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.

 

Paul Whenman

Partner

Paul Whenman
"FB Rice is constantly growing and evolving to ensure that we’re up to date with the industry, while at the same time maintaining the high standard of service and technical expertise that we provide to our clients."
"FB Rice is constantly growing and evolving to ensure that we’re up to date with the industry, while at the same time maintaining the high standard of service and technical expertise that we provide to our clients."
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.
07 June 2017
FB Rice receives Asia IP Tier 1 Ranking for patent proscution
Asia IP has released their rankings for 2017, and we are delighted to have received a Tier 1 ranking for Patent Prosecution. This ranking is testament to our commitment to clients in Australia and abroad, and we look forward to continuing to provide this service.
Asia IP has released their rankings for 2017, and we are delighted to have received a Tier 1 ranking for Patent Prosecution. This ranking is testament to our commitment to clients in Australia and abroad, and we look forward to continuing to provide this service.
Lisa Neilson

Associate

Lisa Neilson
Lisa is a Trade Marks Associate in our Sydney office and joined the firm in 2009. Lisa’s practice covers all aspects of trade mark registration, protection and enforcement in Australia and New Zealand including prosecution, oppositions and non-use removal actions. Lisa has extensive experience managing global trade mark portfolios, advising on local and global filing strategies and with all aspects of the Madrid System for the International Registration of trade marks. She also advises clients on brand adoption and use including trade mark clearance searches.
Lisa is a Trade Marks Associate in our Sydney office and joined the firm in 2009. Lisa’s practice covers all aspects of trade mark registration, protection and enforcement in Australia and New Zealand including prosecution, oppositions and non-use removal actions. Lisa has extensive experience managing global trade mark portfolios, advising on local and global filing strategies and with all aspects of the Madrid System for the International Registration of trade marks. She also advises clients on brand adoption and use including trade mark clearance searches.
09 March 2018
New Zealand patent regulations amended to fix filing issues
From 5 April 2018, various amendments to the Patents Regulations 2014 come into effect in New Zealand to address a few unintended problems arising from the new Patents Act 2013 and its Regulations. Issues being fixed include addressing filing requirements around divisional claims and microorganism deposits.
From 5 April 2018, various amendments to the Patents Regulations 2014 come into effect in New Zealand to address a few unintended problems arising from the new Patents Act 2013 and its Regulations. Issues being fixed include addressing filing requirements around divisional claims and microorganism deposits.
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.