Page 34 - 2018 Annual Report Taiwan Intellectual Property Office

Feedback Mechanism of Examination Quality
•Patent Examination Quality Consultation Committee
.
In 2018, TIPO held the Patent Examination Quality Consultation Committee Meeting twice to discuss "Hearing on Patent Invalidation Program", "Design Patent Examination Quality Review Mechanism and Drawing Disclosure Requirements," "Feedback on Description Writing Quality" and "Revision of Laws regarding Examination and Dispute for Patent and Trademark". The Committee members’ opinions were compiled as reference for promotion of patent examination quality and affair implementation.
Patent Examination Quality Consultation Committee
The committee also discussed and shared results of the consistency of judgement analysis of patent disposals between those filed in Taiwan as the Office of First Filing and their corresponding applications filed in the US, Japan and South Korea. The analysis showed that the consistency of patent examination between Taiwan and Japan increased from 64.8% in 2014 to 80.6% in 2017. Similarly, the consistency of patent examination between Taiwan and the US also increased from 70.3% to 83.8%. That indicated that the results of patent examination between Taiwan, the US, and Japan are more and more consistent.
Optimize the Examination Quality of Patent Invalidation
•Hearing on Processing of Patent Invalidation
To make the examinations of patent invalidation more transparent and fair, and to enable both parties in a patent invalidation case to fully express their views based on specific facts, TIPO launched the "Hearing on Patent Invalidation Program" based on the hearing procedure of the Administrative Procedure Act launched on March 30, 2018. In April, five mock hearings were held to familiarize the public with the program.
The first public hearing on a patent invalidation
case was held on July 27. Both parties made inquiries on the main disputed issues. By the end of 2018, 11 hearings on patent invalidation cases were held with 248 participants in total.
The first hearing on a patent invalidation case
32
II
IPR EXAMINATIONS AND SERVICES