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.

 

Paul Whenman

Partner

Paul Whenman
"FB Rice is constantly growing and evolving to ensure that we’re up to date with the industry, while at the same time maintaining the high standard of service and technical expertise that we provide to our clients."
"FB Rice is constantly growing and evolving to ensure that we’re up to date with the industry, while at the same time maintaining the high standard of service and technical expertise that we provide to our clients."
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.
06 June 2017
Two new Administrative Appeal Tribunal cases shed light on eligibility of R&D activities and claimants
Today, we write about two new cases from the AAT. The first, Rix’s Creek Pty Ltd; Bloomfield Collieries Pty Ltd and Innovation and Science Australia (2017) AATA 645, gives good insight into how the AAT has recently treated the eligibility requirement around R&D activities and the need for appropriate supporting documentation and records. The second, DZXP, KRQD and QJJS v Innovation and Science Australia (2017) AATA 573 highlights the importance of ensuring you are claiming under the correct entity. We discuss these cases and conclude with three key lessons.
Today, we write about two new cases from the AAT. The first, Rix’s Creek Pty Ltd; Bloomfield Collieries Pty Ltd and Innovation and Science Australia (2017) AATA 645, gives good insight into how the AAT has recently treated the eligibility requirement around R&D activities and the need for appropriate supporting documentation and records. The second, DZXP, KRQD and QJJS v Innovation and Science Australia (2017) AATA 573 highlights the importance of ensuring you are claiming under the correct entity. We discuss these cases and conclude with three key lessons.
John Landells

Partner

John Landells
John Landells is a Partner in the FB Rice Melbourne Chemistry team. He has over 12 years’ experience in the patent attorney profession and has been involved in a practice largely comprised of local based innovators.
 
John is a registered Patent Attorney and Legal Practitioner in Australia and New Zealand
 
 
John Landells is a Partner in the FB Rice Melbourne Chemistry team. He has over 12 years’ experience in the patent attorney profession and has been involved in a practice largely comprised of local based innovators.
 
John is a registered Patent Attorney and Legal Practitioner in Australia and New Zealand
 
 
11 May 2018
UK triggers next step in European patent overhaul
On 26 April 2018 the UK government ratified the agreement aimed at establishing the long-awaited Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Europe. The fate of the UPC now rests with Germany as the only remaining country still required to ratify the agreement before it can come into effect. There remains some uncertainty around exactly when that will happen. Nevertheless, the UK’s ratification represents a significant step towards implementation of a radically different framework for patent enforcement in Europe. We recommend that Australian and New Zealand companies take note in preparation for the changes ahead.
On 26 April 2018 the UK government ratified the agreement aimed at establishing the long-awaited Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Europe. The fate of the UPC now rests with Germany as the only remaining country still required to ratify the agreement before it can come into effect. There remains some uncertainty around exactly when that will happen. Nevertheless, the UK’s ratification represents a significant step towards implementation of a radically different framework for patent enforcement in Europe. We recommend that Australian and New Zealand companies take note in preparation for the changes ahead.
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.