A post-termination restrictive covenant for non-competition restricts an employee from joining the employer's competitor or conducting business in competition with the employer following termination of employment. The employee is usually required to provide such a covenant on being hired, making it difficult for the employee to decline. As the legality of such a covenant was controversial, when the Labour Standards Act was revised in 2016, a new article was added to regulate it.
Generally, technical features disclosed in a patent claim relating to mechanical or electrical engineering are more suitable for breakdown into basic comparison units that realise a certain function or deliver a certain result independently. Therefore, the triple-identity test is often used in these technical fields in determining equivalent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. However, the Supreme Court recently held that it is insufficient to conclude patent infringement with a general triple-identity test.
When faced with the challenge of determining whether an invention patent specification has an inventive step when compared with the prior art, the courts must decide whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would be sufficiently motivated to combine the prior art references and replicate the invention. The criteria to make this determination was set out by the Patent Examination Guidelines 2013, and a recent IP Court decision serves as a useful model for this issue going forward.
In order to provide full reports on news events, it is often inevitable that the works of others will be used. Should relevant laws be unable to empower journalists to claim fair use under certain circumstances, news reports may fail to be conducive to the formation of public opinion or fail to agree with the main purpose of copyright protection. Exemption regulations concerning fair use in news reports can be found in the Copyright Act.
The IP Court recently set a guideline in a criminal trademark infringement case determining jurisdiction over trademark infringement cases where the actual operator of an online store selling counterfeit goods is not physically located in Taiwan. The IP Court held that a district court in a certain city should have jurisdiction over trademark infringement cases when consumers who may have access to the online store are located in that city.
The examination of inventive step is of paramount importance in examining patent applications. However, Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) examiners tend to combine prior art references arbitrarily, which often results in findings based on hindsight. In order to prevent this practice and further enhance patent examination quality, TIPO has amended the inventive step examination guidelines.
The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) recently held a conference, inviting representatives from the industry, the Judicial Yuan, the Ministry of Justice, the National Police Agency of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Labour to discuss amendments to the Trade Secrets Act. TIPO will adjust relevant provisions based on the conclusions of the meeting and provide a revised version of the draft amendments for public discussion.
An employer may terminate an employment contract with notice or payment in lieu of notice and provide the appropriate severance payment if an employee is confirmed to be incompetent to perform the work assigned to him or her. However, employers may not terminate an employment contract if the employee is on maternity leave or suffering from an occupational injury or disease while working for the employer.
The Supreme Court recently clarified the level of proof in trade secret protection cases. In order to implement trade secret protection fully, the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act lowers the burden of proof on owners and obliges the other party to make a specific defence. This interpretation will be valuable for trade secret owners citing and referring to prior judgments to protect their rights in future.
The Copyright Act provides that "fair use of a work shall not constitute infringement on economic rights in the work". However, should an exploiter of a work be considered to be infringing the author's right of paternity if he or she exploits the work within the reasonable scope of fair use, as specified in the act, but fails to provide a clear indication of the source of the work? The IP Court recently provided conflicting opinions on this matter.
Recent amendments to the customs border measures, which play a key part in Taiwan's trademark protection strategy, deserve attention. The regulations were amended in order to strengthen the protection of the owner of a registered trademark, implement e-governance measures and simplify administrative procedures. Key amendments include the extension of the trademark protection period and the introduction of new notification methods.
The Supreme Court recently held that the 'sole licence' in a contract differs from the 'exclusive licence'. The sole licence merely restricts the copyright holder from sublicensing the already licensed rights to a third party; an exclusive licence prohibits the original copyright holder from sublicensing the same rights to a third party for exploitation and even exploiting the same rights for his or her own purpose.
According to the Supreme Administrative Court, when conclusions of a technical evaluation report differ from invalidation actions, the IP Court has the authority to determine patent validity. In accordance with the System of Administrative Litigation Events, if the IP Court holds that evidence and materials provided by the parties have successfully resolved any patent validity disputes, its judgment should not be found to contravene the laws and regulations.
Although a patent invalidation action is considered to be a type of public review system, it has the legal nature of a private rights dispute in general. Therefore, the patent invalidation petitioner bears the burden of proof to provide reasons for the patent invalidation request. However, when and to what extent should the IP Office conduct ex officio investigations and explore evidence not provided by the patent invalidation petitioner?
The non-obviousness of a claimed invention is generally determined by investigating whether a person having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to combine the disclosure of said prior art references and can easily accomplish the claimed invention. However, there is no specific regulation in Taiwan as to whether there is any priority in the application of said prior art references.
The IP Court adopted the reverse confusion doctrine in 2015 and granted registration for a trademark that was filed later than a similar senior trademark, but deemed to be more famous. The Supreme Administrative Court reversed the IP Court judgment and held that the first-to-file rule, as stipulated by the Trademark Act, should be consistently cited for protection of a registered senior trademark.
Post-grant patent amendments are allowed in Taiwan. According to the Patent Act, a patentee may delete a claim, narrow a claim's scope, correct typographical or translation errors and clarify any ambiguous statements. However, no post-grant amendment can substantially enlarge or alter the scope of the claim as issued. The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office recently published an amended version of the Guidelines for Patent Examination, which concerns post-grant amendments.
A revised regulation, effective from January 1 2017, stipulates that the recording of newly filed or renewed trademarks will be valid until the expiration date of the trademark registration. It is no longer necessary to renew a customs recordation each year, which will save money and increase anti-counterfeiting efficiency.
An amendment of the Patent Act with respect to the grace period for novelty and inventive step was recently promulgated through a presidential decree. To guide the implementation of the amended Patent Act provisions, the Enforcement Rules of the Patent Act were also amended. The amendment of the Patent Act will more closely align the patent system with international patent practice and strengthen protection for patent applicants.
The damages calculation for patent infringement litigation is determined by the IP Court pursuant to the calculation method claimed by the patentee. When considering whether to accept the patent contribution rate as the basis for determining damages, the facts and evidence furnished by the parties play a key role. It is yet to be seen what the court's specific standards for determining the patent contribution rate will be.