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
"The China market continues to grow and innovate, and an important step for any commercial entity is to ensure that their trade marks are protected there. Trade Marks are a key tool that should underpin every organisation's assets, no matter their size or business strategy."
"The China market continues to grow and innovate, and an important step for any commercial entity is to ensure that their trade marks are protected there. Trade Marks are a key tool that should underpin every organisation's assets, no matter their size or business strategy."
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.
Marcus Caulfield
Marcus specialises in patent matters related to chemistry and his main areas of expertise are the drafting and prosecution of patent applications, oppositions, providing validity and infringement advice, and conducting “freedom to operate” patent searches.
 
Marcus is a registered Australian Patent and Trade Marks Attorney.
Marcus specialises in patent matters related to chemistry and his main areas of expertise are the drafting and prosecution of patent applications, oppositions, providing validity and infringement advice, and conducting “freedom to operate” patent searches.
 
Marcus is a registered Australian Patent and Trade Marks Attorney.
09 May 2018
R&D Tax Incentive Budget 2018 | Changes you need to know
Last night’s Federal Budget saw the Treasurer Scott Morrison announcing a reduction in the Research and Development Tax Incentive program expenditure by $2.4 billion over four years.
Last night’s Federal Budget saw the Treasurer Scott Morrison announcing a reduction in the Research and Development Tax Incentive program expenditure by $2.4 billion over four years.
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.