Taiwan: Prepare carefully before suing former employee

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Taiwan: Prepare carefully before suing former employee

In Taiwan, in the event that a departing employee joins a competitor of his/her former employer and thus breaches his/her contract of employment containing a non-competition clause, the former employer, depending on the degree of injury, cannot only claim damages but also seek an injunction or preliminary injunction to prevent its trade secrets or other intellectual property from being divulged. Back in 2014, TSMC successfully restrained its former head of R&D department from working for Samsung in a lawsuit upheld by the Supreme Court.

This March, the Supreme Court published another verdict regarding a non-competition covenant. In this instance, a resigned employee signed a contract including a three-year non-competition clause and a confidentiality clause. So, when the employee was hired by a competitor in China soon after his resignation in 2015, the former employer filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Both the District Court and the High Court granted the motion for the reasons that the defendant was in breach of contract and the former employer would suffer significant damages if the crucial technology it owned, which accounted for up to 96.56% of the company's total annual revenue, were passed on to its competitor.

However, after the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment by the High Court, the Supreme Court rescinded the judgment and remanded the case to the High Court for reconsideration. The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not rule on whether the consequential damages suffered by the defendant, to the extent that relevant evidence was present in the record, would be more serious than those suffered by the former employer if the motion were granted.

This case sheds light on the need for a former employer to weigh scrupulously the damages that may be suffered by the parties concerned and to prepare the relevant objective data and analysis prior to filing a motion for preliminary injunction.

liu.jpg

Frank FJ Liu


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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sources at four firms explain how changes to USPTO fees provide opportunities to give clients strategic counselling
An intervention by Dyson into the UK’s patent box regime and a report unveiling the major SEP owners were among the big talking points this week
With the threshold for proving copyright infringement by AI tools clearer than ever, 2025 could answer some of the key questions
Partners at Latham & Watkins and Finnegan reveal how they helped explain their client’s technology to a jury
One of Managing IP’s most influential people in IP for 2024, Hurtado Rivas discusses mental health in the profession, the changing role of a trademark lawyer, and what keeps a Nestlé IP counsel busy
Transactions specialist Mathilda Davidson, who has joined from Gowling WLG, says the firm will help clients seeking venture capital investment
Sources in the US, UK, and Australia hope that pressing questions surrounding AI and patent eligibility will finally be answered this year
Two partners who joined Brown Rudnick last year explain how their new firm’s venture capital experience is helping them accomplish their goals
Michael Gaertner explains why Locke Lord’s merger with Troutman Pepper sparked the need to seek a new home and why Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney ticked the right boxes
The appointment makes good on the firm’s promise to boost its UPC expertise
Gift this article