Taiwan: New guidelines on examination of inventive step

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Taiwan: New guidelines on examination of inventive step

To further improve examination quality, the Taiwan IP Office (TIPO) recently amended the examination guidelines regarding inventive step, among other changes. The new guidelines were implemented on July 1 2017.

According to the new guidelines, in determining whether an invention possesses inventive step over the prior art, the examiner should first conduct a search to locate all relevant prior art references and then choose one prior art reference from all the references as the primary reference. In the event that there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to render the combination of the primary reference with the other references to be obvious, the invention shall not be rejected for being devoid of inventive step.

When considering the obviousness of the combination, the examiner should evaluate if the primary reference and the other references are in analogous fields of art and if they have common problems to be solved as well as serve the same or similar intended purpose. Only if it is found that the located references can be combined in an obvious manner shall the examiner continue with the examination of the invention to determine whether or not to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In this context, the examiner must examine, among other parameters, the references against the claimed invention to decide if the primary reference alone, or in combination with the other references, may teach away from the claimed invention and whether the claimed invention can indeed achieve unexpected meritorious advantageous over the prior art.

In addition, when a claimed invention is rejected for the reason that it would have been "well within the ordinary skill of the art at the time of filing", the examiner must provide evidence or detailed explanations at least.

Chiu-ling Lin


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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article