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
"The China market continues to grow and innovate, and an important step for any commercial entity is to ensure that their trade marks are protected there. Trade Marks are a key tool that should underpin every organisation's assets, no matter their size or business strategy."
"The China market continues to grow and innovate, and an important step for any commercial entity is to ensure that their trade marks are protected there. Trade Marks are a key tool that should underpin every organisation's assets, no matter their size or business strategy."
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.
08 March 2017
FB Rice and Ian Rourke Win Client Choice Awards
FB Rice has been announced the winner of the Financial Review Client Choice Awards Niche Firm Leader category. This is an incredible achievement for the firm and we would like to thank our clients for being a huge part of the interview process resulting in this award.
FB Rice has been announced the winner of the Financial Review Client Choice Awards Niche Firm Leader category. This is an incredible achievement for the firm and we would like to thank our clients for being a huge part of the interview process resulting in this award.
Greg Potter

Patent Attorney

Greg Potter

Greg’s technical skills and knowledge span across the electrical and computer systems engineering and physics disciplines, with an extensive background including R&D in the fields of semiconductor physics, plasma physics and medical imaging. Coupled with this, Greg has experience in scientific modelling, algorithm design, laboratory procedures, field measurements and teaching.

Greg’s technical skills and knowledge span across the electrical and computer systems engineering and physics disciplines, with an extensive background including R&D in the fields of semiconductor physics, plasma physics and medical imaging. Coupled with this, Greg has experience in scientific modelling, algorithm design, laboratory procedures, field measurements and teaching.

16 March 2017
The Cost of Sufficiency
In Australia, sufficiency is a requirement for patentability and goes to whether a patent specification provides adequate information to the skilled person to perform the claimed invention. Legislative change in 2013 ushered in new patentability standards including a raised test for sufficiency.
In Australia, sufficiency is a requirement for patentability and goes to whether a patent specification provides adequate information to the skilled person to perform the claimed invention. Legislative change in 2013 ushered in new patentability standards including a raised test for sufficiency.
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.