Taiwan Jurisdiction: An Intellectual Property Overview
Copyright: Developments in the Protection of GAI-Generated Works
Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) continues to develop at a rapid pace, with its influence extending across a wide range of industries. As a result, the application of copyright law to GAI, and the potential conflicts arising from such application, remains one of the key issues attracting sustained attention in the field of intellectual property law. Although there is currently no judicial precedent in Taiwan Jurisdiction (“Taiwan”) directly addressing whether GAI creations are eligible for copyright protection, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) clarified in an administrative interpretation issued in 2022 that where a creation is independently generated by GAI and lacks actual human creative input, it does not constitute a “work” protected under the Copyright Act. This position has been expressly reflected in the Guideline on the Application of Generative AI in Cultural and Artistic Fields published by the Ministry of Culture in July 2025 (the “GAI Guideline”), which further states that where GAI is used as a creative assistive tool, and the creator contributes human creativity to the GAI-generated content through modification, supplementation, deletion or editing, and where the outcome is produced in accordance with the creator’s instructions rather than generated randomly by GAI, such creative may be eligible for copyright protection.
Overall, the GAI Guideline aims to provide a framework for identifying and addressing copyright risks arising from the use of GAI in cultural and artistic creation, as well as the potential impact of GAI on existing copyright interests. Although the Guideline is an administrative guidance in nature and does not have binding legal effect, its emphasis on preserving the creative process, such as retaining records of creation through blockchain technology or other means and the inclusion of a risk checklist for GAI applications, may nonetheless be referenced in future AI-related copyright disputes. It also remains to be seen whether TIPO, as the authority responsible for copyright law, will further participate in the development or integration of such a guideline, thereby gradually shaping more concrete and predictable regulatory standards before disputes arise.
Patents: Taiwan Supreme Court Clarifies the Assessment of Inventive Steps by Explicitly Adopting the Could–Would Principle
In a 2024 decision involving an invention patent (Supreme Court Civil Judgment No 113-Tai-Shang-459), the Supreme Court established a clear analytical framework for assessing inventive steps. In a subsequent 2025 decision concerning a utility model (Supreme Court Civil Judgment No 113-Tai-Shang-453), the Court reaffirmed and carried forward the same approach. In both cases, the Court held that the assessment of whether an invention or utility model is “easily achievable by a person having ordinary skill in the art based on the prior art before the filing date” shall begin with the technical problem the invention or utility model seeks to solve and the technical means adopted to solve that problem, and shall proceed through sequential steps.
The Supreme Court further rejected an approach that dissects an invention or utility model into individual elements or technical features and mechanically combines multiple prior art references to negate inventive steps. In the decision concerning the invention patent, the Court emphasised that the examination shall begin by identifying the “closest prior art”. This refers to a single reference that would most likely serve as the starting point for research and development and would be most likely to lead to the claimed invention. Such reference shall then be used as the baseline for comparison, thereby avoiding findings of inventive steps based solely on hindsight-driven combinations of multiple references.
In addition, with respect to the core assessment of inventive steps, the Supreme Court expressly introduced the “could–would principle”, under which the analysis is not confined to a theoretical assessment of whether the technology could be successfully implemented. Rather, the assessment must also consider whether there was an apparent willingness to attempt and an apparent willingness to carry out the claimed technical solution, taking into account whether there existed concrete motivations, incentives or factual bases that would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to actually undertake and complete the technical concept. As this approach necessarily involves consideration of the subjective mindset of the person having ordinary skill in the art, the Supreme Court further noted that the assessment shall be grounded in objective evidence, including factors such as the relatedness of the technical fields and the commonality of the problems to be solved.
Through these decisions, the Supreme Court has progressively established specific and consistent judicial guidance on the steps for assessing inventive steps, the appropriate comparative baseline, and the avoidance of hindsight bias, providing important direction for future patent validity disputes. In both cases, the Court held that the second-instance courts’ determinations on inventive steps failed to conform to the foregoing standards, thereby constituting contravention of the laws and inadequate reasoning, and accordingly vacated and remanded the original judgments. How courts of fact will apply these guidelines in future assessments of inventive steps remains to be seen.
