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.

 

Joanne Martin

Partner

Joanne Martin
"Many Australian businesses look to China as offering opportunities for business growth both in China and globally. China is recognised as a complex and challenging market, however businesses trading successfully with China tend to be more competitive both domestically and in the international market in response to those learnings."
"Many Australian businesses look to China as offering opportunities for business growth both in China and globally. China is recognised as a complex and challenging market, however businesses trading successfully with China tend to be more competitive both domestically and in the international market in response to those learnings."
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.
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.
Jane Hutchison

Special Counsel

Jane Hutchison
Jane Hutchison is a biotechnology attorney well known for her ability to develop strong, collaborative relationships with her clients. Working with a range of research institutes and corporate clients, Jane provides information relating to drafting, ownership, inventorship and other intellectual property strategies. She develops close working relationships with her clients and they rely heavily on her strategic IP advice.
Jane Hutchison is a biotechnology attorney well known for her ability to develop strong, collaborative relationships with her clients. Working with a range of research institutes and corporate clients, Jane provides information relating to drafting, ownership, inventorship and other intellectual property strategies. She develops close working relationships with her clients and they rely heavily on her strategic IP advice.
20 June 2017
Australian Technologies Competition | Semi Finalists Announced
Partner Rachel Hooke and the judging panel have shortlisted thirty-eight of Australia's leading and innovative technology companies for the Australian Technologies Competition 2017 Business Accelerator. The semi-finalists are up and coming game-changers working across the sectors of energy, manufacturing, food & agritech, mining, medical technologies, cyber security and smart cities.
Partner Rachel Hooke and the judging panel have shortlisted thirty-eight of Australia's leading and innovative technology companies for the Australian Technologies Competition 2017 Business Accelerator. The semi-finalists are up and coming game-changers working across the sectors of energy, manufacturing, food & agritech, mining, medical technologies, cyber security and smart cities.
WIPOs First Millionaire | Chinese Patent Filings Break New Record
WIPO has published its World Intellectual Property Indicators 2016 report, which details a healthy growth of intellectual property filings in 2015. Overall, the statistics demonstrate a positive trend in global innovation for the year, with patent filings increasing by 7.8% and trade mark filings increasing by a staggering 15.3%.
WIPO has published its World Intellectual Property Indicators 2016 report, which details a healthy growth of intellectual property filings in 2015. Overall, the statistics demonstrate a positive trend in global innovation for the year, with patent filings increasing by 7.8% and trade mark filings increasing by a staggering 15.3%.