All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Draft amendments to Taiwan’s Patent Act is far-reaching and revolutionary

icons8-team-dhztnlvne8m-unsplash.jpg

Jun-yan Wu of Saint Island International Patent & Law Offices discusses the introduction of potential changes to Taiwan’s Patent Act that will overhaul the existing legal framework

Taiwan’s IP Office published a draft amendment to some provisions of the Patent Act on December 30 2020. It substantially changes the current examination and re-examination processes concerning patent applications and invalidation cases, as well as related remedial procedures.

At present, Taiwan has a two-stage examination system: preliminary examination by one examiner and re-examination by a second examiner. At either stage, if the examiner intends to reject a patent application, they will issue at least one official letter to allow the applicant to optionally file observations/amendments before issuing the formal rejection.

According to the draft amendment, a committee, operating under the name of ’Committee for Review and Dispute Resolution’ will be set up to replace the existing re-examination mechanism to review all cases formally rejected at the preliminary stage.

The second role that the committee plays is to examine invalidation actions so that an invalidation case is not examined by a single examiner, as is the current practice. According to the draft, examination of invalidation actions will be conducted primarily through oral hearings, and the decisions rendered by the committee are final and conclusive.

The committee is composed of senior patent examiners and legal experts designated by the IP office to ensure that the cases under the committee’s review/examination are handled with professional excellence. ’Legal experts’ refer to staff members of the IP office who have substantial experience dealing with legal affairs, and matters related to appeal or litigation.

Specifically, three or five members from the committee will form a panel which conducts the review/examination matters; one of them is to be appointed as the presiding examiner to coordinate overall matters and ensure that the review/examination process is conducted efficiently. If a case brought to the committee’s review relates to a formally dismissed procedure of simple nature, it may be exceptionally examined and decided by a single member appointed by the committee.

In general, the types of cases to be reviewed/examined by the committee include the following:

  • Formally rejected patent applications;

  • Formally rejected applications for patent term extension;

  • Amendments;

  • Other formally dismissed procedures;

  • Invalidation actions; and

  • Invalidation actions against the granted patent term extensions.

Another significant change introduced into the draft amendment is the abolishment of appeal proceedings.

If the applicant of an application or the losing party of an invalidation action is dissatisfied with a decision rendered by the committee, the applicant can no longer attend appeal proceedings but should directly file a litigation with the court to seek judicial review of the decision. The court system for judicial review remains to be a two-instance system; however, the litigation will shift from administrative to civil proceedings.

The draft amendment is far-reaching and revolutionary. It will bring about an overhaul to the existing legal framework and practice and thus necessitates extensive revision to enforcement rules, examination guidelines, etc.

As the draft amendment is still in a preliminary form and the specifics of the amendment have yet to be finalised, it might take several years for the draft to go through the legislative process and come into force.

Jun-yan Wu

Attorney, Saint Island International Patent & Law Offices

E: siiplo@mail.saint-island.com.tw


more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

ITC counsel explain why companies will continue to bring trade secret complaints to the venue and talk about how to tackle challenges
Google and Sonos patent war continues; CNIPA finishes first administrative patent trials; Oppo halts German sales after Nokia wins; Chugai settles Fresenius suit; Taylor Swift claims she never heard Playas Gon’ Play; AI can’t be inventor, says Federal Circuit
Brands and retailers should educate their marketing departments and get help from their sales teams so private label products don’t become a major problem
The UK government wants to stop local tech going to China, but tech transfer offices often have few options
Hubertus Schacht of the Munich Regional Court shares his thoughts on German SEP trends and their influence on the UPC
Trademark counsel applaud the EUIPO’s new filing system but reveal it has come with teething issues
The executive vice president of partnerships and acquisitions at the NPE explains how his company’s deal with Intel came to be
South Korean lawyers welcome the trademark guidelines but say the appellate board, courts, and other IP offices may not necessarily agree with the KIPO
Lawyers for Craig Wright will seek approval for expert evidence to help the England and Wales High Court understand how autism affects his character
IP counsel say rude judges can dent their confidence but that the effect on clients should not be underestimated
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree