Article 38 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act specifies "The enforcement rules and adjudication regulations shall be determined by the Judicial Yuan." To ensure that the Intellectual Property Court works very well after established, the Department of Administrative Litigation and Discipline of the Judicial Yuan, together with the Civil Department, Criminal Department and the Fair Trade Commission of Executive Yuan, the representative of the Intellectual Property Office of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the presiding judge of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of Taipei High Administrative Court as well as judges and practical experts of related affairs, organized a workshop for the establishment of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Regulations.

Major issues including the scope of intellectual property cases, Task Execution Regulations of Technology examiners, evidence collection procedures and litigation aspects of trade secrets as specified in the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act were discussed and a consensus of opinion on the above issues has been reached in the workshop. It is planned that the draft of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Regulations will come out when the discussion about "new evidence presentation procedure for administrative litigation of intellectual property" and "assignment principle of intellectual property case" is completed. As for the Enforcement Rules for Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, the Judicial Yuan has drawn up a draft according to Article 37 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act. Such a draft will be discussed after the discussion about the Adjudication Regulations for the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act is done.

In addition to actively engaging in the establishment of aforesaid Adjudication Regulations and Enforcement Rules as well as other related rules and regulations, the Judicial Yuan invites judges and practical experts to contribute their professional knowledge on civil, criminal, and administrative cases regarding intellectual property to propose a adjudication model in the hope that people of all circles can furthermore understand the new adjudication system for intellectual property cases.

To adapt to changes in the digital age, the NCC (National Communications Commission) passed modified Regulations Governing Fixed Network Telecommunications Businesses on May 21, 2007 to ensure the sound development of communication with higher accessibility to users and enhance the global competitiveness. The new Regulations include the "multi-media content service." Local network business operators establish an interactive media platform for users so that they can use a broadband circuit and STB to access the "multi-media content service configuration" provided by the content provider from the platform. The access to the content is also governed by the Regulations Governing Fixed Network Telecommunications Businesses. In addition to new definitions for multi-media content service, program, and content service providers, the Regulations lower the threshold for cable TV system providers to expand their cross-business territories and allow cable TV service providers to apply for local network business so as to improve fair competition of the market. According to the new Regulations, fixed network telecommunications business providers with capital of more than NTD 200 million must offer their shares publicly to ensure the transparency of financial status. To protect the rights of users, NCC expressly specifies the items that must be incorporated in the operating rules of the local network business provider's multi-media content transmission platform service.

There have been more than 20 thousand children produced through artificial technique in Taiwan Area since 1998 and, according to experts; about 10 to 20% of these infants were artificially produced by using donated sperms or ova. The Artificial Reproduction Act (ARA) was promulgated in March 2007. To avoid disputes regarding near-kin marriage or adoption as specified in Article 983 Section 1 and Article 1073-1 Section 1 of the Civil Code, the Department of Health establishes a mechanism for enquiry about relative relationship of sperms/ova donor and the artificial reproduction children. The Bureau of Health Promotion is requested to draw up the "Regulations for Enquiry About Relative Relationship with Artificial Reproduction Children" and "Regulations for Enquiry About Relative Relationship with the Sperm/Ovum Donor", which are expected to be approved by the Executive Yuan no earlier than the end of June.

According to the Bureau of Health Promotion, ARA prohibits specified donation of sperms/ova and donation among brothers or sisters is also illegal. All couples who are intended to accept donation of sperms/ova are entitled to an enquiry about whether the donator is within the fourth degree of relationship in advance to avoid genetic disease resulting from such a close match. In addition, the couples that intend to adopt an artificial reproduction child may make sure whether the child is within the eighth degree of relationship. Before marriage, an artificial reproduction person can enquire at the household registration office about whether a sixth degree of relationship exists between him/her and his/her mate so as to avoid incest due to a hidden blood relationship. The probability of a near kindred tragedy that may occur to artificial reproduction children is minimized by multi-layer screening mechanisms.

When the degree of relationship is enquired, the household registration office will send the enquired data to the Bureau of Health Promotion for checking. The result of the enquiry (i.e. the corresponding name enquired is or is not on the list of he relatives) is then informed to the applicant. However, the name of the donor will not be informed to the artificial reproduction person. An applicant who intends to discover the identity of the donor might be accused of illegal disclosure of secrets as specified in the Criminal Law or other crimes specified in the Personal Data Protection Act.

Interconnection among telecommunications enterprises is crucial for the survival of emerging companies. Access to the broad networks of dominant players in the market is essential to consumers who otherwise may shun the services for lack of connectivity and the resulting limited functionality or "reach" to the broader market of client with whom they wish to communicate.

To protect the rights of emerging enterprises, Article 26 of the Telecommunications Act requires a dominant market player of Type I telecommunications enterprises not to reject the request of leasing network component by other Type I telecommunications enterprises without due cause. According to Article 17 of the Administrative Rules for Network Interconnection, the local subscriber loops is one of the network elements that a dominant market player shall un-bundle. According to Article 18, Section 2 of the old Administrative Rule for Network Interconnection, the tariff for unbundled network elements leased by other Type I telecommunications enterprises, unless otherwise provided by laws or regulations, shall be determined through negotiation between both parties before NCC announces the local loop as a bottleneck facility.

