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.

 

Steve Gledhill

Partner

Steve Gledhill
"At FB Rice we have a number of high calibre European Qualified Attorneys who are also registered Australian and New Zealand Patent Attorneys. These attorneys have many years’ experience successfully securing strong IP rights and translating Australian and New Zealand patenting issues to clients filing from or into Europe and the United Kingdom."
"At FB Rice we have a number of high calibre European Qualified Attorneys who are also registered Australian and New Zealand Patent Attorneys. These attorneys have many years’ experience successfully securing strong IP rights and translating Australian and New Zealand patenting issues to clients filing from or into Europe and the United Kingdom."
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 March 2017
How to support your R&D Tax claim - an overview of the legislative and regulatory environment
There are still few cases that have been decided through the AAT in relation to the R&D Tax Incentive program since its inception in 2011. The two main entities that have brought actions are Innovation Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. These cases each involved the legislative requirement that companies maintain contemporaneous documentation of their experimental activities and associated costs in order to claim the R&D Tax Incentive offset. In view of these decisions, we set out the key points to remember in claiming the R & D Tax Incentive.
There are still few cases that have been decided through the AAT in relation to the R&D Tax Incentive program since its inception in 2011. The two main entities that have brought actions are Innovation Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. These cases each involved the legislative requirement that companies maintain contemporaneous documentation of their experimental activities and associated costs in order to claim the R&D Tax Incentive offset. In view of these decisions, we set out the key points to remember in claiming the R & D Tax Incentive.
Sarah Glasson

Associate

Sarah Glasson
Sarah has an extensive educational background in chemical engineering, mathematics and statistics. In the process of qualifying as a patent attorney, she worked on a wide variety of subject matter, including manufacturing and processing equipment, mining processes, food products and production, oil refinery, extraction techniques and process equipment, building materials and solar panels.
 
Sarah is a registered Australian Patent and Trade Marks Attorney.
Sarah has an extensive educational background in chemical engineering, mathematics and statistics. In the process of qualifying as a patent attorney, she worked on a wide variety of subject matter, including manufacturing and processing equipment, mining processes, food products and production, oil refinery, extraction techniques and process equipment, building materials and solar panels.
 
Sarah is a registered Australian Patent and Trade Marks Attorney.
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.