Taiwan: Original priority documents no longer required

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: Original priority documents no longer required

Starting July 1 2016, the date on which the revised Enforcement Rules of Taiwan's Patent Law were implemented, applicants filing patent applications in Taiwan are given greater flexibility in the submission of certified priority documents.

According to Taiwan's Patent Law, when claiming priority, an applicant shall submit within 16 months from the earliest priority date a certified copy of the corresponding foreign patent application issued by the foreign IP office receiving the corresponding application. In addition, Article 26.1 of the pre-revised Enforcement Rules of the Patent Law mandated: "The priority document required of a patent application should be original."

In practice, in the event that an applicant had submitted a photocopied priority document as a stop-gap measure to meet a statutory deadline, Taiwan's IP Office would designate a two-month time limit within which to submit the original document matching the photocopy filed earlier. Any further late submission would result in forfeiture of the priority claim.

Prior to July 1 2016, Taiwan's IP Office took a rather strict approach when it came to determining whether the original document filed during the two-month grace period is exactly the same as the photocopy filed earlier. This has led to some undesirable situations where applicants lost their priority claims simply because the original priority documents and the photocopied priority documents submitted in a row carry different issuing dates, irrespective of the fact that the contents disclosed in the two documents are exactly the same.

As a consequence of the revision of the Enforcement Rules, an electronic copy of a certified priority document shall be acceptable if accompanied by the applicant's declaration that the copy is genuine. On this score, in addition to an original of a certified priority document, the priority document now acceptable to the IP Office also includes: (1) a certified priority document on a CD provided by the IP office of a foreign country; (2) an electronic copy of a certified priority document downloaded from the official website of the IP office of a foreign country; or (3) a scanned copy of the original certified priority document issued by the IP office of a foreign country.

yin.jpg

Fiona CC Yin


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

The firm was rebuilding its IP practice through a string of patent hires and a Texas expansion, but its dissolution has put the newly built talent back into the market
AI can exploit longstanding gaps in copyright protection at remarkable speed, but EU law still provides tools to fight back, says Simon Hembt at Bird & Bird
The firm has tapped a local patent trio to establish a foothold in the market and broaden its national presence
New Asia-Pacific IP head Jonathan Chu is eyeing opportunities arising from Chinese technology licensing, overseas enforcement and increasingly IP-heavy cross-border deals
Europe’s largest intellectual property convention and trade fair is back: IP Service World 2026 takes place in Munich from November 23–25 – the 16th edition, with 1,400-plus attendees from 55-plus nations, 100-plus speakers, and 100-plus exhibitors. Three days. Two focused areas. One IP marketplace.
Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Gift this article