Bookmark and Share

Accelerated Examination Proves Popular

Issued: February 01 2011

Taiwan’s Accelerated Examination Program for patents was launched on January 1, 2009, revised on January 1, 2010 and has now been running for two years. According to a statement by law-statement.

Of these products, 1,168 are domestic, while two are foreign products. The products are various, including categories of wine, spirits, teas, fruit, flowers, crafts, spices, Chinese medicines and aquatic products from more than 30 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities across the country.

In an effort to ensure and improve the quality of GI products, AQSIQ has formulated five sets of criteria for fruit, ceramics, liquors, processed food and aquatic products, product quality requirements for more than 700 other products, and supporting standards in respect of more than 600 GIs.

Under the program, an invention patent applicant may file for accelerated examination based on any of the following conditions, the firm notes:

1. The application’s foreign counterpart has been granted under substantive examination by a foreign patent authority.

2. The European Patent Office, Japanese Patent Office or US Patent and Trademark Office has issued an Office Action during substantive examination but has yet to allow application’s foreign counterpart.

3. The invention application is essential to commercial exploitation.

According to the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office’s latest statistics, the number of AEP applications filed in 2010 increased by 543 over 2009.

“According to the standard procedure, it takes about 40 months for an invention patent application to receive the first office action after filing,” note the Jaw-Hwa lawyers. “If the applicant applies for an AEP application, it will take only two to four months on average to receive the examination result, although the examination of AEP applications based on condition 3 may take longer.”

The average percentage of approval for invention patent applications was 61% in 2010, while that for AEP applications was 84%. “The difference exceeds 20%, so the AEP indeed enables the applicants to efficiently obtain a favorable examination result by actively submitting the examination and patentability information of the foreign counterpart,” Jaw-Hwa lawyers said. “Undoubtedly, the AEP can encourage business investment and performance.”


Related Articles


Law Firms