Taiwan: Evidence verification between Taiwan and China

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

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 However, after Eminent Luggage filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, the rulings were rescinded.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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

AI, cybersecurity and data practice group will provide clients with legal guidance around AI alongside a 'deep technical foundation’ in IP
Lawyers at Vondst and Biopatents say a ruling concerning the protected status of trade secrets could see the UPC flooded with requests to prevent access to confidential information
Sharad Vadehra of Kan & Krishme discusses why older IP firms still have an edge over up-and-coming boutiques and how the firm is using AI to provide quick and cost-effective service
Lawyers at Appleyard Lees share how they picked apart a plant breeder’s infringement claims concerning the ‘Tango’ mandarin
A further decision on long-arm status, and a new hire for Pentarc in Germany from Taylor Wessing were also among top developments
The US decision marks a rare grant of a request under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in a patent case
Stobbs has applied to strike out a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
With trademark volumes surging, trademark teams need to think beyond traditional clearance searches, towards a continuous, intelligence-led workflow, says Meghan Medeiros of Corsearch
Brazilian in-house counsel say law firms’ technology investments have not translated into tangible benefits, meaning tech use is a minor factor when selecting advisers
A lack of comfort among some salaried partners shows why law firms must actively foster inclusion, not merely focus on diversity mandates
Gift this article