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 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

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

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