Taiwan: Original priority documents no longer required
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 2024

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

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article