Taiwan: Indirect patent infringement

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

The UK-India trade deal doesn’t mention legal services, showing India has again failed to agree on a move that could help foreign firms and local practitioners
Eva-Maria Strobel reveals some of the firm’s IP achievements and its approach to client relationships
Lateral hires at Thompson Hine and Pierson Ferdinand said they were inspired by fresh business opportunities and innovative strategies at their new firms
The launch of a new IP insurance product and INTA hiring a former USPTO commissioner were also among the top talking points this week
The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
The firm said adding capability in the French capital completes its coverage of all major patent litigation jurisdictions as it strives for UPC excellence
Marc Fenster explains how keeping the jury focused on the most relevant facts helped secure a $279m win for his client against Samsung
Clients are divided on what externally funded IP firms bring to the table, so those firms must prove why the benefits outweigh the downsides
Rahul Bhartiya, AI coordinator at the EUIPO, discusses the office’s strategy, collaboration with other IP offices, and getting rid of routine tasks
Gift this article