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.

 

Paul Whenman

Partner

Paul Whenman
"FB Rice is constantly growing and evolving to ensure that we’re up to date with the industry, while at the same time maintaining the high standard of service and technical expertise that we provide to our clients."
"FB Rice is constantly growing and evolving to ensure that we’re up to date with the industry, while at the same time maintaining the high standard of service and technical expertise that we provide to our clients."
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 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.
Ian Rourke

Partner

Ian Rourke
Ian prepares and prosecutes patent applications internationally, evaluates the external patent landscape and intellectual property positions of competitors, conducts complex patent invalidity, infringement, due diligence and freedom-to-operate analyses.
 
Ian is a registered Australian Patent Attorney.
Ian prepares and prosecutes patent applications internationally, evaluates the external patent landscape and intellectual property positions of competitors, conducts complex patent invalidity, infringement, due diligence and freedom-to-operate analyses.
 
Ian is a registered Australian Patent Attorney.
16 May 2017
AusTechComp 2017 | Only one week left to enter!
Now in its seventh year, Australia's premier technology accelerator, the Australian Technologies Competition, is open for 2017 entries. The competition will assess, profile and promote innovative and emerging technologies with the greatest potential.
Now in its seventh year, Australia's premier technology accelerator, the Australian Technologies Competition, is open for 2017 entries. The competition will assess, profile and promote innovative and emerging technologies with the greatest potential.
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.