TAIWAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Jui-Hua Fan, Hsiang-Yang Hsieh, Chia-Hsin Wu, Chi-Ying Lee and Jin-Han Hsieh, Formosa Transnational Attorneys At Law
Article 7 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Rules deals with the situation where a party mistak - enly initiates a civil or administrative action in the IP Court but the IP Court does not have jurisdiction. In this circumstance, the IP Court is required to make a ruling that transfers the case to a court with jurisdic - tion in accordance with Article 28 Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 18 of the Code of Administrative Litigation Act. 2.3 Impact of Competition Authorities Non-Binding Nature of TFTC Rulings The TFTC’s rulings do not bind Taiwanese courts that hear cases where antitrust law issues are present. In particular, even if the TFTC has issued a ruling that imposes sanctions upon an alleged offender, in a civil lawsuit initiated by a victim of the alleged offender’s infringing activities, courts will independently examine the plaintiff’s claim without being bound by the TFTC’s findings in its ruling. Likewise, in situations where the TFTC finds no viola - tion of antitrust law provisions, the TFTC’s findings do not preclude Taiwanese courts from rendering differ - ent decisions. Similarly, decisions by foreign antitrust regulators do not bind Taiwanese courts. Non-Intervention of TFTC in Antitrust Damage Lawsuits In most cases, the TFTC does not intervene in actions seeking compensatory damages brought by parties injured by violations of antitrust law. 2.4 Proof Administrative Litigation Proceedings Generally speaking, in administrative litigation pro - ceedings, a party bears the burden of proof regard - ing the facts that they allege in their favour, except either where the law provides otherwise or where the circumstances render it manifestly unfair. In addition, courts will look into the factual matters and request the parties or any other third parties to produce evi - dentiary materials that the courts deem necessary.
At the same time, the parties may request the courts to investigate factual issues and produce evidence that the parties would like the courts to take into con - sideration. In addition, the parties may request the courts to order the other parties or any other third par - ties to produce evidentiary materials that are relevant to the cases. Civil Proceedings Plaintiffs in civil proceedings will have to produce evi - dence that suffices to establish each element required for a tort claim. Tortfeasor defendants will usually not have to establish any facts in relation to the elements required for a tort claim. In relation to whether the enterprise has violated the provisions of the TFTA, if the TFTC has determined that the case constitutes a violation of the TFTA and has issued rulings accordingly, the civil court tends to adopt the TFTC’s opinion, incorporate the reason - ing of the TFTC’s rulings in its judgment, or include the TFTC’s rulings decision as evidence. However, the court will still determine whether civil liability is estab - lished independently. 2.5 Pass-On Defence In situations where a party to a proceeding raises a “pass-on” defence, the party raising the defence must bear the burden of proof. In other words, said party needs to produce evidence that sufficiently establish - es the facts supporting the “pass-on” defence. 3. Limitation Periods and the Duration of Litigation 3.1 Statute of Limitations Pursuant to Article 32 of the TFTA, a civil damage claim arising from a violation of the TFTA may be ini - tiated only within one of the two following periods, whichever lapses earlier: • two years from the date when the injured party becomes aware of the violation and knows the identity of the person liable for the harm; or • ten years from the date on which the infringing conduct is committed.
234 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook