英文摘要 |
Comparing with general legal cases, the adjudication on intellectual property(IP) cases possessed uniqueness; in addition, the life-cycle of IP-related products is very short in the market; therefore, the requirement for prompt adjudication on those cases has the same importance of making correct judgment; therefore, Taiwan Judicial Yuan has planned and drafted to establishthe Intellectual Property Court since February 2004; moreover,《Intellectual Property CourtOrganization Act 》 and 《Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act》have been approved after completing the Third Reading procedure in Legislate Yuan respectively on March 5th, and January 19th, 2007; as a result, Judicial Yuan has promulgated these two orders:Yuan-Tai-Ting-Si-Yi-Tzi No. 0970010117 and No. 0970009972 on May 6th, 2008, to execute those aforesaid Acts on July 1st, 2008, as well as the IP Court has formally operated at the same day, which made Taiwan’s IP legal system to step into a new milestone.The implementation of《Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act》and the operation of IP Court have solved the related issues of aforesaid patent infringement litigation in terms of certain level; however, it has been one year since its implementation, and there existed some issues for the practical operation which shall be carefully noticed, such as: since the first and second instances of patent infringement litigation are governed under the jurisdiction of IP Court, it may have possibly occurred problems of the monopoly on fact identification and the unified legal opinions that will further affect the trail benefit for the litigant; or insufficient prescribed number of judges and the follow-up disposal after remanded; moreover, since it is the only IP Court in Taiwan so far, it will affect the convenience for litigant taking litigation and trial; or the problem that occurred in the process of hearing; or the preservation of evidence for technical examination officers to the patent cases; or the speed of IP Court to hear the patent infringement cases seems to be overcorrected that will affect the substantial benefits and rights for the litigant; and the regulation of the Article 16 of《Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act》 for disposing theissues of patent validity that may also have yielded some problems. In accordance with abovementioned problems and issues, this study is expected to attract more follow-up experts orresearchers to improve the patent litigation and related administration systems in Taiwan. |