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.

 

Connie Merlino

Partner

Connie Merlino
“The patentability of software remains a grey area under Australian law and around the world. But patenting software is possible in the right hands. Our Information Communications and Technology team at FB Rice are experts at ensuring that software inventions are robustly protected worldwide.”
“The patentability of software remains a grey area under Australian law and around the world. But patenting software is possible in the right hands. Our Information Communications and Technology team at FB Rice are experts at ensuring that software inventions are robustly protected worldwide.”
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.
15 February 2017
Australian innovation scrutinised again
‘… we need to significantly lift our game if we want to be a top tier innovation nation’ - Bill Ferris AC, Chair of Innovation Science Australia’s Board.
‘… we need to significantly lift our game if we want to be a top tier innovation nation’ - Bill Ferris AC, Chair of Innovation Science Australia’s Board.
Tracey Webb

Senior Associate

Tracey Webb
Tracey is a Senior Associate in the Software and Information Technology group. Tracey specialises in drafting and prosecuting patents in a range of physics and ICT technologies.
 
Tracey is a registered Australian Patent and Trade Marks Attorney.
Tracey is a Senior Associate in the Software and Information Technology group. Tracey specialises in drafting and prosecuting patents in a range of physics and ICT technologies.
 
Tracey is a registered Australian Patent and Trade Marks Attorney.
08 March 2017
FB Rice Ranked Tier 1 by IP Stars for Patent and Trade Mark Prosecution
Awards season is in full swing for 2017, and building on last year's success, we are very excited to announce our Patent and Trade Marks teams have both been ranked Tier 1 for Trade Mark prosecution by Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars.
Awards season is in full swing for 2017, and building on last year's success, we are very excited to announce our Patent and Trade Marks teams have both been ranked Tier 1 for Trade Mark prosecution by Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars.
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.