Draft amendments to Taiwan’s Patent Act is far-reaching and revolutionary

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

Draft amendments to Taiwan’s Patent Act is far-reaching and revolutionary

icons8-team-dhztnlvne8m-unsplash.jpg

Jun-yan Wu of Saint Island International Patent & Law Offices discusses the introduction of potential changes to Taiwan’s Patent Act that will overhaul the existing legal framework

Taiwan’s IP Office published a draft amendment to some provisions of the Patent Act on December 30 2020. It substantially changes the current examination and re-examination processes concerning patent applications and invalidation cases, as well as related remedial procedures.

At present, Taiwan has a two-stage examination system: preliminary examination by one examiner and re-examination by a second examiner. At either stage, if the examiner intends to reject a patent application, they will issue at least one official letter to allow the applicant to optionally file observations/amendments before issuing the formal rejection.

According to the draft amendment, a committee, operating under the name of ’Committee for Review and Dispute Resolution’ will be set up to replace the existing re-examination mechanism to review all cases formally rejected at the preliminary stage.

The second role that the committee plays is to examine invalidation actions so that an invalidation case is not examined by a single examiner, as is the current practice. According to the draft, examination of invalidation actions will be conducted primarily through oral hearings, and the decisions rendered by the committee are final and conclusive.

The committee is composed of senior patent examiners and legal experts designated by the IP office to ensure that the cases under the committee’s review/examination are handled with professional excellence. ’Legal experts’ refer to staff members of the IP office who have substantial experience dealing with legal affairs, and matters related to appeal or litigation.

Specifically, three or five members from the committee will form a panel which conducts the review/examination matters; one of them is to be appointed as the presiding examiner to coordinate overall matters and ensure that the review/examination process is conducted efficiently. If a case brought to the committee’s review relates to a formally dismissed procedure of simple nature, it may be exceptionally examined and decided by a single member appointed by the committee.

In general, the types of cases to be reviewed/examined by the committee include the following:

  • Formally rejected patent applications;

  • Formally rejected applications for patent term extension;

  • Amendments;

  • Other formally dismissed procedures;

  • Invalidation actions; and

  • Invalidation actions against the granted patent term extensions.

Another significant change introduced into the draft amendment is the abolishment of appeal proceedings.

If the applicant of an application or the losing party of an invalidation action is dissatisfied with a decision rendered by the committee, the applicant can no longer attend appeal proceedings but should directly file a litigation with the court to seek judicial review of the decision. The court system for judicial review remains to be a two-instance system; however, the litigation will shift from administrative to civil proceedings.

The draft amendment is far-reaching and revolutionary. It will bring about an overhaul to the existing legal framework and practice and thus necessitates extensive revision to enforcement rules, examination guidelines, etc.

As the draft amendment is still in a preliminary form and the specifics of the amendment have yet to be finalised, it might take several years for the draft to go through the legislative process and come into force.

Jun-yan Wu

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

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
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
Gift this article