Patent & Trade Mark
Attorneys
We are
Experts in Navigating IP in the Asia Pacific Region
Working with clients in
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.”
Australia: Change to patent examiners manual creates uncertainty
It is a long-standing principle of Australian patent law that determining whether or not a patent application is directed towards patentable subject matter should be done separately to determining issues of novelty and inventive step. However, amendments to the Australian Patent Examiners Manual late last year introduced a new practice, encouraging consideration of prior art when assessing subject matter eligibility, which in Australia includes the requirement that the invention be a manner of manufacture.
It is a long-standing principle of Australian patent law that determining whether or not a patent application is directed towards patentable subject matter should be done separately to determining issues of novelty and inventive step. However, amendments to the Australian Patent Examiners Manual late last year introduced a new practice, encouraging consideration of prior art when assessing subject matter eligibility, which in Australia includes the requirement that the invention be a manner of manufacture.
01 February 2018
Prue Cowin, Desma Grice & Corrine Porter | Promoted to Associate
The partners of FB Rice are excited to announce the promotion to Associate of three of the firm’s most talented patent attorneys: Prue Cowin, Desma Grice and Corrine Porter.
The partners of FB Rice are excited to announce the promotion to Associate of three of the firm’s most talented patent attorneys: Prue Cowin, Desma Grice and Corrine Porter.
Karin Innes

Senior Associate

Karin Innes
Karin is a senior associate in the Biotechnology group with over 15 years’ experience.  She assists a broad range of clients in all facets of academia and industry with patent procurement and defence in Australia and New Zealand and internationally through her close network of foreign associate contacts.
Karin is a senior associate in the Biotechnology group with over 15 years’ experience.  She assists a broad range of clients in all facets of academia and industry with patent procurement and defence in Australia and New Zealand and internationally through her close network of foreign associate contacts.
29 March 2018
Did you say ‘a shortage of cocoa beans’?
The thought of the cocoa bean extinction on the horizon due to climate change gives me the shivers. Without cocoa beans, there is no chocolate! Don’t panic; science and innovation is working towards future-proofing the chocolate industry.
The thought of the cocoa bean extinction on the horizon due to climate change gives me the shivers. Without cocoa beans, there is no chocolate! Don’t panic; science and innovation is working towards future-proofing the chocolate industry.
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.