Taiwan: More flexibility on post-grant amendments

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: More flexibility on post-grant amendments

According to Article 67 of the Patent Law, post-grant amendments are permissible only if they are conducted to (1) delete claims; (2) restrict the scope of claims; (3) correct misstatements and mistranslations; or (4) clarify uncertainties. In general, such post-grant amendments shall not go beyond the disclosure of the specification, claims and drawings as originally filed. Nor shall they substantially broaden or alter the scope of the claims.

Recently, Taiwan's IP Office has relaxed the guideline on determining what constitutes substantial alteration to granted claims. Under the old guideline, only when a post-grant amendment was to amend the granted claims by adding additional features which are in a strict and narrow genus-species relationship with at least one of the original granted claims would it be accepted. Starting January 1 2017, a post-grant claim amendment shall not be regarded as having introduced substantial alteration provided that the original object of the claimed invention remains achievable.

In view of the relaxation of the examination guideline, a patent owner's request to amend granted claims by including additional features may become allowable. To be more specific, adding a technical feature of an embodiment disclosed in the original specification into a granted claim, an amendment hardly permissible in the past is now possible so long as the same invention object can still be achieved. For instance, for a granted claim reciting the features of a pedal of a wheelchair, it is now acceptable to add the features relating to a swivel table disclosed in the specification as originally filed as a limitation to the said claim since the addition does not alter the object of the claimed invention.

A post-grant amendment shall be acceptable if it does not in any way alter or impair the original object of the claimed invention. In order that patent owners seeking post-grant amendments can make better preparations, it is worth observing how examiners will put into practice the new guideline during examination.

wu.jpg

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

Erise IP has added a seven-practitioner trademark team from Hovey Williams, signalling its intention to help clients at all stages of development
News of prison sentences for ex-Samsung executives for trade secrets violation and an opposition filed by Taylor Swift were also among the top talking points
A multijurisdictional claim filed by InterDigital and a new spin-off firm in Germany were also among the top talking points
Duarte Lima, MD of Spruson & Ferguson’s Asia practice, says practitioners must adapt to process changes within IP systems, as well as be mindful of the implications of tech on their practices
Practitioners say the UK Supreme Court’s decision could boost the attractiveness of the UK for AI companies
New awards, including US ‘Firm of the Year’ and Latin America ‘Firm to Watch’, are among more than 90 prizes that will recognise firms and practitioners
DWF helped client Dairy UK secure a major victory at the UK Supreme Court
Hepworth Browne led Emotional Perception AI to victory at the UK Supreme Court, which rejected a previous appellate decision that said an AI network was not patentable
James Hill, general counsel at Norwich City FC, reveals how he balances fan engagement with brand enforcement, and when he calls on IP firms for advice
In the second of a two-part article, Gabrielle Faure-André and Stéphanie Garçon at Santarelli unpick EPO, UPC and French case law to assess the importance of clinical development timelines in inventive step analyses
Gift this article