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

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

VO, which has offices in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, is the second European IP firm to secure external backing this week
The Bardehle Pagenberg attorneys-at-law discuss the firm’s Managing IP EMEA Awards 2026 success, Unified Patent Court litigation strategy, and evolving European patent trends
A patent battle between two legal tech companies and a loss for Elon Musk’s xAI against OpenAI were also among the top talking points
With drug prices a hot topic in the US, courts are seemingly more reluctant to prevent the entry of generics to the market
Academic Eden Sarid joins us during Pride Month to discuss queer expression and IP law, Patagonia v Pattie Gonia, and how queer and AI-generated creations both pose novelty concerns
Patent attorney Michael Henson joins the firm to lead its freshly launched blockchain and digital assets practice
A dispute over mammogram technology, and a development in the case between GSK and Moderna were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
With rankings for Western Europe set to be published on June 25, we sat down with our research lead to find out what practitioners and law firms can expect
Peter O’Sullivan, a professional services executive, says he is looking forward to helping Pearce IP become the leading life sciences firm in Australia and New Zealand
Matteo Di Lernia, advocate at LCA Studio Legale, unpicks the CJEU’s ruling in M.M. Ristorazione v Villa Ramazzini, including its impact on litigation strategies
Gift this article