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.

 

Brett Lunn

Managing Partner

Brett Lunn
"As their interests have expanded in the Asia-Pacific region, our clients have increasingly tapped in to our broad and deep understanding of the IP regimes in that region. While it has always been a priority at FB Rice to provide our clients with a service that is technically excellent, we also continue to help them to navigate the diverse jurisdictions and cultures that make up the Asia Pacific region."
"As their interests have expanded in the Asia-Pacific region, our clients have increasingly tapped in to our broad and deep understanding of the IP regimes in that region. While it has always been a priority at FB Rice to provide our clients with a service that is technically excellent, we also continue to help them to navigate the diverse jurisdictions and cultures that make up the Asia Pacific region."
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.
29 March 2018
Did you say ‘a shortage of cocoa beans’?
The thought of the cocoa bean extinction on the horizon due to climate change gives me the shivers. Without cocoa beans, there is no chocolate! Don’t panic; science and innovation is working towards future-proofing the chocolate industry.
The thought of the cocoa bean extinction on the horizon due to climate change gives me the shivers. Without cocoa beans, there is no chocolate! Don’t panic; science and innovation is working towards future-proofing the chocolate industry.
Vivian Chan

Technical Specialist

Vivian Chan
Vivian is a Technical Specialist in the Sydney office of FB Rice and joined the firm in 2012.  Vivian is responsible for filing patent applications in Australia, New Zealand and other jurisdictions as part of the Biotechnology group.
Vivian is a Technical Specialist in the Sydney office of FB Rice and joined the firm in 2012.  Vivian is responsible for filing patent applications in Australia, New Zealand and other jurisdictions as part of the Biotechnology group.
08 February 2018
FB Rice Trade Marks team ranked Tier 1 for Prosecution - MIP
For the fourth year in a row, our Trade Marks team has been ranked Tier 1 for Trade Marks prosecution by Managing Intellectual Property. The IP STARS survey is recognised by the IP industry globally as a key benchmark for the industry.
For the fourth year in a row, our Trade Marks team has been ranked Tier 1 for Trade Marks prosecution by Managing Intellectual Property. The IP STARS survey is recognised by the IP industry globally as a key benchmark for the industry.
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.