Tax Cuts No Guarantee for Taiwan to Maintain Taiwan’s Chipmaking Lead Tax cuts passed by the Legislature in January, 2023, are just one step of many that need to be done to prepare Taiwan’s semiconductor manufacturers for future competition with other companies in the chipmaking field. Lawmakers passed amendments to the Statute for Industrial Innovation offering income tax cuts of up to 50% from Jan. 1, 2023 to Dec. 31, 2029 for companies that meet the requirements that are engaged in work that innovates technologies domestically and occupy a critical position in international supply chains. The intention is that semiconductor manufacturers will continue to invest in Taiwan and help cement its standing as the world’s second largest semiconductor supplier. Experts at the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research say that one area to expand on is wafer fabrication. Currently, Taiwan has a relatively low output of materials and equipment for wafer fabrication, which are mostly imported, and if it wants to have more control over supply chains, it must work to address that weakness. Another aspect to global competitiveness is that, as other economies such as South Korea, Japan, Europe and the U.S. pick up the pace to bolster their own positions in their respective semiconductor supply chains, it is highly likely that they will try to poach semiconductor engineers from Taiwan. Offers of competitive salaries, good social welfare terms and green cards could prove enticing for research and development personnel and executives at Taiwanese semiconductor companies. The College of Semiconductor Research sponsored by the public and private sectors is well placed to help Taiwan produce future skilled workers and...

Taiwan Makes Revisions to Patent Examination Guidelines The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office made some revisions regarding procedural examination and patent rights management that came into effect in December, 2022.  In Chapter 1 of the guidelines, the use of electronic signatures will be accepted provided both parties can agree to the validity thereof.  The signee only needs to provide a form of signature (whether it be a signature, stamp, or electronic signature) that matches the signature on the application documents.  In Chapter 3 of the guidelines, in accordance with adjustments made to procedural examination, revisions have been made to 3.1 Inventor Change, 4.1 Applicant Name or Title Change, and 4.5 Inventor Name Change.  Case studies have been included to help the public better understand the principles of examination.  The revisions also specify that applicants who are able to rectify inconsistencies on documents submitted with their applications do not fall under this category.  In accordance with a judicial ruling, TIPO also included a case study explanation regarding name changes for different applicants who belong to the same entity.  In Chapter 5 of the guidelines, procedures regarding three relevant scenarios concerning postponing the filing date, namely change in applying entity, addition of listed applicants and decrease in listed applicants have been clarified according to the relevant regulations. Taiwan Releases New Trademark Distinctiveness Examination Guidelines The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office released new examination guidelines for trademarks which came into effect on September 1, 2022.  Here are some of the most notable clauses: Concerning words, when a word or combination of words is using a descriptive style, if it is depicted in a special...

Taiwan’s Judicial Yuan Announces Draft Amendment to the IP Case Adjudication Act Here are the highlights of what is likely to be the biggest overhaul of the IP Case Adjudication Act since it was implemented in 2008: The administrative remedy system for patent and trademark cases will change from the current administrative litigation system to the adversary system.  If a party files an appeal with the court against a Decision rendered by the IP Office, the case will be tried in accordance with the civil procedure, and the defendant, depending on the nature of the case, may not be the IP Office, but instead may be the opposing party such as an invalidation petitioner, or the applicant of a cancellation action. Civil disputes relating to patents, software copyrights, and trade secrets will be mandatorily represented by lawyers.  Unless the value of the plaintiff’s claim is low, that rule will be valid for other civil cases too. In principle, the court should discuss with the involved parties via their lawyers regarding the planning of a trial unless the case does not require legal representation.  In patent litigation cases, the judge shall, in a timely and appropriate manner, disclose his or her interpretation of any disputed terms recited in the claims, ex-officio or upon the request of a party. Currently, reports drafted by court experts formally known as Technical Examination Officers (TEOs) are not disclosed to any parties.  The Amendment now makes it clear that when a judge deems it necessary, he or she may disclose all or part of the content of the Reports drafted by TEOs and the parties...