Taiwan: The public dedication doctrine

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

Cookies Settings

Taiwan: The public dedication doctrine

Since being established in 2008, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court has in its judgments adopted successively the public dedication doctrine developed from US practice. For instance, in a decision rendered in a patent infringement case in 2012, the IP Court pointed out that: for an embodiment disclosed in the specification but not claimed in the claims, it should be deemed to be dedicated to the public, and the claims may not be substantially broadened or altered after publication of the allowance of the patent application based on the disclosure of the specification. This may prohibit an applicant from disclosing his invention in a broader sense in the specification but claiming a narrower scope in the claims so as to facilitate allowance and later asserting a broader scope based on the specification in case of infringement disputes.

Similarly, in a draft of the Patent Infringement Assessment Guidelines published by the IP Office in August 2015 to seek public opinion on the draft, the public dedication doctrine is included as a limitation on the doctrine of equivalents.

While the introduction of the public dedication doctrine to a suitable extent is helpful for the public good, the drafting of the specification and claims is made relatively more difficult. Applicants not only have to be more meticulous in the drafting of the specification and claims, they need to constantly pay attention to whether the claims cover all the modes or ranges enumerated in the specification when amending the claims in reply to an Office action. For an invention patent application which is allowed without any Office actions, the applicant should check the claims to see whether they cover all the modes or ranges enumerated in the specification. In the case of omission, a divisional application might need be filed within 30 days from receipt of the notice of allowance to protect the subject matter not covered by the allowed claims.

Jun-Yan Wu


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

Earlier this month, Managing IP had exclusively reported that the French arm of Taylor Wessing was minded to pull out of the deal
Our latest podcast examines how Weil’s IP practice evolved, where its practitioners could (and will) go next, and which firms and markets stand to benefit from the redistribution of talent
Former Latham partner Chris Henry and transactions lawyer Liza Cotter are heading to the firm as Weil’s IP practice starts to disperse
Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
Gift this article