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 2023

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

Taiwan: TIPO provides remarks on time limits in invalidation proceedings


Yen-Bin Gu of Saint Island Intellectual Property Group explains how TIPO has reacted to the regulations introduced to counter lengthy invalidation actions

Under the old Patent Act, a supplementary invalidation brief, evidence, a counter-statement, and/or amendment of claims could be filed at any time before Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) issued a decision.

In order to prevent an invalidation action from dragging on for too long, TIPO has included a rigid timeframe in the new Patent Act that was implemented and enforced since last year. 

After taking stock of the situation brought about by the stringent time-constraint requirement over a year, TIPO has provided some remarks: 

1. The new stipulation that an invalidation petitioner must submit supplementary briefs and/or evidence within three months from the date that the invalidation action is filed, or within one month from the receipt of any notification from TIPO, has been and will be strictly observed. In this context, any supplementary evidential materials that are filed late would not be taken into account except if they are filed at the request of the responsible examiner to clarify the circumstances of the case.

2. Filing amendment of claims in an invalidation action is also restricted. The patentee is only allowed to conduct an amendment before a deadline designated by the examiner for submitting a counter-statement, a supplementary counter-statement or upon receipt of a notification from TIPO that there are lingering doubts to be cleared, or that the amendment filed with the counter-statement has been rejected. No time limit is imposed on the patentee only if the patent at issue is the subject of a merit lawsuit.

3. In the case that a counter-statement against an invalidation action is filed along with an amendment after a designated deadline, the contents of the counter-statement, filed prior to finalisation of the invalidation action, are to be considered. As to the amendment, it will be rejected for not being filed at an appropriate time as specified above. However, since the contents of the counter-statement filed by the patentee are drafted based on the amendment concurrently filed, the examiner will generally notify the patentee that the amendment not timely filed is rejected and the case will be examined based upon the granted claims as published. Upon receipt of such notification, the patentee may re-file the amendment and the examiner will examine it with cross-reference to the contents of the counter-statement as filed.

In view of the time limits prescribed in the Patent Act, either the invalidation petitioner or the patentee is placed under tight time pressure. It would be of much help if practitioners could assist their clients to collect useful evidential materials and develop winning strategies in the first place. 

Yen-Bin Gu




more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Civil society and industry representatives met in Geneva on Thursday, September 28 to discuss a potential expansion of the TRIPS waiver
Sources say the beta version of the USPTO’s new trademark search tool is a big improvement over the current system but that it isn’t perfect
Canadian counsel weigh in on the IP office’s decision to raise trademark filing fees in 2024 and how they’re preparing clients
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Shira Perlmutter, US Register of Copyrights, discussed the Copyright Office's role in forming generative AI policy during a House of Representatives hearing
The award marks one of the highest-ever damages received by a foreign company in a trademark infringement suit in China
Two orders denying public access to documents have reignited a debate over a lack of transparency at the new court
Rouse’s new chief of operations and the firm’s CEO tell Managing IP why they think private equity backing will help it conquer Europe
Brian Landry, partner at Saul Ewing, reveals how applicants can prosecute patent applications in the wake of the Federal Circuit's In re Cellect ruling
Ronelle Geldenhuys of Australia’s Foundry IP considers the implications complex computer technologies such as AI have on decision-making