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.
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.
Danielle Burns

Senior Associate

Danielle Burns
Danielle is a Senior Associate with the Biotechnology team.  Danielle focuses on the preparation and prosecution of patent applications, patentability, infringement, clearance, and validity opinions, and due diligence work, with a specialty in biopharmaceuticals (including antibodies and antisense molecules), diagnostics and agriculture (including transgenic plants).  Danielle works with a number of local and overseas biotech companies, including small to medium entities, big pharma and generics companies as well as academic institutions to protect their intellectual property and help them avoid infringing competitor's intellectual property rights.  Danielle has represented clients in oppositions to grant of both Australian and New Zealand patents and has prepared patent attorney reports required in prospectuses for initial public offerings.
 
Danielle is a registered Australian Patent Attorney.
Danielle is a Senior Associate with the Biotechnology team.  Danielle focuses on the preparation and prosecution of patent applications, patentability, infringement, clearance, and validity opinions, and due diligence work, with a specialty in biopharmaceuticals (including antibodies and antisense molecules), diagnostics and agriculture (including transgenic plants).  Danielle works with a number of local and overseas biotech companies, including small to medium entities, big pharma and generics companies as well as academic institutions to protect their intellectual property and help them avoid infringing competitor's intellectual property rights.  Danielle has represented clients in oppositions to grant of both Australian and New Zealand patents and has prepared patent attorney reports required in prospectuses for initial public offerings.
 
Danielle is a registered Australian Patent Attorney.
16 May 2017
AusTechComp 2017 | Only one week left to enter!
Now in its seventh year, Australia's premier technology accelerator, the Australian Technologies Competition, is open for 2017 entries. The competition will assess, profile and promote innovative and emerging technologies with the greatest potential.
Now in its seventh year, Australia's premier technology accelerator, the Australian Technologies Competition, is open for 2017 entries. The competition will assess, profile and promote innovative and emerging technologies with the greatest potential.
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.