Since Chunhwa Telecom, the dominant market player of telecommunications enterprises in Taiwan, and three emerging integrated network operators agreed on the rental conditions in May 2004, less than 100 lines of voice-class local loop have been installed successfully. Higher rental pricing is the major reason for this low installation rate. The market share of the three emerging integrated network operators is less than 3% so far, indicating an incomplete competition of the local telephone market. Considering that NCC announced twisted pair copper local loops as bottleneck facilities on December 21, 2006 and that the twisted pair copper local loops have depreciated and the residual cost after the depreciation can be used as incentives for providers to create service-based value, NCC adopts the historical cost principle implemented in Hong Kong for calculating the rental pricing of twisted pair copper local loops. It passed the modified Article 18 of the Administrative Rules for Network Interconnection on April 16, 2007 and requests Type I carriers to rent out their twisted pair copper local loops based on the historical cost principle.

Taiwan government offers preferential taxes as an incentive for domestic enterprises to enhance their R&D and personnel training activities and to improve their competitiveness in the global market. According to Article 6 Section 2 of the Statute for Upgrading Industries, a company may credit thirty-five percent of the amounts of funds invested in R&D and personnel training against the amount of profit-seeking enterprise income tax payable in each year within a period of five (5) years from the then current year.

When applying for income tax credit against R&D and personnel training expenses, the company shall attach related research projects, records or reports, the accounts, bills or other proofs related to the purchasing and use of consumable devices, materials and samples for the purpose of research by R&D units, the documents in respect of personnel training program, employment agreements, list of personnel to be trained, as well as execution records or other concrete performance records of personnel training program according to Examination Point 3 of the Regulations Governing Application of Tax Credit to Companies with Respect to R&D Investments and Personnel Training Expenses. The application will be rejected if the attached data is incomplete or incorrect.

According to the National Tax Administration of Central Taiwan Province, Ministry of Finance, the preferential tax policy is not applicable to the production department, even if it is named the R&D department. According to Article 3 of the Regulations Governing Application of Tax Credit to Companies with Respect to R&D Investments and Personnel Training Expenses, personnel training expenses mean the costs of organizing or dispatching employees to participate in business-related training activities for the purpose of personnel training. The Tax Credit Regulations do not apply to the guidance fees or consultation expenses that are merely for the improvement of internal management. According to the officer of the Ministry of Finance, the R&D expenses that do not apply to the Tax Credit Regulations still can be reported as operating expenses in the return according to other relevant regulations.

For example, the R&D and personnel training expenses stated in the returns were 3.1 billion, 5.8 billion, and 8 billion during the period between 2002 and 2004 respectively, but only 2.1 billion, 3.5 billion, and 4.9 billion were approved. The approved R&D expenses that are reported as operating expenses were 5.1 billion, 9.2 billion, and 19.3 billion respectively during the period between 2002 and 2004.

If the R&D results belong to an American company, can the domestic company that actually carried out the R&D report the R&D expenditures, such as salaries of the R&D personnel, overtime wages, pension, and severance pay, in their returns? Is Article 6 of the Statute for Upgrading Industries regarding business income tax credits applicable?

According to the judgment No. 95-Pan-Tzi-2086 of the Supreme Administrative Court, compliance of R&D expenditures with the requirements of tax credits should not be denied just because the R&D results do not belong to the domestic company. Whether the business income tax credit specified in the Statute for Upgrading Industries applies to R&D expenditures depends on whether such the expenditures meet the requirements of R&D expenditures as specified in the tax credit Regulations, and the examination standard of such the tax credit should be carried out according to the Examination Points concerning Regulations Governing Application of Tax Credit. However, both Article 2 of the Regulations Governing Application of Tax Credit and Determination Principle 1 and 4 of the aforesaid Examination Points do not specify that the appellant cannot claim tax credit for its R&D expenditures unless it owns the R&D results. According to the Determination Principle 2 of the aforesaid Examination Points, R&D results are not significant in determining whether R&D expenses can be claimed for tax credit. Thus, the Supreme Administrative Court points out that the original judgment does not describe the meaning of the alleged "the R&D results do not belong to the appellant?" but assumes that the R&D expenditures do not meet the requirements of the tax credit by reason that the R&D results do not belong to the appellant. Therefore, the original sentence does not provide reasons and shall be in contravention of the laws.

