Taiwan: Prepare carefully before suing former employee

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

Taiwan: Prepare carefully before suing former employee

In Taiwan, in the event that a departing employee joins a competitor of his/her former employer and thus breaches his/her contract of employment containing a non-competition clause, the former employer, depending on the degree of injury, cannot only claim damages but also seek an injunction or preliminary injunction to prevent its trade secrets or other intellectual property from being divulged. Back in 2014, TSMC successfully restrained its former head of R&D department from working for Samsung in a lawsuit upheld by the Supreme Court.

This March, the Supreme Court published another verdict regarding a non-competition covenant. In this instance, a resigned employee signed a contract including a three-year non-competition clause and a confidentiality clause. So, when the employee was hired by a competitor in China soon after his resignation in 2015, the former employer filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Both the District Court and the High Court granted the motion for the reasons that the defendant was in breach of contract and the former employer would suffer significant damages if the crucial technology it owned, which accounted for up to 96.56% of the company's total annual revenue, were passed on to its competitor.

However, after the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment by the High Court, the Supreme Court rescinded the judgment and remanded the case to the High Court for reconsideration. The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not rule on whether the consequential damages suffered by the defendant, to the extent that relevant evidence was present in the record, would be more serious than those suffered by the former employer if the motion were granted.

This case sheds light on the need for a former employer to weigh scrupulously the damages that may be suffered by the parties concerned and to prepare the relevant objective data and analysis prior to filing a motion for preliminary injunction.

liu.jpg

Frank FJ Liu


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

While IP Australia’s updated manual could be favourable to computer-implemented inventions, stakeholders would like to see whether a consistent and reliable standard is followed during actual examination
UKIPO will remain a competitive option as long as efficient service continues
A future opt-out has not been ruled out, but practitioners warn that the UK could fall behind in the AI race
US patent lawyers say they are increasingly advising clients on China strategies as corporations seek to gain leverage in enforcement, licensing, and supply chain management
Mike Rueckheim reunites with 12 of his former Winston & Strawn colleagues as King & Spalding continues aggressive hiring streak
As global commerce continues to expand through e-commerce platforms and digital marketplaces, protecting brands has become a growing challenge for organisations worldwide. Counterfeiting, intellectual property infringement, and online brand abuse are increasing across industries, making brand protection strategies a critical priority for businesses.
Henrik Holzapfel and Chuck Larsen of McDermott Will & Schulte explain why a Court of Appeal ruling could promote access to justice and present a growth opportunity for litigation finance
A co-partner in charge says the UK prosecution teams are a ‘vital’ part of the firm’s offering, while praising a key injunction win
A team from White & Case has checked in on behalf of Premier Inn Hotels in a UK trademark and passing off case against a cookie brand
Litigation team says pre-trial work and a Section 101 defence helped significantly limit damages payable by ride-sharing firm Lyft in patent case
Gift this article