Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access originally published online on April 17, 2008
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2008 3(6):364-368; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpn059
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author (2008). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved
Practice Point |
A new era in the adjudication of IP cases in Taiwan
Legal context: Taiwan will establish a specialized Intellectual Property Court and implement the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act (the Adjudication Act), a new set of procedural rules for IP-related cases on 1 July 2008. This article briefly introduces the major changes that will be brought by the establishment of the IP Court and the Adjudication Act. Those changes aim to cure existing defects in current IP litigation procedure.
Key points: This article first addresses the problems in current practice and then introduces the key changes brought by the new laws: the establishment and jurisdiction of the IP Court, the availability of the invalidity defence, the new staff of technical examiners, the improvement of preservation of evidence, the introduction of protective orders, and the stricter standard for preliminary injunction.
Practical significance: The establishment of the IP Court, together with the implementation of the Adjudication Act, indicates that a new era of IP-related dispute resolution is at hand.
Key Words: In response to public concern that the laws and practice relating to IP rights, being essential to the economy, require a higher degree of specialty, Taiwan has passed the Intellectual Property Court Act to establish a specialized IP court, and the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act (Adjudication Act). Changes to be brought under the new legislation include the establishment of a special IP Court, to be staffed by technical examiners with expertise in science and technology. Under the new system, the use of preliminary injunctions will also be tightened up and there will be improvements in the preservation of evidence.
Correspondence: * Partner, Formosa Transnational Attorneys at Law; admitted in the State of New York, USA and Taiwan; Ph.D. Candidate, Peking University, PRC (2005–); LL.M., Harvard Law School, USA (2001); LL.B., National Taiwan University, Taiwan (1995). Email: hsiaoling.fan{at}taiwanlaw.com