Taiwan: More flexibility on post-grant amendments

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Taiwan: More flexibility on post-grant amendments

According to Article 67 of the Patent Law, post-grant amendments are permissible only if they are conducted to (1) delete claims; (2) restrict the scope of claims; (3) correct misstatements and mistranslations; or (4) clarify uncertainties. In general, such post-grant amendments shall not go beyond the disclosure of the specification, claims and drawings as originally filed. Nor shall they substantially broaden or alter the scope of the claims.

Recently, Taiwan's IP Office has relaxed the guideline on determining what constitutes substantial alteration to granted claims. Under the old guideline, only when a post-grant amendment was to amend the granted claims by adding additional features which are in a strict and narrow genus-species relationship with at least one of the original granted claims would it be accepted. Starting January 1 2017, a post-grant claim amendment shall not be regarded as having introduced substantial alteration provided that the original object of the claimed invention remains achievable.

In view of the relaxation of the examination guideline, a patent owner's request to amend granted claims by including additional features may become allowable. To be more specific, adding a technical feature of an embodiment disclosed in the original specification into a granted claim, an amendment hardly permissible in the past is now possible so long as the same invention object can still be achieved. For instance, for a granted claim reciting the features of a pedal of a wheelchair, it is now acceptable to add the features relating to a swivel table disclosed in the specification as originally filed as a limitation to the said claim since the addition does not alter the object of the claimed invention.

A post-grant amendment shall be acceptable if it does not in any way alter or impair the original object of the claimed invention. In order that patent owners seeking post-grant amendments can make better preparations, it is worth observing how examiners will put into practice the new guideline during examination.

wu.jpg

Jun-yan Wu


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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm from January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
The keenly awaited ruling should act as a ‘call to arms’ for a much-needed evolution of UK copyright law, says Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Gift this article