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.
07 May 2018
New Zealand relaxes support required for amending patent specifications
Based on a recent decision by New Zealand’s Intellectual Property Office (IPONZ), patent applicants wishing to amend the specification during examination in New Zealand no longer need to provide a specific statement of support in the original specification for each and every proposed amendment.
Based on a recent decision by New Zealand’s Intellectual Property Office (IPONZ), patent applicants wishing to amend the specification during examination in New Zealand no longer need to provide a specific statement of support in the original specification for each and every proposed amendment.
Rachel Hooke

Partner

Rachel Hooke

Rachel is a partner of FB Rice and heads both the Medical Technology and China business teams.  As a qualified patent attorney, Rachel has over 20 years of experience advising her clients in all matters related to intellectual property.  From drafting and prosecuting multi-jurisdictional patent families to providing high level strategic advice, clients appreciate Rachel’s experience and ability to see the bigger picture to ensure any IP strategy aligns with their commercial goals.

Rachel is a registered Australian and New Zealand Patent Attorney.

Rachel is a partner of FB Rice and heads both the Medical Technology and China business teams.  As a qualified patent attorney, Rachel has over 20 years of experience advising her clients in all matters related to intellectual property.  From drafting and prosecuting multi-jurisdictional patent families to providing high level strategic advice, clients appreciate Rachel’s experience and ability to see the bigger picture to ensure any IP strategy aligns with their commercial goals.

Rachel is a registered Australian and New Zealand Patent Attorney.
19 July 2017
New Zealand joins the Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH)
On 6 July 2017, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) became the latest member to join the Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH).
On 6 July 2017, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) became the latest member to join the Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH).
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.