Intellectual property (IP) is an increasingly critical business asset of many high-tech companies. Nowadays, IP often drives key business strategies and determines the market value of organizations. It is rare for a bankruptcy of a commercial enterprise not to involve a license of technology in one form or another. As such, IP is particularly in peril when a company faces bankruptcy or when its business and licensing partners declare bankruptcy. A bankruptcy proceeding can change a company's rights to its IP. Once in bankruptcy, trustees can often sell assets free and clear of liens, claims and encumbrances - and IP is no exception. Therefore, companies should know what might happen for their IP or IP licenses in bankruptcy. It is important for companies to carefully review the terms of their IP contracts to determine how they will be affected by a bankruptcy.

According to US and German bankruptcy laws, important concepts that impact IP rights in the event of bankruptcy include: (1) the qualification of the IP license contract as a "executory contract"; (2) whether a specific IP or IP license belongs to debtor's bankruptcy estate; and (3) whether the bankruptcy trustee has powers of assumption and rejection. An IP license contract is an especially significant type of "executory contract", a contract between a debtor and another party under which both sides still have important performance remaining. Examples of executory contracts include Real estate leases, equipment leases, development contracts, and licenses to intellectual property.

In Taiwan, it is less than clear how the insolvency of a licensor will affect a license and the licensee's right. As a result, the way what leaves only is to look into traditional concepts of property in determining the rights of parties under a license. The nature of a license is important because, upon bankruptcy, all property owned by a debtor devolves to a trustee. The next step is to use the bankruptcy rules for executor contracts to determine the fate of IP license. However, Taiwan insolvency law is ineffective in providing commercial certainty to licensors and licensees in the event of bankruptcy. No general rule is provided for how the bankruptcy trustee is to deal with executory contracts. This article explores various issues one way face in Taiwan in dealing with the licensing of technology and bankruptcy, discusses what the landscape might change under the proposed change of Taiwan insolvency law.

<Source: Huei-Hsien Huang, The Effect of IP License in the Event of Bankruptcy- an Examination under Taiwan Insolvency Law, Science & Technology Law Review Vol. 19 No. 4, April 2007, p.p. 32~62.>

Bowie Bonds broke a new frontier in financing by using a form of intellectual property(IP) securitization in 1997. This paper purposes to address the practical development of this pattern, to indicate the profits and risks, and to analyze the underlying legal structure by conducting a research in area of Asset Securitization Law, Intellectual Property Law, Civil Law, Contract Law, Bankruptcy Law and so on. Particularly, it distinguishes this new pattern from traditional utilization like IP licensing and IP exchange.

In Taiwan, asset backed securitization is budding, and IP securitization is expected to be a promising direction. Moreover, the government has allocated huge amount of resource to implement TDP (Technology Development Programˇ~since 1970s, and has attained abundant outcomes (including a lot of IP) with respect to the technology research in various domains. How to create a brilliant performance of these outcomes by using an efficient method is an vital issue for improving the performance of TDP. This paper not only addresses this new utilization pattern at length, but also explains several important legal arguments surrounding this subject. Finally, it clarifies the factors which have implications on the success of this pattern as an overall assessment to this study.

<Source: Yu-Ting Chen, Intellectual Property Securitization in Taiwan-A Study Relating to New Utilization Pattern of R&D Outcomes, Science & Technology Law Review Vol. 19 No. 5, May 2007, p.p. 30~61.>

In the long history of human society, a lot of biological resources have been used and needed for people's living in their daily life, and the resources are considered to contain uncountable benefits. In order to get the benefits, a lot of international biological corporations or pharmaceutical companies have begun to explore the biological and genetic resources in several countries which own plentiful organisms. Furthermore, they have done a lot of research about the resources, and tried to develop new products and commercialized them to markets. What the corporations and companies have done arouses a fundamental issue, "who owns the resources?" To find out the answers and clarify the issues this article will focus on following pointsˇG The definition of the biological and genetic resources, the concept of sovereign right's affection to the resources in international and regional treaties, and Taiwanese government's present measures of the resources as well as its reflection to the treaties.

<Source: Yi-Cheng, Liu, Who Owns the Biological and Genetic Resources: Analysis on International and National Regulations, Science & Technology Law Review Vol. 19 No. 6, June 2007, p.p. 17~39. >

According to Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) article 27-3(a), under World Trade Organization (WTO), states that "Members may also exclude from patentability: Diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals." For the matter of every member of WTO is going to confer on the patent protection of medical treatment's invention or not; however, due to the possible conflicts and contradictions between patent rights and human rights of medical treatment, the course of action of every country varies a lot, and this is also a controversial issue on the patent protection.

This paper converges and arranges the positive and negative opinions from the documents that discussed related subjects of debate in the past and then it examines the possible developing trend of the medical treatment's technology in the future; for the purpose of analyzing and discussing the possible advantages and disadvantages of conferment of the patent protection of medical treatment's invention. With the deliberation of the international public hygiene trend and national hygiene & health care policy, the suitability of conferment of the patent protection of the invention of medical activity relevant technological methods is examined, and then its feasible pattern and expected special demands are addressed.

<Source: Po-Ta,Huang, Research on the patentability of medical activity relevant technological method, Science & Technology Law Review Vol. 19 No. 6, June 2007, p.p. 40~62. >