經通國際智慧產權事務所

On November 22, 2007, following the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office’s (TIPO) decision of accepting the patent opposition against the utility model patent with the title of “Pressurization and Current Conduction Apparatus of Fan” filed on March 2, 1999, the Committee of Appeal of the Ministry of Economic Affairs’, the Taipei High Administrative Court’s and the Supreme Administrative Court’s rejections against the subsequent appeals, the Taipei High Administrative Court rejected the retrial request filed by the patentee of the disputed patent. In the said decision, the Taipei High Administrative Court noted that according to Article 273-1(13) and (14) of Administrative Litigation Act, a retrial should be allowed if the unexamined evidence is discovered or the examination of evidence decisive enough to influence the adjudication is omitted. However, as the said request of retrial did not adhere to either of the said articles of Administrative Litigation Act and was filed based on the reason of that the previous arguments were unlawfully rejected by the High Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, the Taipei High Administrative Court rejected the said request of retrial.

Regarding the plaintiff’s claim of that Article 273-1(14) of Administrative Litigation Act was breached because claim-by-claim examination based on comparison between the disputed patent and the submitted evidence was not conducted for the said opposition, the Taipei High Administrative Court pointed out that claim-by-claim examination was indicated in both the official decision of the said opposition and the previous decision of the same matter made by the Court itself, and rejected the plaintiff’s said claim. The plaintiff also provided the argument of that according to the reason of opposition submitted by the opponent, only claim 1, 9-13 and 16-21 of the disputed patent were proposed to lack inventive step; therefore, as claim 2-8, 14-15 and 22-24 were not claimed to lack inventive step in the submitted reason of opposition by the opponent, the decisions of the said opposition breached the prohibition of ultra petita rulings. However, Taipei High Administrative Court rejected the said argument by noting that the said reason of opposition submitted by the opponent included the statement of that “the characteristics of claim 2-8, 11, 14, 15, 19 and 22-24 of the disputed patent were of the secondary technical characteristics of the corresponding claim 1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 of the disputed patent”. Moreover, as the plaintiff filed the said request of retrial only based on the reason of that the previous arguments were unlawfully rejected by the High Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court without any indication of the discovery of unexamined evidence or the omitted examination of evidence, the Taipei High Administrative Court noted that the said request of retrial could not be allowed in accordance with the said Article 273-1(13) and (14) of Administrative Litigation Act.

On the other hand, the Taipei High Administrative Court noted that according to Article 273-1 of Administrative Litigation Act, since the plaintiff’s reasons of requesting the reexamination were already examined and rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court in the previous decision, the request of reexamination based on the same reason should not be allowed. At last, regarding the plaintiff’s argument of that the previous decisions breached Article 243-1 and 243-2(6) of Administrative Litigation Act by employing inapplicable laws or insufficient / conflicting reasons, the Taipei High Administrative Court noted that the said argument by the plaintiff could be the basis of filing an appeal but could not be the basis for filing the said request of retrial because the said Article 273-1(13) and (14) of Administrative Litigation Act were not applicable.

Based on the said reasons, the Taipei High Administrative Court deemed the said request of retrial lacking grounds and rejected the said request of retrial without oral arguments.

Organized and translated by Angela Shen

International Affairs