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

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

Anousha Davies, associate and trademark attorney at Birketts, unpicks how the university’s reputation enabled it to see off a proposed trademark for ‘Cambridge Rowing’
IP lawyers, who say they are encouraging clients to build up ‘tariff resilience’, should treat the risks posed by recent orders as a core consideration in cross-border licensing
Regulatory changes and damages risks are prompting Canadian firms and clients to opt for settlements in generic and biosimilar cases
News of Via Licensing Alliance adding two new members and Nokia’s proposal to extend interim licences to Warner Bros Discovery and Paramount were also among the top talking points
A new claim filed by Ericsson, and a request for access to documents, were also among recent developments
Cooley and Stikeman Elliott advised 35Pharma on the deal, which will allow GSK to get its hands on S235, an investigational medicine for pulmonary hypertension
Simon Wright explains why the UK should embrace the possibility of rejoining the UPC, and reveals how CIPA is reacting to this month’s historic Emotional Perception AI case at the UK Supreme Court
Matthew Grady of Wolf Greenfield says AI presents an opportunity in patent practice for stronger collaboration between in-house and outside counsel
Aparna Watal, head of trademarks at Halfords IP, discusses why lawyers must take a stand when advising clients and how she balances work, motherhood and mentoring
Discussion hosted by Bird & Bird partners also hears that UK courts’ desire to determine FRAND rates could see the jurisdiction penalised in a similar way to China
Gift this article