Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 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

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

The Supreme Court, which is hearing two IP cases this week, should limit the power of US courts to rule on foreign sales
Safety standards wouldn’t lose copyright protection when named in law, so long as they were accessible for free online
In-house tech sources say Amgen v Sanofi has the potential to stifle their prosecution and litigation strategies if SCOTUS’s decision is too broad
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Federal Circuit said tech firms can challenge the way the USPTO implemented Fintiv, but that won’t mean much for practitioners, say counsel
The England and Wales High Court handed down one of the most hotly anticipated FRAND rulings for some time
Funders discuss different IP portfolio funding options and how they decide whether to offer preferential terms and pricing
The issue of the Unified Patent Court’s third central division needs resolving before IP owners can fully embrace Europe’s new era
Foreign firms and lawyers, including IP practitioners, can now practise in India after years of talk and no action
Most Indian counsel won’t immediately look beyond the Delhi High Court for IP cases, but new forums could potentially change their minds