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.

 

Brett Lunn

Managing Partner

Brett Lunn
"The partners of FB Rice are committed to seeing the firm remain wholly owned by the partners of the firm. FB Rice is not a subsidiary of a listed entity that also owns other firm brands and does not have external shareholders with no knowledge of our industry. Our key areas of focus are to develop a firm that is the best patent and trade mark attorney firm in Australia to work for and also to provide the best possible service to our clients, with both of these goals unimpeded by external shareholders."
"The partners of FB Rice are committed to seeing the firm remain wholly owned by the partners of the firm. FB Rice is not a subsidiary of a listed entity that also owns other firm brands and does not have external shareholders with no knowledge of our industry. Our key areas of focus are to develop a firm that is the best patent and trade mark attorney firm in Australia to work for and also to provide the best possible service to our clients, with both of these goals unimpeded by external shareholders."
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.
22 December 2017
Lara Gun promoted to Senior Associate
All the partners and staff at FB Rice would like to congratulate Lara Gun on her well deserved promotion to Senior Associate in our Sydney Trade Marks team.
All the partners and staff at FB Rice would like to congratulate Lara Gun on her well deserved promotion to Senior Associate in our Sydney Trade Marks team.
Kate Mahady

Director

Kate Mahady
Kate is the Director of FB Rice R&D Tax Consulting. She has over fourteen years’ experience in Research & Development Tax incentive consulting in 'Big 4' accounting firms with strong experience in advising a broad range of technology based companies from start ups to large multinationals. Kate is dedicated to assisting Australian companies navigate the complex R&D tax landscape to provide maximised, supportable claims to enable them to fund further research and development projects.
Kate is the Director of FB Rice R&D Tax Consulting. She has over fourteen years’ experience in Research & Development Tax incentive consulting in 'Big 4' accounting firms with strong experience in advising a broad range of technology based companies from start ups to large multinationals. Kate is dedicated to assisting Australian companies navigate the complex R&D tax landscape to provide maximised, supportable claims to enable them to fund further research and development projects.
18 May 2018
Colour Word Marks: Trade Mark registration in Australia
There have been a small number of decisions in Australia dealing with registrability of Colour Word marks. There has been a change in approach by IP Australia which is more restrictive, particularly regarding granting rights for primary and secondary Colour Word marks, such as the words red, blue, yellow, green, orange and purple.
There have been a small number of decisions in Australia dealing with registrability of Colour Word marks. There has been a change in approach by IP Australia which is more restrictive, particularly regarding granting rights for primary and secondary Colour Word marks, such as the words red, blue, yellow, green, orange and purple.
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.