Trade Mark: Implementation of the Accelerated Examination Mechanism on Registration Applications
The officially announced average examination period for trade mark registration applications in Taiwan is approximately eight months, which is relatively efficient by international standards. Nevertheless, as the number of trade mark applications continues to increase and examination resources remain finite, certain applicants face difficulties in obtaining trade mark protection within a shorter timeframe. In response to this practical demand, Taiwan amended its Trademark Act in May 2023 to introduce an accelerated examination mechanism, which formally came into effect in May 2024.
Under this mechanism, applicants who can demonstrate an immediate need to secure trade mark rights may apply separately for accelerated examination after filing a trade mark registration application, provided that relevant facts and reasons are substantiated. Where the application satisfies the statutory requirements and enters substantive examination, TIPO will in principle issue a first examination action within two months. If the application is approved and the registration fee is paid within the prescribed period, the overall time required to obtain trade mark registration may be reduced by nearly half.
Taiwan’s accelerated trade mark examination mechanism is available on two grounds. The first involves applications where the trade mark has already been put to actual use, or where substantial preparations for use have been completed, in respect of all designated goods or services. The second applies where actual use or substantial preparations for use have been completed only for certain designated goods or services, but where there exists a commercial necessity and urgency to obtain trade mark rights.
According to statistics released by TIPO as of 30 June 2025, a total of 212 applications for accelerated examination had been filed, of which 163 were approved. Among the approved cases, applications demonstrating actual use or substantial preparations for use in respect of all designated goods or services accounted for the largest proportion, at approximately 65.6%. Conversely, rejected applications were predominantly those relying on broadly framed assertions of commercial urgency without concrete supporting evidence. This examination trend shows TIPO’s attempt to respond to genuine business needs while ensuring that the accelerated examination mechanism does not undermine the processing of general trade mark applications.
Conclusion
