Taiwan, China

The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) administers patent examination and grant in Taiwan. The patent system provides three forms of protection: invention patents (20-year term, with up to 5 years of extension available for pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals), utility model patents (10-year term), and design patents (15-year term). A particularly important strategic point is that Taiwan is not a contracting state to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). As a result, applicants cannot enter Taiwan via a PCT national phase and usually need to file directly with TIPO within the applicable priority period under the Paris Convention or other recognised legal mechanisms.

As to examination, invention patent applications must be put into substantive examination within three years from filing. In recent years, TIPO has significantly improved both examination efficiency and procedural digitalisation, and its approach to novelty and inventive step is broadly coordinated with that of major patent offices. Taiwan's utility model system, by contrast, is registration-based and does not undergo full substantive examination before grant. For this reason, TIPO has developed the practically important Technical Evaluation Report mechanism, through which the patentability of a utility model may later be assessed. Although such a report is not automatically an absolute statutory prerequisite for every form of enforcement, it carries substantial practical weight in warning-letter practice, commercial negotiations, infringement preparation, and judicial assessment of utility model stability.

On the judicial side, Taiwan has established a specialised Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (IPC Court) to hear patent-related civil, criminal, and administrative disputes in a centralised manner. The court is supported by technical examination officers who assist judges in understanding complex technical issues. In patent infringement proceedings, Taiwanese courts commonly address invalidity defences within the same case rather than mechanically waiting for a separate administrative invalidation outcome from TIPO. This combination of professional concentration and procedural efficiency makes Taiwan one of the most predictable Chinese-speaking jurisdictions for resolving technology disputes.