Taiwan: More flexibility on post-grant amendments

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: More flexibility on post-grant amendments

According to Article 67 of the Patent Law, post-grant amendments are permissible only if they are conducted to (1) delete claims; (2) restrict the scope of claims; (3) correct misstatements and mistranslations; or (4) clarify uncertainties. In general, such post-grant amendments shall not go beyond the disclosure of the specification, claims and drawings as originally filed. Nor shall they substantially broaden or alter the scope of the claims.

Recently, Taiwan's IP Office has relaxed the guideline on determining what constitutes substantial alteration to granted claims. Under the old guideline, only when a post-grant amendment was to amend the granted claims by adding additional features which are in a strict and narrow genus-species relationship with at least one of the original granted claims would it be accepted. Starting January 1 2017, a post-grant claim amendment shall not be regarded as having introduced substantial alteration provided that the original object of the claimed invention remains achievable.

In view of the relaxation of the examination guideline, a patent owner's request to amend granted claims by including additional features may become allowable. To be more specific, adding a technical feature of an embodiment disclosed in the original specification into a granted claim, an amendment hardly permissible in the past is now possible so long as the same invention object can still be achieved. For instance, for a granted claim reciting the features of a pedal of a wheelchair, it is now acceptable to add the features relating to a swivel table disclosed in the specification as originally filed as a limitation to the said claim since the addition does not alter the object of the claimed invention.

A post-grant amendment shall be acceptable if it does not in any way alter or impair the original object of the claimed invention. In order that patent owners seeking post-grant amendments can make better preparations, it is worth observing how examiners will put into practice the new guideline during examination.

wu.jpg

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

Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Peter Ling of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich discusses trends in patent litigation, the regulation of AI and the benefits of teaching IP
Brandsmiths and Powell Gilbert will contest claims over several UK trademarks in a High Court case examining the ownership and revival of a heritage brand
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is taking a fresh strategic approach to pricing in its AI strategy. It could amplify calls for law firms to ditch the billable hour
Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
Gift this article