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 March 2018
FB Rice | Australian Patent Prosecution Firm of the Year
FB Rice is delighted to announce that the firm has been voted the "Australian Patent Prosecution Firm of the Year" by the internationally renowned journal, Managing Intellectual Property (MIP).
FB Rice is delighted to announce that the firm has been voted the "Australian Patent Prosecution Firm of the Year" by the internationally renowned journal, Managing Intellectual Property (MIP).
Toby Thompson

Overseas Qualified Attorney

Toby Thompson
Toby is a qualified European and UK Patent Attorney specialising in pharmaceuticals and organic chemistry. His areas of expertise include new biologically active compounds, pharmaceutical compositions, and further medical uses for existing medicines. Past cases have also included industrial chemical processes, particularly in the field of biodegradable polymers.

 

 

Toby is a qualified European and UK Patent Attorney specialising in pharmaceuticals and organic chemistry. His areas of expertise include new biologically active compounds, pharmaceutical compositions, and further medical uses for existing medicines. Past cases have also included industrial chemical processes, particularly in the field of biodegradable polymers.

 

 

06 June 2017
Two new Administrative Appeal Tribunal cases shed light on eligibility of R&D activities and claimants
Today, we write about two new cases from the AAT. The first, Rix’s Creek Pty Ltd; Bloomfield Collieries Pty Ltd and Innovation and Science Australia (2017) AATA 645, gives good insight into how the AAT has recently treated the eligibility requirement around R&D activities and the need for appropriate supporting documentation and records. The second, DZXP, KRQD and QJJS v Innovation and Science Australia (2017) AATA 573 highlights the importance of ensuring you are claiming under the correct entity. We discuss these cases and conclude with three key lessons.
Today, we write about two new cases from the AAT. The first, Rix’s Creek Pty Ltd; Bloomfield Collieries Pty Ltd and Innovation and Science Australia (2017) AATA 645, gives good insight into how the AAT has recently treated the eligibility requirement around R&D activities and the need for appropriate supporting documentation and records. The second, DZXP, KRQD and QJJS v Innovation and Science Australia (2017) AATA 573 highlights the importance of ensuring you are claiming under the correct entity. We discuss these cases and conclude with three key lessons.
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.