| Summary: | 碩士 === 中原大學 === 財經法律研究所 === 99 === Given the growing global tide for protection of intellectual property rights, Taiwan has also set up its intellectual property court (IPR Court). The court commenced operation on July 1, 2008 in a bid to improve the efficiency and enhance professionalism in the judgment of IPR cases and thoroughly resolve the lingering problem of procrastination in litigation and inadequate professionalism of judges. The Organization Act of Intellectual Property Court has referenced the legal systems of various nations and set up the technical examination officer. In judgment law, the positioning of technical examination officer is to play an auxiliary role in the court, that is, to supplement the inadequate professionalism of the judge. This is a brilliant idea. Nevertheless, the operation of this technical examination officer system is confronted with intense challenge and full of imaginative space. The intellectual property practicers have laid much emphasis and concern on the development of intellectual property litigation. This research proceeds from procedural protection in reviewing the intellectual property court and the controversies in practical operation of the technical examination officer system since its inception. The technical examination officer is often accused for being shadow judges because of its equivocal positioning. With under staffed, the limited number of technical examination officers cannot handle so many patent litigation cases with myriad technical fields. Besides, the technical examination officer are also complained for circumventing regulations, arbitrary judgment for the validity of patents, reluctance to release technical reports, explaining or questioning the concerned person, and seemingly replaced the professionals yet failed to carry out necessary investigation based on evidence. In addition, the research also discusses whether the judge has actively inquired about the person concerned and appropriately explored the influence of discretional evaluation of evidence to litigation rights and benefits of the concerned person and lastly tries to present some recommendations for possible reform of shortcomings generated from the technical examination officer system. This is the conclusion of this article.
|
|---|
