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.

 

Connie Merlino

Partner

Connie Merlino
“The patentability of software remains a grey area under Australian law and around the world. But patenting software is possible in the right hands. Our Information Communications and Technology team at FB Rice are experts at ensuring that software inventions are robustly protected worldwide.”
“The patentability of software remains a grey area under Australian law and around the world. But patenting software is possible in the right hands. Our Information Communications and Technology team at FB Rice are experts at ensuring that software inventions are robustly protected worldwide.”
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
Patentability of software inventions
Software patents have been the subject of controversy for some time. According to the most recent Australian court decision Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd1 (RPL Central), the relevant question is whether the invention is in substance a scheme or plan or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology.
Software patents have been the subject of controversy for some time. According to the most recent Australian court decision Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd1 (RPL Central), the relevant question is whether the invention is in substance a scheme or plan or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology.
Charles Berman

Partner

Charles Berman
Inspired by the journey an invention takes from inspiration to commercially viable product, Charles combined his engineering training with his interest in law and became a registered Australian and New Zealand Patent Attorney. As a Partner of FB Rice, Charles is the head of our Mining & Construction team and a member of our Medical Technology, CleanTech, Oil & Gas, and Registered Designs teams.
Inspired by the journey an invention takes from inspiration to commercially viable product, Charles combined his engineering training with his interest in law and became a registered Australian and New Zealand Patent Attorney. As a Partner of FB Rice, Charles is the head of our Mining & Construction team and a member of our Medical Technology, CleanTech, Oil & Gas, and Registered Designs teams.
09 March 2018
New Zealand patent regulations amended to fix filing issues
From 5 April 2018, various amendments to the Patents Regulations 2014 come into effect in New Zealand to address a few unintended problems arising from the new Patents Act 2013 and its Regulations. Issues being fixed include addressing filing requirements around divisional claims and microorganism deposits.
From 5 April 2018, various amendments to the Patents Regulations 2014 come into effect in New Zealand to address a few unintended problems arising from the new Patents Act 2013 and its Regulations. Issues being fixed include addressing filing requirements around divisional claims and microorganism deposits.
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.