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.

 

John Landells

Partner

John Landells
“A key strength about FB Rice is the people and our ability to collaborate so effectively between and within offices and technology groups to produce highly effective multidisciplinary teams capable of excelling in complex technology areas."
“A key strength about FB Rice is the people and our ability to collaborate so effectively between and within offices and technology groups to produce highly effective multidisciplinary teams capable of excelling in complex technology areas."
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.
08 March 2017
FB Rice and Ian Rourke Win Client Choice Awards
FB Rice has been announced the winner of the Financial Review Client Choice Awards Niche Firm Leader category. This is an incredible achievement for the firm and we would like to thank our clients for being a huge part of the interview process resulting in this award.
FB Rice has been announced the winner of the Financial Review Client Choice Awards Niche Firm Leader category. This is an incredible achievement for the firm and we would like to thank our clients for being a huge part of the interview process resulting in this award.
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.

21 April 2017
Timely review of the Conflict of Interest Provisions in the Code of Conduct for Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys
In February 2017, the long awaited agreement between the Australian and New Zealand governments to standardize the regulation of the patent attorney profession came in to effect. Part of this process was the establishment of a Trans-Tasman IP Attorneys Board and a review of the Attorneys’ Code of Conduct. The Board is now undertaking the review of the Code and must make any appropriate amendments by February 2018, based on industry consultation and comment. In addition, the Board will undertake a review of the Code’s conflict of interest provisions.
In February 2017, the long awaited agreement between the Australian and New Zealand governments to standardize the regulation of the patent attorney profession came in to effect. Part of this process was the establishment of a Trans-Tasman IP Attorneys Board and a review of the Attorneys’ Code of Conduct. The Board is now undertaking the review of the Code and must make any appropriate amendments by February 2018, based on industry consultation and comment. In addition, the Board will undertake a review of the Code’s conflict of interest provisions.
WIPOs First Millionaire | Chinese Patent Filings Break New Record
WIPO has published its World Intellectual Property Indicators 2016 report, which details a healthy growth of intellectual property filings in 2015. Overall, the statistics demonstrate a positive trend in global innovation for the year, with patent filings increasing by 7.8% and trade mark filings increasing by a staggering 15.3%.
WIPO has published its World Intellectual Property Indicators 2016 report, which details a healthy growth of intellectual property filings in 2015. Overall, the statistics demonstrate a positive trend in global innovation for the year, with patent filings increasing by 7.8% and trade mark filings increasing by a staggering 15.3%.