Taiwan: IP office allows deferred examination of design applications
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Taiwan: IP office allows deferred examination of design applications

In Taiwan, both invention and design applications are subject to substantive examination. According to the Patent Act, the applicant must file a request for examination of an invention application at the time of filing the application or within three years from the filing date. If such a request is not filed in an invention application within the statutory time limit, the application will be dismissed irrevocably. On the other hand, a design application will automatically go to the examination stage after the formalities are fulfilled with no need for the applicant to request examination. Therefore a design application could be approved quite soon after filing. Though this seems favourable, it may not necessarily be what the applicant wants, especially when the applicant wishes to defer publication of that specific design due to commercial considerations.

In response to requests from various industries, Taiwan's IP Office has decided that, from July 1 2018 requests for deferred examination of design applications should be entertained.

According to the published guidelines, except for design applications that have received notices of allowance or examination reports, or from which divisional applications have been filed, applicants are permitted to file, free of charge, requests for deferred examination at the time of filing new design applications or within one year from the filing dates (or the priority dates, if claimed).

When filing a request for deferred examination of a design application, the applicant must specify in the application form an expected date for commencing/resuming examination, and said date needs to be within one year from the filing date (or the priority date, if claimed.) Although a request for deferred examination can be withdrawn, the applicant is not allowed to file a further request for deferral. In general, when the expected date for commencing/resuming examination of a design application as specified in the application form is due, the design application will be placed in the queue for examination, together with the other design applications filed in the same year.

lin.jpg

Chiuling Lin


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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A majority of clients – particularly high-earning businesses – want advisers with demonstrable social credentials, according to a survey of more than 28,000 corporate counsel
The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Warner Chappell Music v Nealy is a boost for certain copyright plaintiffs, but some counsel wonder if the court addressed the right question
Private equity firm Adamantem Capital leads the race to acquire Australia-based intellectual property business Qantm IP
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel at four firms reveal how they supervise associates on pro bono matters and what kind of volunteer work their attorneys do
Kramer Levin litigators explain how they secured victory for their client against Microsoft subsidiary Activision in a dispute concerning the video game ‘Call of Duty’
Steven Cooper, partner at Ware Fressola Maguire & Barber, explains what sponsoring Brand Action means for his firm and why the IP community is well-placed to help
Tilman Müller-Stoy reveals why he never made it as a footballer and how he could have had an alternative career as a fire juggler
As the UPC approaches its first anniversary, there’s a risk that persisting teething issues will continue to be the major pain points
Justin Davidson and Stanley Ng of Norton Rose Fulbright discuss what China’s recent Ultraman ruling does and doesn’t say about who is responsible when an AI system infringes copyright
Gift this article