Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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.


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

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Civil society and industry representatives met in Geneva on Thursday, September 28 to discuss a potential expansion of the TRIPS waiver
Sources say the beta version of the USPTO’s new trademark search tool is a big improvement over the current system but that it isn’t perfect
Canadian counsel weigh in on the IP office’s decision to raise trademark filing fees in 2024 and how they’re preparing clients
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Shira Perlmutter, US Register of Copyrights, discussed the Copyright Office's role in forming generative AI policy during a House of Representatives hearing
The award marks one of the highest-ever damages received by a foreign company in a trademark infringement suit in China
Two orders denying public access to documents have reignited a debate over a lack of transparency at the new court
Rouse’s new chief of operations and the firm’s CEO tell Managing IP why they think private equity backing will help it conquer Europe
Brian Landry, partner at Saul Ewing, reveals how applicants can prosecute patent applications in the wake of the Federal Circuit's In re Cellect ruling
Ronelle Geldenhuys of Australia’s Foundry IP considers the implications complex computer technologies such as AI have on decision-making