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 2026

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

Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Acquisition of platform developed by Boehmert & Boehmert lawyer set to create a combined platform for patent drafting and prosecution in Europe
Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
Gift this article