With the rapid advancement of technology and the burgeoning development of AI, the legal framework surrounding intellectual property rights is gradually becoming more complex and diverse. In the coming years, the legal framework for intellectual property protection will experience rapid development, which involves not only the legal systems of various countries but also cross-border co-operation and the challenges of globalised law. For businesses and creators, effectively protecting their innovative achievements in different jurisdictions will become an important issue. In particular, for the specific country or region where parties are located or where their market operates, local professional lawyers can provide more detailed and in-depth advice, helping them avoid legal risks and ensuring that their intellectual property is optimally protected.
著作權：生成式AI創作保護之發展
生成式人工智慧（下稱「GAI」）持續蓬勃發展，影響力遍及各產業，與著作權法的適用與衝突也依舊成為智慧財產權法矚目的議題之一。GAI生成之創作是否可受到台灣著作權法保護，雖然目前尚無相關司法判決可供依循，但台灣智慧財產局於2022年的行政函釋已明確揭示創作如係由GAI獨立完成，且欠缺人類實際創意投入，即非受著作權法保護之著作，此一見解也經援引至台灣文化部於2025年7月發布之《文化藝術應用生成式AI指引》（下稱「GAI指引」），其中並指出當GAI作為創作輔助工具，而創作人透過修改、增補、刪減、編輯等方式，對GAI生成內容投入人類創意，且該成果係依創作人指令所完成，非由GAI隨機生成時，該創作成果即有受到著作權保護之可能。
整體而言，GAI指引主要係就文化藝術工作者運用GAI進行創作、利用GAI生成成果所可能涉及之著作權風險，以及GAI對既有著作權益之影響，提供框架性之風險辨識與因應建議。雖然GAI指引屬行政指導性質，不具法律拘束力，惟其中關於創作歷程保存（例如以區塊鏈或其他方式留存創作過程）及應用GAI之風險檢查表，仍不排除在未來AI相關著作權爭議中作為參考。未來，主管著作權法制之智慧財產局是否進一步參與相關指引之研擬或整合，以在爭議發生前逐步形塑更為具體且可預期之規範與標準，亦值得後續觀察。
專利：台灣最高法院就專利進步性之審查明確引入「Could-Would法則」
最高法院於2024年在涉及發明專利之113年度台上字第459號民事判決中，已就專利進步性之判斷方法建立明確的審查架構；而2025年在涉及新型專利之113年度台上字第453號民事判決，則延續並確認前述判決所採之認定方式。兩件判決指出是否「為所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者依申請前先前技術所能輕易完成」，應以發明/新型專利欲解決之問題及解決問題所需採取之技術手段為出發點，再按特定步驟判斷。
最高法院進一步否定將發明/新型拆解為個別元件或技術特徵，再機械式地拼湊不同先前技術進而否定申請專利之發明/新型之進步性的認定方式，在涉及發明專利之判決中，並要求審查時應先界定「最接近之先前技術」，即最能作為研發起點、最有可能促成該發明完成之單一引證文件，以之作為差異比對的基礎，避免僅以事後組合多項引證而認定發明/新型屬於「能輕易完成」。
此外，就進步性之判斷的重點，最高法院更明確引入「could-would法則」，即非僅理論上判斷技術能否執行成功，而應綜合判斷「是否顯然有意願嘗試」與「是否顯然有意願執行」，審酌是否存在具體動機、誘因、或相關事實基礎而使通常知識者將實際著手並完成該技術構想。由於此一判斷法則涉及通常知識者的主觀想法，因此判斷上應綜合客觀事證，諸如技術領域之關聯性、欲解決問題之共通性等因素。
最高法院就專利進步性之審查步驟、比較基準及避免後見之明之判斷方法，逐步建立具體且一致之裁判指引，對後續專利有效性之審理具有重要指標意義。兩件判決均認為二審法院就爭議專利之進步性認定未能符合前揭判斷標準，屬違背法令及理由不備，而將原判決廢棄發回。後續事實審法院如何依據該等指引具體為進步性之認定，值得關注。
商標：註冊申請案加速審查制度正式施行後之概況
台灣商標註冊申請案件所公告之平均審查期間為八個月，於各國比較之下已屬相對有效率。然而隨著商標註冊申請案件數逐年成長，且審查人力資源有限，部分申請人仍面臨無法即時取得商標權保護之困難。為回應此一實務需求，台灣於2023年5月修正商標法，引入加速審查制度，並自2024年5月起正式施行。依該制度，申請人如有即時取得權利之必要，得於提出商標註冊申請後，另行敘明事實與理由申請加速審查。符合要件者，於進入個案審查程序後，原則上智慧財產局將於兩個月內作出第一次審查通知；如屬核准審定且申請人依限繳納註冊費，取得商標權之整體時程可望縮短近半。
台灣商標加速審查制度之事由有二，其一，申請人就全部指定之商品或服務已實際使用或就使用進行相當準備；其二，申請人就部分指定之商品或服務已實際使用或就使用進行相當準備，並在商業上有取得權利之必要性及急迫性。依智慧財產局截至2025年6月30日之統計，加速審查申請案件共計212件，其中准予加速審查者為163件。於核准案件中，以全部指定商品或服務已實際使用或完成相當準備之案件占比最高，約為65.6%，未獲准之案件則多集中於概括主張「有其他商業上取得權利之必要性及急迫性」之類型。此一審查取向亦反映智慧局在回應實務需求與避免加速審查制度排擠一般案件審查資源之間，所採取的審慎平衡立場。
結語
隨著科技的迅速進步與AI技術的蓬勃發展，智慧財產權的相關法律體系也正逐漸變得更加複雜與多樣化。未來幾年內，智慧財產權保護的法律框架將會迎來快速的發展，這不僅涉及到各國的法律制度，也涉及跨國合作與全球化的法律挑戰。對於企業與創作者而言，如何在不同的法域中有效保護自己的創新成果，將成為一項重要的課題。特別是針對當事人所在地或市場所及的國家/地區，當地的專業律師將能為他們提供更具體、深入的建議，幫助其避免法律風險，並確保您的智慧財產權能夠獲得最佳的保護。