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.

 

Joanne Martin

Partner

Joanne Martin
"Many Australian businesses look to China as offering opportunities for business growth both in China and globally. China is recognised as a complex and challenging market, however businesses trading successfully with China tend to be more competitive both domestically and in the international market in response to those learnings."
"Many Australian businesses look to China as offering opportunities for business growth both in China and globally. China is recognised as a complex and challenging market, however businesses trading successfully with China tend to be more competitive both domestically and in the international market in response to those learnings."
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.
28 August 2017
Australian Technologies Competition - Showcase & Awards Events
With finalists for the 2017 Australian Technologies Competition announced mid-September, it’s time to get your tickets to the Showcase and Awards Events!
With finalists for the 2017 Australian Technologies Competition announced mid-September, it’s time to get your tickets to the Showcase and Awards Events!
Ronelle Geldenhuys

Senior Associate

Ronelle Geldenhuys

Ronelle is a qualified Australian Patent Attorney with a strong background in electronics, computer networks, communication systems, mine automation and domestic appliances. Her experience spans drafting, infringement and patentability opinions and the prosecution of applications in Australia, the United States, Europe, China and South America.

Ronelle is a qualified Australian Patent Attorney with a strong background in electronics, computer networks, communication systems, mine automation and domestic appliances. Her experience spans drafting, infringement and patentability opinions and the prosecution of applications in Australia, the United States, Europe, China and South America.

07 June 2017
Patentability of software inventions
Software patents have been the subject of controversy for some time. According to the most recent Australian court decision Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd1 (RPL Central), the relevant question is whether the invention is in substance a scheme or plan or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology.
Software patents have been the subject of controversy for some time. According to the most recent Australian court decision Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd1 (RPL Central), the relevant question is whether the invention is in substance a scheme or plan or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology.
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.