Taiwan: IP office issues update on unity-of-invention requirement

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: IP office issues update on unity-of-invention requirement

According to Article 33 of the Patent Law, invention patent applications should be filed on a case-by-case basis. Where two or more inventions are so linked that they form a single general inventive concept, they may be claimed in a single application. In other words, a single application can cover two or more inventions only when the claimed inventions are in possession of a common feature which is novel or non-obvious over the prior art.

As there are some grey areas in the criteria for determining whether an invention patent application meets the unity-of-invention requirement set out in Article 33 of the Patent Law, recently, Taiwan's IP office, after seeking opinions from practitioners, has introduced amendments to the new criteria implemented from January 1 2019. The following are the main amendments meriting the applicant's attention:

1) An examiner should have completed examination of a set of claims as to novelty and inventive step of the claimed invention when he/she raises the unity-of-invention issue. In other words, it is not permissible for an examiner to issue an official letter/office action merely based on the unity-of-invention issue. In principle, the examiner should choose Claim 1 and its dependent claims as the basis for preliminary examination.

2) If an applicant fails to overcome the lack-of-unity rejection after filing an amendment or argument against an official letter in which the examiner has raised not only the novelty and/or inventive step issue but also the unity-of-invention issue, the examiner may formally reject the application. At that time, it is a must for the applicant who wishes to further prosecute the application to file a request for re-examination.

3) If an examiner has rejected all the claims for being devoid of novelty or inventive step, he/she cannot raise a lack-of-unity rejection afterwards. The underlying rationale is that the applicant should be given full opportunity to file amendments or arguments in an unfavourable situation.

In view of the above amendments, the applicant is advised to: (1) define the most essential feature of an invention in Claim 1 and its dependent claims; (2) file a set of revised claims to meet the examiner's requirement, if acceptable, and to, in turn, obviate the unity-of-invention rejection; and (3) pay special attention to the respective deadlines for filing divisional applications at different stages and file divisional applications at appropriate times.

lin.jpg

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

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article