“With its strategic geographical position, Australia is the fifth largest Information and Communication Technology (ICT) market and is ranked second in Asia Pacific in terms of protection of intellectual property rights. FB Rice contributes to this success by working closely with pioneering ICT hubs such as Australia’s Federal ICT research centre of excellence NICTA and Australia’s national science agency CSIRO to ensure their innovations are protected.”
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.
David is a Senior Associate in the Engineering group of our Sydney office and holds a Bachelor of Science from Macquarie University, Sydney and a Masters in Industrial Property Law from the University of Technology, Sydney.
David is a registered Australian Patent and Trade Marks Attorney.
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.