Substantial contribution factor in determining inventorship: insights into key ruling in Taiwan
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
Sponsored content

Substantial contribution factor in determining inventorship: insights into key ruling in Taiwan

Sponsored by

saint-island-400px.png
lamp-1315735.jpg

Chiu-ling Lin of Saint Island International Patent & Law Offices explains the threshold for an inventor making a substantial contribution after a Taiwanese Supreme Court decision in a patent infringement case

In Taiwan, unless otherwise specified in a contract or under special circumstances, the inventor, their assignee, or their successor in interest is generally considered to be the person entitled to file a patent application. Moreover, if an invention is made by an employee in the performance of their duties, the employer shall have the right to file a patent application and to the patent right conferred thereto. Here, the issue arises that there is no further definition in Taiwan's Patent Act or its Enforcement Rules regarding who should qualify as an inventor. Given this grey area, interpretations by a court may serve as a significant point of reference.

Gauss v Wei Lian patent infringement dispute

In 2020, Gauss Design Inc. (Gauss) sent a cease-and-desist letter to the parent company of Wei Lian Electronic Technology Co. (Wei Lian) and claimed damages from patent infringement on the basis of a patent related to “a frame structure of a display device”. As a defence, Wei Lian filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit and averred that it is, in reality, a co-owner of the patent at issue and this fact should render moot the infringement accusation. Upon trial proceedings, the Intellectual Property and Commerce Court ruled in favour of Wei Lian. However, Gauss appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court consented to the opinion of the Intellectual Property and Commerce Court and dismissed the appeal filed by Gauss in July 2023, substantially in view of the following findings:

  • The patent at issue involves a frame structure of a display device that at least comprises a metal backplate and a plastic frame wherein a side of the metal backplate extends downward to form a side edge;

  • The side edge has two side faces; and

  • The plastic frame envelops the side edge and the plastic frame, moulded on to the side edge by injection moulding, entirely envelops both side faces of the side edge. A backlight module can be directly installed between the side edges enveloped by the plastic frame.

Although Gauss was the first to propose the concept of forming an “insert moulding framework structure”, which contributed to the thinning of liquid crystal displays, it was not until after an employee of Wei Lian approached Gauss, discussing the development of related products, and requested an evaluation of the insert moulding frame structure that Gauss handed out updated drawings. In these drawings, apparently, the plastic frame did not entirely envelop the two lateral faces of the side edge of the metal backplate.

Thus, the employee of Wei Lian suggested two solutions, one of which was to "reduce the length of the bend portion of the iron part [corresponding to the metal backplate] by 0.5mm and simultaneously increase the length of the plastics in the middle frame by 0.5mm to fully encompass the iron part". This is the ‘entire enveloping’ technical solution, and the employee provided detailed 3D drawings to Gauss for evaluation twice, which clearly demonstrated the entire enveloping technique.

From the submitted drawings, it is noted that the entire enveloping technique was indeed proposed by an employee of Wei Lian, who presumably made a substantial modification to Gauss’s original design with a partial enveloping technique. As such, the employee should be deemed a co-inventor and, in turn, his employer, Wei Lian, should be deemed a co-owner of the patent, according to the Patent Act.

Obviously, the Supreme Court and the Intellectual Property and Commerce Court agreed that a person who has made a ‘substantial contribution’ should refer to someone who has engaged in creative thinking to solve a problem or achieve a specific effect in an invention and subsequently proposes concrete and achievable technical means.

Considerations for inventors regarding potential patent disputes

The Intellectual Property and Commerce Court's opinion regarding a substantial contribution was first disclosed in 2009, and has remained unaltered over the years, as reflected in a number of precedents posted on the website of the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office. That is, when determining whether a person has made a substantial contribution to the invention claimed in a disputed patent, proposing a concept that includes theory and effects is insufficient; they should have proposed technical means that can accomplish the concept.

On a side note, that Wei Lian submitted a preponderance of documents, including the records of the technical R&D process, was a point of leverage in the lawsuit in question. As such, inventors are urged to, from time to time, record any implementation means they have thought of for a given technical concept. Only those that are documented and preserved can serve as evidence of a substantial contribution to the invention at issue in the event of a patent dispute. Additionally, when collaborating with others or commissioning, or being commissioned by others for, product development, it is preferable to have clear contractual agreements in place regarding the ownership of the inventions to prevent future disputes.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Pravin Anand and Vaishali Mittal of Anand & Anand explain how they helped Swiss pharma company Vifor secure a landmark win against generic companies in India
Malisheia Douglas, who spent six years at Eaton Corporation, said she was attracted by the firm's global footprint
The European Parliament has voted in favour of overhauling the SEP framework, a proposal that has sparked deep division among patent owners and implementers
Daniel Poh talks about his journey to becoming managing partner and how firms can win new business from Chinese companies
Missing a deadline can have serious consequences but law firms should consider being lenient to those responsible
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
CMS, which was told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later, has rowed back on claims about an IT error
The deal could help Rouse gain a foothold in Australia and New Zealand for the first time
With a team of more than 80 patent lawyers and attorneys across 21 European offices, the firm is acting in some of the most high-profile UPC cases
Lippes Mathias has hired three partners and a counsel from Offit Kurman
Gift this article