Taiwan: Evidence verification between Taiwan and China
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

Taiwan: Evidence verification between Taiwan and China

Eminent Luggage Corporation, a renowned Taiwan-based company engaged in the design and manufacturing of luggage cases, filed a civil patent infringement lawsuit with Taiwan's IP Court against an infringer. In the lawsuit, the defendant challenged the validity of the design patent, arguing that another brand of luggage case manufactured in China had already adopted the very same trunk panel design prior to its filing date.

To support these arguments, the defendant submitted to the IP Court a copy of a tooling agreement entered into between the manufacturer of the other brand of luggage case and a Shanghai-based tooling factory prior to the filing date of the design patent being enforced. Drawings that clearly illustrate the design of the truck panel manufactured in China were attached as an exhibit to the agreement. There was also a document submitted showing shipment from China to Japan of luggage cases manufactured based on the tooling agreement. Above all, the legal representative of the China-based manufacturer of the luggage case was subpoenaed as a witness for the defence.

In the first and second instances, the IP Court rendered rulings in favour of the defendant, holding that the novelty of the design patent had been destroyed by the evidence submitted by the defendant. However, after Eminent Luggage filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, the rulings were rescinded. The Supreme Court opined that it was inappropriate of the IP Court not to give weight to the results of the two in-depth investigations that the People's Court in the Shanghai District conducted under the order of the Supreme People's Court of China, which showed that the evidence submitted by the defendant was false.

Since Taiwan and China signed a Mutual Legal Assistance agreement in April 2009 to work together in judicial matters, which range from extradition and service of documents to evidence investigation and verification, the two sides have established a systematic working relationship and achieved significant efficiency. By the end of 2016, there have already been around 2000 requests for investigation and verification of evidence. More importantly, the opinion of the Supreme Court rendered in the Eminent Luggage case confirmed that the evidence obtained through Mutual Legal Assistance between Taiwan and China can serve as probative evidence before the courts in Taiwan.

Sumin Lai

Saint Island International Patent & Law Offices

7th Floor, No. 248, Section 3

Nanking East Road

Taipei 105-45, Taiwan, ROC

Tel: +886 2 2775 1823

Fax: +886 2 2731 6377

siiplo@mail.saint-island.com.tw

www.saint-island.com.tw

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article