PATENT LAW ENFORCEMENT RULES UNDER AMENDMENT

05/01/2002

---

Through amendments to the Patent Law prom-ulgated on 24 October 2001, new procedures, such as laying open and substantive examination on applications for invention patents, and do-mestic priority claims for invention and new utility model patents application, were intro-duced into the ROC patent system. Also, some other amendments promulgated on 7 May 1997 took effect on 1 January 2002. In response to the above amendments' entry into force, the IPO is actively revising the Patent Law Enforcement Rules, and has drafted amendments to 31 articles, prepared 32 new articles, and proposed the re-peal of 12 articles. The main points are as fol-lows:

Explicit provisions are proposed as to the ac-ceptable paper size for patent application documents as well as the format of their con-tent and drafting.

Relaxed provisions:

1.Acts of a lawfully authorized patent agent within the scope of the powers granted are equivalent to acts of the principal. A patent application may be signed or affixed with a chop by the patent agent alone, and need not be signed or chopped by the applicant.

2.In principle, application documents must be prepared in Chinese; documents in other languages must be translated into Chinese. However, for evidentiary documents in foreign languages which are a part of ap-plication documents, full or partial Chinese translations of such evidentiary documents are needed only when it is required by the IPO.

3.Evidentiary documents required under the Patent law must be submitted in their original forms. To take account of practical difficulties encountered by applicants, copies may be accepted as substitutes.

4.The supporting documents required for priority claims are simplified.

The documents to be submitted for each kind of application, and the matters to be stated therein, are explicitly defined.

The starting points for various time periods under the law are explicitly defined.

1.If priority is claimed, determination of events prior to filing, and events for appli-cations filed on the same day, should be based on the priority date.

2.The starting and ending dates for the cal-culation of priority periods and patent terms under the law are explicitly defined.

3.For invention patent applications subject to laying open, the methods of calculating the starting and ending dates of the time peri-ods related to laying open and amendments are explicitly defined.

Transitional provisions are introduced for abolition of patent-of-addition system.

Because the revisions now in progress are ex-tensive, and will affect the future implementation of the new systems of laying open, application for substantive examination, and domestic pri-ority, the IPO recently held several public hear-ings to solicit opinions from various quarters. Lee and Li will continue to watch the progress of these revisions, and report on them as appropri-ate.