Taiwan: Overview of the amendments to the Taiwan Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act

In brief

With the occurrence of several high-profile trade secret-related cases in recent years, the Taiwan government has given greater attention to the misappropriation or leaking of trade secrets to foreign companies, and corporations have called for a stronger legal framework for the protection of trade secrets and other property rights.

In response to the above concerns, the Taiwan Legislative Yuan amended the Taiwan National Security Act on 8 June 2022 to define "National Core Key Technology" as technology that, if disclosed, would have a major impact on national security, industrial competitiveness, or economic development (the official list of National Core Key Technologies will be confirmed and published by the Taiwan Executive Yuan).

Following the foregoing amendments, the amendments to the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act ("Amendment") were promulgated on 15 February 2023, and are expected to come into force on 30 August 2023. The Amendment is the most substantial change to the Act in the Act's 14 years of implementation. The primary purpose of the Amendment is to establish a more professional and effective intellectual property litigation system.

Exclusive jurisdiction of the IP Court in most intellectual property cases

One of the most important aspects of the Amendment is that the majority of intellectual property cases will be brought under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court ("IPC Court"). Specifically, the Amendment specifies that the first instance of intellectual property civil cases, as well as that of trade secret criminal cases (including supplementary civil actions), will be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the IP Court. In addition, in line with the amendment of the Taiwan National Security Act, the Amendment also stipulates that the Second-Instance Tribunal of the IP Court be the jurisdictional court for first-instance trade secret criminal cases involving infringement of National Core Key Technologies.

Protection of trade secrets involved in litigation

Furthermore, in order to strengthen the protection of trade secrets involved in litigation, the Amendment includes provisions relating to the de-identification of trade secret documents and access to court documents, as well as an update to the mechanism of the confidentiality preservation order (which means the court order that prohibits the use or disclosure of the trade secrets involved in the case). It is also noteworthy that, according to the Amendment, anyone who violates the confidentiality preservation order outside Taiwan shall also be subject to criminal liability.

Mandatory attorney representation for intellectual property civil matters

Additionally, as intellectual property cases often involve specialized legal expertise, the Amendment essentially requires mandatory attorney representation in most intellectual property civil matters (e.g., the value of a claim of intellectual property civil cases is above a certain amount, and civil litigation involving patents, copyrighted computer programs, and trade secrets). The Amendment also stipulates that the IP Court devise a trial plan with the parties in specific cases where the mandatory attorney representation system is adopted or in other complicated cases.

New mechanism for expert participation in litigation

The Amendment creates new systems in which the court may appoint a neutral technical expert to conduct an evidentiary examination in a patent dispute, and the parties in a litigation may request an expert witness to provide professional opinion on technology-related issues.

Other highlights

Other highlights of the Amendment include a new framework of information exchange between judicial review and administrative review, the system of consultation with specialized authorities on intellectual property, the obligation of notification of litigation over an exclusive license, and the restriction of reexamination of discrepancies in judgments on the validity of intellectual property rights.


We anticipate that the Amendment, once it enters into force, will have a substantial impact on intellectual property litigations, particularly trade secret proceedings. Henceforth, trade secret cases will exclusively be handled by the more specialized IPC Court, and the protection mechanism for trade secret contents in litigation will become more sophisticated and extensive.

In general, the Amendment has made the trial proceedings of intellectual property cases more efficient and professional, and complainants or plaintiffs in future trade secret cases will benefit from improved legal protection for their infringed trade secrets under the Amendment. Moreover, the mandatory attorney representation for more complicated intellectual property cases such as patents, copyrighted computer programs and trade secrets is helpful to strengthen the protection of the parties' interests.

If a more detailed explanation or further assistance is required, please feel free to contact us.

Contact Information

Copyright © 2024 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.