Patent & Trade Mark
Attorneys
We are
Experts in Navigating IP in the Asia Pacific Region
Working with clients in
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.”
New Zealand to introduce a one-year grace period
New Zealand looks set to introduce a new one-year grace period into the Patents Act 2013 after ratifying the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) on 25 October 2018.
New Zealand looks set to introduce a new one-year grace period into the Patents Act 2013 after ratifying the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) on 25 October 2018.
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.
Michael Seifried
Michael is a registered Australian Trade Marks Attorney and intellectual property lawyer.  His experience acting for clients from small and medium enterprises to large publicly listed companies in both contentious and non-contentious intellectual property matters, means that Michael understands the need for a commercially oriented approach.

 

Michael is a registered Australian Trade Marks Attorney and intellectual property lawyer.  His experience acting for clients from small and medium enterprises to large publicly listed companies in both contentious and non-contentious intellectual property matters, means that Michael understands the need for a commercially oriented approach.

 

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).
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.