Introduction to the patent system in Chinese Taipei (Taiwan)

The shelf life of a statutory IP law in Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) is rather short. So far, the Trademark Act has been revised 13 times in 84 years, with an average life cycle of 7.2 years. The Patent Act has been revised 11 times in 70 years, with an average life cycle of 6.3 years, whereas the Copyri...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: LIU, Kung-chung, LEE, Su-Hua
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3119
https://search.library.smu.edu.sg/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma9923408402601&context=L&vid=65SMU_INST:SMU_NUI&lang=en&search_scope=Everything&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,Patent%20Law%20in%20Greater%20China&offset=0
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.sol_research-5077
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.sol_research-50772020-05-18T05:48:03Z Introduction to the patent system in Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) LIU, Kung-chung LEE, Su-Hua The shelf life of a statutory IP law in Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) is rather short. So far, the Trademark Act has been revised 13 times in 84 years, with an average life cycle of 7.2 years. The Patent Act has been revised 11 times in 70 years, with an average life cycle of 6.3 years, whereas the Copyright Act has seen 16 revisions in 86 years with an average life cycle of only 5.4 years. The frequent amendment of statutory IP laws cannot be explained by the rapid pace of technological change and societal needs alone. The inability of the judiciary to further the development of IP law by clarifying the existing provisions and pointing out the new direction of IP law, and the activism on the part of the IP Office (TIPO) and its technocrats to alleviate pressure from the US by constantly revising IP laws also play an important role. The activism of technocrats pre-empts the judiciary and destabilizes the IP statutory law itself. As a consequence, the development of IP law in Taiwan is largely equivalent to ‘new amendment’ of statutory IP law. The proper balance between statutory IP law and adjudicated IP law has yet to be struck. The IP technocrats need to wait patiently and the judiciary needs to decide cases on their merit and substantively solve the legal disputes. A recent empirical study of decisions on patent adjudicated by the IP Court from 1 July 2008 to 31 October 2010 shows a disturbingly low success rate. 2014-01-01T08:00:00Z text https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3119 info:doi/10.4337/9781781954843.00037 https://search.library.smu.edu.sg/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma9923408402601&context=L&vid=65SMU_INST:SMU_NUI&lang=en&search_scope=Everything&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,Patent%20Law%20in%20Greater%20China&offset=0 Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Asian Studies Intellectual Property Law International Law
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic Asian Studies
Intellectual Property Law
International Law
spellingShingle Asian Studies
Intellectual Property Law
International Law
LIU, Kung-chung
LEE, Su-Hua
Introduction to the patent system in Chinese Taipei (Taiwan)
description The shelf life of a statutory IP law in Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) is rather short. So far, the Trademark Act has been revised 13 times in 84 years, with an average life cycle of 7.2 years. The Patent Act has been revised 11 times in 70 years, with an average life cycle of 6.3 years, whereas the Copyright Act has seen 16 revisions in 86 years with an average life cycle of only 5.4 years. The frequent amendment of statutory IP laws cannot be explained by the rapid pace of technological change and societal needs alone. The inability of the judiciary to further the development of IP law by clarifying the existing provisions and pointing out the new direction of IP law, and the activism on the part of the IP Office (TIPO) and its technocrats to alleviate pressure from the US by constantly revising IP laws also play an important role. The activism of technocrats pre-empts the judiciary and destabilizes the IP statutory law itself. As a consequence, the development of IP law in Taiwan is largely equivalent to ‘new amendment’ of statutory IP law. The proper balance between statutory IP law and adjudicated IP law has yet to be struck. The IP technocrats need to wait patiently and the judiciary needs to decide cases on their merit and substantively solve the legal disputes. A recent empirical study of decisions on patent adjudicated by the IP Court from 1 July 2008 to 31 October 2010 shows a disturbingly low success rate.
format text
author LIU, Kung-chung
LEE, Su-Hua
author_facet LIU, Kung-chung
LEE, Su-Hua
author_sort LIU, Kung-chung
title Introduction to the patent system in Chinese Taipei (Taiwan)
title_short Introduction to the patent system in Chinese Taipei (Taiwan)
title_full Introduction to the patent system in Chinese Taipei (Taiwan)
title_fullStr Introduction to the patent system in Chinese Taipei (Taiwan)
title_full_unstemmed Introduction to the patent system in Chinese Taipei (Taiwan)
title_sort introduction to the patent system in chinese taipei (taiwan)
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2014
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3119
https://search.library.smu.edu.sg/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma9923408402601&context=L&vid=65SMU_INST:SMU_NUI&lang=en&search_scope=Everything&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,Patent%20Law%20in%20Greater%20China&offset=0
_version_ 1794549587463110656