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.
27 June 2017
RACI BDDG Nanomedicine Panel Discussion | July 4
FB Rice is pleased to partner with the Royal Australian Chemical Institute for the Bioactive Discovery and Development Group Event on Tuesday 4 July
FB Rice is pleased to partner with the Royal Australian Chemical Institute for the Bioactive Discovery and Development Group Event on Tuesday 4 July
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.
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.
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%.