JURISDICTION REPORT: TAIWAN
THE DISPUTE OVER ENTITLEMENT TO THE AB GLIDER PATENT APPLICATION
Victor S.C. Lee & Crystal J. Chen Tsai Lee & Chen
Te American sports equipment company, Icon Health & Fitness (Icon) won a declaratory judgment on entitlement to a utility model patent application for a multi-function body training apparatus at the second instance of the IP court; the decision was made final in June 2013.
Te dispute involves Ab Glider, a best-selling fitness apparatus advertised on TV and Internet shopping channels. Back in December 21, 2009, Icon sent an initial basic drawing of Ab Glider, the fitness apparatus at issue, by email to its original equipment manufacturer (OEM) in Taiwan, requesting a quotation and a sample apparatus. Te drawing and details of Icon’s requests were subsequently sent to a downstream manufacturer associated with the OEM for further handling. On April 27, 2010, a marketing assistant of the downstream manufacturer filed a utility model patent application for a multi-function sports apparatus that was suspiciously similar to Ab Glider. Te patent was granted by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) four months aſter the application was filed.
Pursuant to Article 119 (then Article 107) of the Patent Act, a utility model patent may be invalidated if the utility model patentee is not entitled to file the utility model patent application. While an ownership of right should be decided at a court forum, Icon first sought a civil remedy from the IP court in 2011, with a complaint that it was the true owner of the right to the patent application, and requesting that a transfer of the patent right at issue be ordered. As soon as litigation proceedings were filed, Icon filed for invalidation of the patent at issue with a request of examination suspension until the outcome of the court judgment became available.
In the first instance of the civil tribunal, the IP court refused to hear the case on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter of ordering a transfer of patent right.
Icon appealed to the second instance court by modifying its claim to request for a declaratory judgment confirming that the appellant Icon is the owner of the application right for the patent at issue. Te second instance of the IP court vacated the first instance judgment, confirmed and declared that the entitlement to application for the utility model patent at issue belongs to Icon. Tere are three distinctive opinions in the court’s judgment as follows:
• According to Article 5 of the Patent Act, the owner of the right to apply for a patent can be an inventor, utility model creator, designer or his/ her assignee or successor. Te court confirmed that an entitlement to patent application is a dispute involving private law relations. Since a declaratory judgment is a legal means used to confirm the existence or nonexistence of the facts from which a legal relation arises, the court has jurisdiction over who has the right to apply for the patent at issue.
“A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE COURT TO MAKE JUDGMENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONLY INDIRECT EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE IN THIS CASE.”
• Te court introduced three levels of standard of proof from the US litigation system, so as to explain that a preponderance of evidence is sufficient for the court to make judgment despite the fact that only indirect evidence was available in this case. Te court sets the preponderance of evidence as the lowest evidentiary standard for civil disputes, whereas clear and convincing evidence must be attained to prove patent invalidity. Te highest standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” will be required only in criminal cases.
• Te court borrowed the two-pronged test for copyright infringement to resolve: (1) whether the patentee had “access” to the Ab Glider design drawings, and (2) whether “substantial similarity” is established between the technical features of the patent at issue and those of the Ab Glider drawings. Both tests were found established.
As long as plagiarism is found, Icon is determined to be the true owner of the right to file the patent at issue.
Victor S.C. Lee is a patent attorney, attorney at law and managing partner at Tsai Lee & Chen. He can be contacted at:
vlee@tsailee.com.tw
Crystal J. Chen is an attorney at law and partner at Tsai Lee & Chen. She can be contacted at:
cjchen@tsailee.com.tw
184 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196