Taiwan: Indirect patent infringement

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: Indirect patent infringement

The doctrine of "indirect infringement" has long been introduced into the patent systems of European countries and the United States. While there are similar regulations in the patent systems of Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea, no substantial regulations governing conducts involving indirect infringement are embraced in Taiwan's Patent Law. It is thus not of rare occurrence in Taiwan that patent owners proceed to take actions against non-direct infringers by resorting to the Civil Law, alleging that they are joint infringers.

Before the comprehensive overhaul of Taiwan's Patent Law in 2011, the Patent Office had made an effort to introduce "indirect infringement" into the Patent Law so that it may take precedence over the doctrine of "joint infringement" defined in the Civil Law. Ideally, such design would allow patent owners to prevent a component of a patented invention from entering into the market at an earlier stage and to seek remedies before the occurrence of direct infringement.

It was recited in the 2009 draft amendment that "it is an act of infringement to offer for sale or sell a component of a patented invention to a party, knowing that such component is especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent; however, this provision shall not apply if the component is a staple item." Although such provision only introduced the concept of "contributory infringement" in a conservative manner, it did not make into the final Amendment.

The IP Office has recently reiterated the necessity of introducing "indirect infringement" into the Patent Law. During meetings held with parties from various industries, the IP Office offered a wide range of topics, including: the definitions of "components" and "contributory infringing acts"; the degree of evidence necessary to attest to the subjective intention of indirect infringers; whether the establishment of direct infringement is to be recognised as a requisite element to indirect infringement; and damage calculation and remedies available to patent owners, and so on.

While the prospect of introducing "indirect infringement" into the Patent Law is welcomed, not a few concerns are also brought up. It will be worth observing the contents of the new draft regarding "indirect infringement" whenever proposed by the IP Office.

Ming-Chu Tsai


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

Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
Gift this article