|
Predictability is a common law concept, but there is no related research in Taiwan. The Intellectual Property Court (IP Court) was established in compliance with the Intellectual Property Organization Act promulgated on March 28, 2007, which intend to adhere to the ideals of creativity, professionalism and justice to provide high-level IPR protection under a new litigation system. Therefore, the predictability of patent litigation in the Intellectual Property Court should be high, and this research will use empirical analysis method to see whether it is predictable from experienced patent attorney’s prospective. The result of qualitative research practice shows that the patent litigation in the IP Court is quite predictable. After IP Court established, the procedure is well organized, which improves the predictability. Though the “result” (win or lose) is predictable, the “damages” is hard to predict. The major factors affect the predictability are “the judge’s attitude and questions”, “the questions from Technical Examination Officers”, “the effects of prior arts”, “the performance of lawyers”. Sometimes the Technical Examination Officers may ask improper questions, and violates the principle of Civil Procedures, which decrease the predictability. Patentee’s winning rate in the IP Court is relatively low, thus this research analyze the reasons of Patentee’s low-winning rate, and tried to propose some suggestions to improve the quality and predictability of patent litigation in the IP Court. Through the quantitative research, this research discovers that the most import factor of predictability is “judges”, than the second are “prior arts” and “procedure”. The effects of “Technical Examination Officers” are less import than the above factors, but is more important that the “opposite attorney”. The Fisher’s Exact Test shows that the experienced lawyers can correctly predict the result of patent litigation with 75~95%, and the predict ability is positively related to the attorney’s experiences (amount of cases). The qualitative research also shows that after the IP court established, the judge tend to adjust Technical Examination Officer’s opinion instead of relied on the appraisal report from the Parties.
|