
"Businesses which spend time and money on creating, developing and promoting their brands recognise that trade marks are valuable commercial assets, and registration of their marks is an essential part of their IP strategy."
"Businesses which spend time and money on creating, developing and promoting their brands recognise that trade marks are valuable commercial assets, and registration of their marks is an essential part of their IP strategy."
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 July 2017
New Zealand joins the Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH)
On 6 July 2017, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) became the latest member to join the Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH).
On 6 July 2017, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) became the latest member to join the Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH).
Paul Whenman

Partner

Paul Whenman

Paul is a Partner of FB Rice and heads the firm’s Life Sciences group and our Sydney Chemistry team. As a qualified patent attorney, Paul has had a distinguished career with the firm with over 30 years’ experience in chemically related patents, including pharmaceuticals, animal health products, surface coatings and water related technologies.

Paul is a Partner of FB Rice and heads the firm’s Life Sciences group and our Sydney Chemistry team. As a qualified patent attorney, Paul has had a distinguished career with the firm with over 30 years’ experience in chemically related patents, including pharmaceuticals, animal health products, surface coatings and water related technologies.

22 May 2017
Best method: the New Act
Any applicant for patent protection in Australia must disclose the best method for performing the invention known to it at the time of filing a complete application. Failing to disclose the best method will impact not just one or two claims, but can invalidate an entire patent.
Any applicant for patent protection in Australia must disclose the best method for performing the invention known to it at the time of filing a complete application. Failing to disclose the best method will impact not just one or two claims, but can invalidate an entire patent.
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.