經通國際智慧產權事務所

On August 27, 2007, following the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office’s (TIPO) decision of rejecting the patent application with the title of “Three-dimensional Aviation Life Jacket” filed on December 25, 2001, the Committee of Appeal of the Ministry of Economic Affairs’ and the Taipei High Administrative Court’s rejections against the subsequent appeals and request of reexamination of the rejected appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the opposition to court decree filed by the applicant of the disputed patent. In the said decision, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that as the reexamination set forth in the Appeal Act was outside of the common scope of procedural remedy and only applicable to matters without further appealing chance of filing an administrative litigation, the Taipei High Administrative Court’s rejection against the said request of reexamination was deemed lawful by the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that as set forth in Article 106-1 of Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit of invalidating a rejection against an appeal should be filed within 2 months counting from the service date of the decision of the appeal. However, the rejection against the said appeal was issued by the Committee of Appeal of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and served the plaintiff on April 10, 2006. Because the plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit regarding the said appeal on July 17, 2006, the Taipei High Administrative Court’s rejection against the said administrative lawsuit was deemed lawful and upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court.

In addition, as for the request of reexamination of the rejected appeal filed with the Ministry of Economic Affairs on May 17, 2006, by affirming that the reexamination procedure regulated by the Appeal Act was aimed to offer means outside of the common scope of procedural remedy regulated by Article 4 and 5 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Taipei High Administrative Court’s rejection against the subsequent administrative lawsuit filed by the plaintiff. Because the said request of reexamination exercised the right of attempting to invalidate the legal effect of the decision of the rejected appeal according to the Appeal Act, even though the rejection against the said request of reexamination of the rejected appeal mistakenly indicated that further administrative lawsuit could be filed within 2 months counting from the receipt date of the said rejection, no further appealing chance of filing an administrative litigation could be lawfully offered.

Based on the said reasons, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected all the claims filed by the plaintiff.

Organized and translated by Louie Lin

International Affairs