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.

 

Rachel Hooke

Partner

Rachel Hooke
“The importance of innovation in the medical technology is growing and FB Rice is here to help our clients protect their investment in research.”
“The importance of innovation in the medical technology is growing and FB Rice is here to help our clients protect their investment in research.”
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).
Amanda Li

Patent Administrator

Amanda Li
Amanda is a Foreign Filings Administrator in the Sydney office of FB Rice, and joined the firm in 2010. Amanda is responsible for filing patent applications in Australia, New Zealand and other jurisdictions.
Amanda is a Foreign Filings Administrator in the Sydney office of FB Rice, and joined the firm in 2010. Amanda is responsible for filing patent applications in Australia, New Zealand and other jurisdictions.
12 February 2018
WTR 1000 - The World's Leading Trademark Professionals 2018
We are thrilled that the 2018 edition of WTR 1000 - The World's Leading Trademark Professionals has acknowledged Partner Joanne Martin and Senior Associate Michael Seifried for their expertise in Trade Marks.
We are thrilled that the 2018 edition of WTR 1000 - The World's Leading Trademark Professionals has acknowledged Partner Joanne Martin and Senior Associate Michael Seifried for their expertise in Trade Marks.
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.