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.

 

Madeleine Kelly

Partner

Madeleine Kelly
“At FB Rice, we employ and work with a diverse range of people. From hiring attorneys and staff with diverse backgrounds, to sponsoring initiatives encouraging women’s engagement and networking in STEM and life sciences, we know that sometimes talent requires support to flourish and benefit the firm, our clients, and the industries in which they work. This desire for diversity can also be seen in the flexibility provided to the FB Rice team through working arrangements and paid parental leave on a sliding scale.”
“At FB Rice, we employ and work with a diverse range of people. From hiring attorneys and staff with diverse backgrounds, to sponsoring initiatives encouraging women’s engagement and networking in STEM and life sciences, we know that sometimes talent requires support to flourish and benefit the firm, our clients, and the industries in which they work. This desire for diversity can also be seen in the flexibility provided to the FB Rice team through working arrangements and paid parental leave on a sliding scale.”
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.
14 June 2018
FB Rice to present at the Australia China Technology Incubator Bootcamps
The ACTI Bootcamp will provide CEOs and senior Australian executives of health and medtech companies the knowledge to assist them develop a high-level China market entry plan and business strategy.
The ACTI Bootcamp will provide CEOs and senior Australian executives of health and medtech companies the knowledge to assist them develop a high-level China market entry plan and business strategy.
David Herman

Patent Attorney

David Herman
David is a Patent Attorney in our Melbourne Chemistry team, and has extensive experience in handling the Australian and New Zealand patent prosecution strategy for both local and overseas clients, and assists them to obtain patent protection that aligns with their wider commercial strategy.

 

David is a Patent Attorney in our Melbourne Chemistry team, and has extensive experience in handling the Australian and New Zealand patent prosecution strategy for both local and overseas clients, and assists them to obtain patent protection that aligns with their wider commercial strategy.

 

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.