Taiwan: Indirect patent infringement
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Taiwan: Indirect patent infringement

The doctrine of "indirect infringement" has long been introduced into the patent systems of European countries and the United States. While there are similar regulations in the patent systems of Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea, no substantial regulations governing conducts involving indirect infringement are embraced in Taiwan's Patent Law. It is thus not of rare occurrence in Taiwan that patent owners proceed to take actions against non-direct infringers by resorting to the Civil Law, alleging that they are joint infringers.

Before the comprehensive overhaul of Taiwan's Patent Law in 2011, the Patent Office had made an effort to introduce "indirect infringement" into the Patent Law so that it may take precedence over the doctrine of "joint infringement" defined in the Civil Law. Ideally, such design would allow patent owners to prevent a component of a patented invention from entering into the market at an earlier stage and to seek remedies before the occurrence of direct infringement.

It was recited in the 2009 draft amendment that "it is an act of infringement to offer for sale or sell a component of a patented invention to a party, knowing that such component is especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent; however, this provision shall not apply if the component is a staple item." Although such provision only introduced the concept of "contributory infringement" in a conservative manner, it did not make into the final Amendment.

The IP Office has recently reiterated the necessity of introducing "indirect infringement" into the Patent Law. During meetings held with parties from various industries, the IP Office offered a wide range of topics, including: the definitions of "components" and "contributory infringing acts"; the degree of evidence necessary to attest to the subjective intention of indirect infringers; whether the establishment of direct infringement is to be recognised as a requisite element to indirect infringement; and damage calculation and remedies available to patent owners, and so on.

While the prospect of introducing "indirect infringement" into the Patent Law is welcomed, not a few concerns are also brought up. It will be worth observing the contents of the new draft regarding "indirect infringement" whenever proposed by the IP Office.

Ming-Chu Tsai


Saint Island International Patent & Law Offices7th Floor, No. 248, Section 3Nanking East RoadTaipei 105-45, Taiwan, ROCTel: +886 2 2775 1823Fax: +886 2 2731 6377siiplo@mail.saint-island.com.twwww.saint-island.com.tw

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Loes van den Winkel, attorney at Arnold & Siedsma, explains why clients' enthusiasm is contagious and why her job does not mean managing fashion models
Allen & Gledhill partner Jia Yi Toh shares her experience of representing the winning team in the first-ever case filed under Singapore’s new fast-track IP dispute resolution system
In-house lawyers reveal how they balance cost, quality, and other criteria to get the most from their relationships with external counsel
Dario Pietrantonio of Robic discusses growth opportunities for the firm and shares insights from his journey to managing director
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Law firms that pay close attention to their client relationships are more likely to win repeat work, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
The EMEA research period is open until May 31
Practitioners analyse a survey on how law firms prove value to their clients and reflect on why the concept can be hard to pin down
Gift this article