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
“FB Rice has a long and strong tradition of assisting Australian entities with their patent, trade mark and IP strategy needs. The R&D Tax Incentive is relevant to many of these existing clients, and hence FB Rice sees a strong synergy between our existing service offerings and our new R&D Tax Consulting group”.
“FB Rice has a long and strong tradition of assisting Australian entities with their patent, trade mark and IP strategy needs. The R&D Tax Incentive is relevant to many of these existing clients, and hence FB Rice sees a strong synergy between our existing service offerings and our new R&D Tax Consulting group”.
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.
25 July 2018
Replica product “specials” (perhaps unnecessarily) frustrating local design market
At the last minute, an international supermarket chain retracts a replica side table from sale however continues to plan sales of a range of replica products which potentially could be prevented by the local design community engaging with registered IP.
At the last minute, an international supermarket chain retracts a replica side table from sale however continues to plan sales of a range of replica products which potentially could be prevented by the local design community engaging with registered IP.
Lee Miles

Senior Associate

Lee Miles
Lee is a Senior Associate in the Biotechnology team in the Sydney office of FB Rice. He provides a range of intellectual property services to clients, with experience in preparing and prosecuting patent applications, co-ordinating prosecution of global patent portfolios, providing patentability, validity and freedom-to-operate opinions, and providing commercially relevant advice to assist clients in developing strong protection of their intellectual property. Lee works with a range of clients both domestically and abroad, including start-up companies, universities, research institutes and large multi-nationals.

 

Lee is a Senior Associate in the Biotechnology team in the Sydney office of FB Rice. He provides a range of intellectual property services to clients, with experience in preparing and prosecuting patent applications, co-ordinating prosecution of global patent portfolios, providing patentability, validity and freedom-to-operate opinions, and providing commercially relevant advice to assist clients in developing strong protection of their intellectual property. Lee works with a range of clients both domestically and abroad, including start-up companies, universities, research institutes and large multi-nationals.

 

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.