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

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