In Taiwan, the responsibility for patent infringement is a civil liability, essentially part of civil litigation procedures. Unlike other types of civil cases, such as rental disputes, real estate transactions, and construction conflicts, which are handled by local district courts, patent infringement cases are processed by the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (IPC Court), located in the Banqiao District of New Taipei City.
 
Compared to other types of litigation, patent infringement cases often involve technical issues. Since Taiwanese judges are primarily trained in law without specialized backgrounds in technology, the IPC Court employs Technical Examination Officers (Technical Officers) to assist judges. These officers work under the direction and supervision of the judges to help with technical assessments, collecting and analyzing relevant technical information, offering opinions on technical issues, and participating in the litigation process.
 
In a typical patent infringement case, the main contentions include the claim construction, the validity of the patent, whether the product falls within the scope of the claims (either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents), the liability of the defendant (whether intentional or due to negligence), and the calculation of damages. Technical knowledge is crucial for issues such as claim construction, the validity of the patent or whether the product falls within the scope of the claims, making the role of the Technical Officers particularly significant. In practice, judges may pose questions to the parties based on the officers' pre-trial opinions or have the officers themselves directly question the parties in court.
 
There have been suggestions that the reports of Technical Officers should be made public due to their significant influence on patent infringement cases. Previously, the Judicial Yuan responded that since Technical Officers are akin to judicial assistants, their reports are internal opinions and need not be disclosed and requested judges to clarify and communicate the contentions to ensure the parties' substantive and procedural interests are protected.
 
Nonetheless, with ongoing advocacy, the amended Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, which took effect on August 30, 2023, allows the disclosure of all or part of the officers' reports if the court deems it necessary. However, the legislature clarified that the reports are generally not disclosed, with certain exceptions allowing for disclosure. The reasons include: Technical Officers are internal technical staff, and their reports are advisory opinions for judges' reference and are not binding in technical assessments; these reports are not considered evidence under civil procedure law and do not need to be disclosed for debate; and the reports vary in complexity and frequency of amendments, and disclosing them could burden the parties and hinder the litigation process.
 
Thus, the court may disclose the entire report or a part of it when necessary, such as clarifying technical issues or evidence in dispute or facilitating settlement negotiations during the litigation process, allowing the parties an opportunity to present their views in a timely manner.