The Comparative Study of Two Track to Challenge Patent Validity

• Main Authors: CHANG,NAI-YUN, 張乃云
• Other Authors: YANG, CHIH-CHIEH
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2017
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/x5byxz

碩士 === 國立雲林科技大學 === 科技法律研究所 === 106 === Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act (IPCAA) was promultaged on March 28, 2007 and implemented on July 1, 2008. Since then, judgement on patent validity has been following a dual-track system. In this system, one track is the Invalidation and Revoation Procedure under the Patent Law, which stipulates that wehther a patent is valid shall be judged by a specified administrative authority. The other track is the provisions in paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the IPCAA, which give courts the authroity to adjudicate on patent validity. Although Taiwan is not the only country that has adopted a dual-track system, contradictory final trial courts resulting from its civil and administrative dual-track system have caused Taiwan’s Intellectional Property Court to become ineffective in its adjudication on patent invalidity cases since its setup and its verdicts to have no erga omnes binding effects. Consequently, the public need to go through prolonged administrative litigations to obtain administrative adjudications with erga omnes binding effects, which is contradictory to the original intent of setting up the Intellectual Property Court. When judgement on patent validity follows a dual-track system, it is important to avoid contradiction between judgements that follow the two tracks and thus prevent the public from being at a loss with the state’s exercise of public authority. For this purpose, this paper introduces patent invalidity systems in US and Germany, refers to the combination of civil and administrative systems for patent invalidity litigation in both countries because validity judgement also includes the civil and adminstrative aspects in both countries and compares differences between patent invalidity systems in Taiwan, US and Germany to provide suggestions for reforms of Taiwan’s judicial system.