A new interview approach under Taiwan’s patent system

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

A new interview approach under Taiwan’s patent system

matthias-wagner-qrqeusbpfmm-unsplash.jpg

Fiona Yin of Saint Island International Patent & Law Offices explores the new interview approach introduced by Taiwan’s IP Office

Under Taiwan’s current patent practice, personal interviews with the examiners are often held at the request of the applicants or patent attorneys. In general, an applicant, when intended, needs to literally express his wishes for an interview in a response.

In tandem with the rapid growth of technology, the IP office is about to introduce a new interview approach into the current patent system entitled ‘IP Office-industry collaboration interview’, under which the examiner may ex officio initiate an interview.

The introduction of this new approach is mostly due:

  • To the need for examiners to more rapidly and appropriately search and examine such cutting-edge technologies as stem cell regenerative medicine, quantum dot solar cells, artificial intelligence, big data and 5G with the aid of the applicant; and

  • For patent applicants to obtain patents as soon as possible for new technologies being developed.

According to the new approach, when an examiner considers it necessary, the examiner may telephone the applicant, inviting him to attend an IP Office-industry collaboration interview.

If the applicant accepts the invitation, the examiner will issue an official letter formally notifying the applicant of the time and place for the interview. On the other hand, the applicant may also request the examiner to hold such an interview during prosecution provided that his application is:

  • Related to an cutting-edge invention;

  • An application for which a request for examination has been filed; and

  • An application which has not received the results of examination either in the form of an official letter informing the applicant of the tentative reasons for rejection or a formal office action.

The examiner will then assess whether the application itself relates to a cutting-edge technology and whether it is necessary to hold an interview. If the answer is negative, the application will go back to the ordinary procedure. Otherwise, the examiner will inform the applicant of the time and place for an interview. If the applicant is a foreigner or foreign entity, a teleconference interview can be held with the assistance of an interpreter the applicant hires.

In the interview, the applicant would be required to make a full explanation of the relevant techniques vis-à-vis the examiner. Apparently, it is more pragmatic that R&D staff of the applicant or the inventor being well-versed in the technique related to the invention participates in such interview.  

Prior to the interview, the examiner would not conduct a search or examination. Generally, the examination results will be available six months after the interview is held.  

 

7ee0d73ae77f4b1fa539d0fe1dec6518

 

 

The applicant may send a representative to attend an interview, including the inventor, or a person hired by the applicant. A patent attorney may attend the interview along with the applicant or his representative only. If the applicant's trade secrets or business secrets are involved, the contents disclosed by the applicant or his representative will not form part of the records for interview.

It is good news that the IP Office will provide an approach for a  cutting-edge invention application to be appropriately searched and examined, and thereby rapidly maturing into a patent.   

 

Fiona Yin

Patent attorney, Saint Island International Patent & Law Offices

E: siiplo@mail.saint-island.com.tw

 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partner Jeremy Hertzog explains how his team worked through a huge amount of disclosure from Adidas and what victory means for the firm
Evarist Kameja and Hadija Juma at Bowmans explain why a new law in Tanzania marks a significant shift in IP enforcement
In the wake of controversy surrounding Banksy’s recent London mural, AJ Park’s Thomas Huthwaite and Eloise Calder delve into the challenges street artists face in protecting their works and rights
Alex Levkin, founder of iPNOTE, discusses reshaping the filing industry through legal tech, and why practitioners’ advice should stretch beyond immediate legal needs
Cohausz & Florack, together with Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben, have taken action against Amazon on behalf of three VIA LA licensors
In the fourth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss unconscious bias in the IP workplace and how to address it
Greg Munt, who has moved from Griffith Hack to James & Wells after four decades, hails his new firm’s approach to client service
Practitioners warn that closing the Denver regional office could trigger a domino effect, threatening local innovation and access to IP resources
Law firms are rethinking litigation strategies after USPTO director John Squires said he would take control of PTAB challenges
News of Singapore planning to streamline the licensing framework for foreign law firms and a partnership between Avanci and Xprize were also among the top talking points
Gift this article