| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 科際整合法律學研究所 === 104 === During the past twenty years, scholars have widely discussed whether Taiwan should introduce the Discovery procedure form U.S. Some opposition opinions state that the existing Evidence-Preserving procedure was built base on similar legislation reason and is used in primary litigation phase like Discovery is. This article examines the difference between Evidence-Preserving procedure and Discovery, and provides the possible modification of Evidence-Preserving procedure.
Among different types of civil litigation, IP infringement litigations usually cost vast money and are time-consuming. From this point, I choose IP infringement litigations as target and analyze the demand of introducing Discovery procedure. Is the existing Evidence-Preserving procedure well-functioning thus we do not need a foreign system? Concluded from the verdicts made by Intellectual Property Court, the rate of permitting Evidence-Preserving Order is extremely low. European Chamber of Commerce Taiwan and American Institute in Taiwan have raised this question several times during the past few years. To provide some advices so that we can change this situation, I collect the rejecting reasons and divide them into different categories. Following the different types of rejecting reasons, I state the unreasonable parts and give suggestions together with scholars’ opinions.
In conclusion, although we have Evidence-Preserving procedure in Taiwan, the practice of this procedure still has lots to improve. More than that, we can modify our system with advantages taken from Discovery, and built a more mature litigation procedure.
|
|---|
