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.

 

Charles Berman

Partner

Charles Berman
“With the resources sector becoming increasingly competitive, intellectual property protection assumes an ever more important role as a business tool. While FB Rice considers innovation as crucial in the resources sector, the benefit of such innovation is lost if an effective strategy for its protection is not also implemented as an integral part of a business's commercial strategy. Such protection is the safest mechanism for maintaining a competitive advantage.”
“With the resources sector becoming increasingly competitive, intellectual property protection assumes an ever more important role as a business tool. While FB Rice considers innovation as crucial in the resources sector, the benefit of such innovation is lost if an effective strategy for its protection is not also implemented as an integral part of a business's commercial strategy. Such protection is the safest mechanism for maintaining a competitive advantage.”
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.
20 June 2017
Australian Technologies Competition | Semi Finalists Announced
Partner Rachel Hooke and the judging panel have shortlisted thirty-eight of Australia's leading and innovative technology companies for the Australian Technologies Competition 2017 Business Accelerator. The semi-finalists are up and coming game-changers working across the sectors of energy, manufacturing, food & agritech, mining, medical technologies, cyber security and smart cities.
Partner Rachel Hooke and the judging panel have shortlisted thirty-eight of Australia's leading and innovative technology companies for the Australian Technologies Competition 2017 Business Accelerator. The semi-finalists are up and coming game-changers working across the sectors of energy, manufacturing, food & agritech, mining, medical technologies, cyber security and smart cities.
Mark Teoh

Associate

Mark Teoh

Mark Teoh is an Associate in our Sydney Medical Technology with a range of experience across all areas of mechanical engineering with a particular focus on medical technology and mechatronic systems, including medical imaging, implantable bionics, ophthalmic treatments and devices, surgical devices, medical devices, humanoids, prosthetics, diagnostic devices and industrial robotics. 

Mark is a registered Australian Patent and Trade Mark Attorney and a registered New Zealand Patent Attorney.

Mark Teoh is an Associate in our Sydney Medical Technology with a range of experience across all areas of mechanical engineering with a particular focus on medical technology and mechatronic systems, including medical imaging, implantable bionics, ophthalmic treatments and devices, surgical devices, medical devices, humanoids, prosthetics, diagnostic devices and industrial robotics. 

Mark is a registered Australian Patent and Trade Mark Attorney and a registered New Zealand Patent Attorney.

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.