For those unfamiliar with the patent system, the concept of a patent being revoked or declared invalid may seem perplexing. Why would a patent be invalidated or revoked? To understand this concept, we need to start with the fundamental principles of the patent system. The basic idea behind the patent system is that the government grants inventors an intangible property right in exchange for them publicly disclosing their inventions, making the technology accessible to the public. In essence, the granting of patent rights to inventors aims to bring a technology that is unknown or unfamiliar to the public into the public domain. This way, it reduces redundant investments in developing the same technology.
 
Therefore, if the technology used by an inventor to apply for a patent (the technology that will be publicly disclosed) is already known to the public, easily ascertainable, or can be readily replicated by industry experts based on prior knowledge, then patent rights should not be granted to the inventor. However, because patent examiners cannot possibly identify all prior art that may exist during the examination process, not every patent is unbreakable, and some low-value technologies may be mistakenly granted patent rights. This is why patent laws establish a public-assisted examination system, where members of the public can assist in reviewing patents that have been published, ensuring the correctness of patent grants.
 
This patent revocation system complicates matters when actual patent infringement lawsuits arise. The issuance of patents is the responsibility of an administrative agency (the Intellectual Property Office, TIPO), not the civil courts. Therefore, logically, the decision to revoke a patent should also be made by TIPO or an administrative court that reviews TIPO's administrative decisions, rather than by a civil court. However, in patent infringement lawsuits, if the civil court cannot determine the validity of a patent and must wait for TIPO to make a final determination on the patent's validity before proceeding with the trial, the trial of a patent lawsuit could take quite a long time. Therefore, civil courts in Taiwan that handle patent infringement lawsuits must independently assess the validity of the patent and whether there are grounds for revocation, rather than staying the litigation process due to the need to wait for the administrative agency's judgment.
 
However, when this happens, another issue arises: how to resolve the situation if the civil court and TIPO make conflicting determinations (e.g., the civil court believes the patent should not be revoked, while TIPO believes it should be revoked). There are many possible reasons for such discrepancies, including different pieces of evidence submitted to the court and TIPO by the defendant, the applicant who initiated the patent revocation not being the defendant in the infringement lawsuit, the defendant discovering evidence of prior art after some time in the litigation process, the patent being amended by TIPO without disclosure to the court, or differences in the evaluation of evidence by the court and TIPO based on their respective expertise. Although the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court, responsible for handling intellectual property cases in Taiwan, has developed some practices to minimize discrepancies over the years, including requiring the defendant to promptly submit evidence of patent invalidity during the preliminary stage of litigation, asking both parties whether there are ongoing patent challenge proceedings before the administrative agency and their progress, or agreeing to base the trial on either the original patent claims or the amended patent claims to reduce discrepancies, these issues can still arise.
 
While actual cases with conflicting judgments between the courts and administrative agencies are rare, they remain a challenging aspect of litigation. Therefore, in the amended Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act (effective August 30, 2023), lawmakers have strengthened the requirement for communication between civil courts and administrative agencies when a defendant asserts grounds for patent revocation. When the defendant asserts grounds for revoking the patent, the court shall promptly notify TIPO. Upon receiving the aforementioned notification, TIPO should promptly inform the court whether it has accepted the patent revocation case. Once TIPO has reached a decision on whether to revoke the patent, it should also notify the court. Furthermore, in cases involving patent amendments, the law sets requirements for patent holders to provide the court with information on the amendment and grants the court the authority to assess the legality of such amendments.