Patent Served As Essence; Law served As Practical Use

Our legal team is composed of attorneys specializing in both law and technology. Attorneys Steven Chen has academic degrees in both engineering and law.

Under Taiwan’s education system, lawyers rarely have an engineering background, and few are trained professionally for writing patent specifications. Usually, when lawyers proceed with patent litigation, they need the assistance of a patent engineer to understand the technical aspects of a patent specification. Patent engineers, on the other hand, often do not understand patent litigation law, so they are unable to assist the lawyers in litigation proceedings. This combination of lawyers and patent engineers can lead to miscommunication, with a resultant failure to claim rights for clients.

Our firm eliminates the barrier between patent engineers and lawyers. All of our lawyers have received practical training in writing patent specifications, and all are familiar with the procedures of patent applications. Therefore, when writing patent applications, we envisage potential problems in the future litigation and take precautions in advance. Once entering into patent litigation, our lawyers can simultaneously handle technology and legal issues, so as to deliver professional and complete services to our clients.

In addition to general legal services, our firm particularly specializes in patent-related legal affairs, such as patent infringement analysis and patent litigation.

Since the Intellectual Property Court was established in July 1, 2008, our firm has acted as agent ad litem in more than 40 cases of patent litigation (in addition to more than 10 cases of conciliation and overdue payment). Accordingly, we have accumulated a great amount of experience in patent litigation; this makes us especially qualified for providing our clients with professional services in patent litigation.

The above-mentioned 40-plus cases of patent litigation include litigation between domestic companies (by case numbers of the Intellectual Property Court: No. 45, Civil Action, 97th year of the Republic; No. 49, Civil Action, 97th year of the Republic; No. 13, Civil Action, 98th year of the Republic; No. 19, Civil Action, 98th year of the Republic; No. 13, Administrative Action, 98th year of the Republic; No. 14, Civil Action, 98th year of the Republic; No. 147, Civil Action, 98th year of the Republic; No. 2, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 58, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 96, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 38, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 70, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 64, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 39, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 78, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 158, Civil Action, 98th year of the Republic; No. 57, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 81, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 120, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 121, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 122, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 123, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 124, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 15, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic; No. 159, Civil Action, 98th year of the Republic; and No. 43, Civil Action, 99th year of the Republic) and transnational litigation. Our firm won all the transnational suits for our clients: