Taiwan: Taiwan does not recognise a deposit made in an international depositary

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

Taiwan: Taiwan does not recognise a deposit made in an international depositary

As Taiwan is not a signatory to the Budapest Treaty, the effect of a deposit made in an international depositary under the Budapest Treaty is generally not recognised in Taiwan. Accordingly, even though a biological material has been deposited in an international depositary in order to meet the enabling requirement, the applicant is still required to make a corresponding deposit in a domestic depositary designated by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO). A late deposit will be deemed valid only if the certificates of deposit issued by both the international and domestic depositaries are filed before a statutory deadline, i.e. within four months from the filing date or sixteen months from the earliest priority date claimed, whichever is applicable. Further, in the event that a deposit is deemed invalid, the applicant may file a request for reinstatement of the deposit procedure within thirty days from the day following the cessation of the cause for delay.

For a patent application filed on December 29 2015 in Taiwan claiming the priority date of February 29 2014 from the counterpart US application with a deposit of biological material, the applicant needed to make a corresponding deposit at the domestic depositary to fulfil the enabling requirement. Accordingly, the applicant completed the necessary forms and submitted to the depositary the forms in which it was indicated that six vials of bacterial, i.e. the relevant biological material, are to be deposited in accordance with the Rules for Depositing Biological Materials. Upon perusal, the depositary suggested that a total of 25, instead of six vials, of bacteria be deposited. Thus, the applicant proceeded to make arrangements for the preparation of 19 additional vials of the bacteria on an urgent basis, but missed the four-month statutory deadline for filing with TIPO the certificates of deposit issued by an international depositary and the domestic depositary. The applicant then filed a request for reinstatement of the deposit procedure; however, the request was not entertained by TIPO. Against this unfavourable result, the applicant filed an appeal and, in turn, pursued the subsequent administrative litigation procedures.

The applicant argued that since it is time-consuming to prepare 19 additional vials of the bacteria to comply with the depositary's suggestion, he took it for granted that he could wait until the certificate of the deposit of all the 25 vials of the bacteria was available to file both the international and domestic certificates in a lump. The applicant also claimed that he had exercised all due diligence in complying with the depositary's suggestion, and the occurrence of the delay is not an event controllable and attributable to him.

On April 25 2019, the Supreme Administrative Court issued a final judgment upholding TIPO's decision that the deposit is invalid and cannot be reinstated as requested by the applicant. In its judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court interpreted "factors not attributable to the applicant" in a strict manner, indicating that only an event substantially corresponding to "the will of God" or "war" can be considered as a factor not attributable to the applicant. On top of this, the court held that the applicant should have at least deposited six vials of the bacteria in accordance with the Rules for Depositing Biological Materials and filed the international certificate of deposit in a timely manner.

This case suggests that inadvertent negligence might result in irreparable loss to the applicant. A patent practitioner should do his utmost to ensure that a patent application takes every required step towards becoming a patent and give sound advice to his clients when a patent practice in Taiwan is not in harmony with international practice.

lin.jpg

Ming-yeh Lin


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

Six hires across the IP spectrum reflect Orrick’s efforts to better serve tech clients across the IP lifecycle
David Stone, partner at White & Case, argues that the government’s planned reforms will modernise and futureproof UK design law, but leave two of the thorniest problems unresolved
Max Scott will join the firm’s IP transactions group in California, becoming the latest Weil IP partner to secure their future
Yonatan Drori, attorney at Drori-Stav IP in Israel, explains why foreign counsel must treat Israel’s patent disclosure requirements as an ongoing obligation, rather than a one-off formality
From Japan to Southeast Asia, domestic and regional firms picked up some of the biggest prizes, while key foreign players maintained momentum
Earlier this month, Managing IP had exclusively reported that the French arm of Taylor Wessing was minded to pull out of the deal
Our latest podcast examines how Weil’s IP practice evolved, where its practitioners could (and will) go next, and which firms and markets stand to benefit from the redistribution of talent
Former Latham partner Chris Henry and transactions lawyer Liza Cotter are heading to the firm as Weil’s IP practice starts to disperse
Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Gift this article