Answer ... Although no laws or bylaws require the Taiwan IP and Commercial Court to hold special hearings to interpret disputed claim terms, as the US courts do in Markman hearings, IP and Commercial Court judges are increasingly adopting this practice, requesting the parties to present arguments on claim construction at an early stage of a patent infringement lawsuit.

Answer ... The standard of clear and convincing evidence is adopted in terms of claim construction disputes which are deemed as a matter of law (while the preponderance of evidence standard is adopted for adjudication of factual disputes in patent infringement lawsuits). Occasionally, the IP and Commercial Court issues its own version of claim construction where it believes the parties’ interpretations are both wrong.

Answer ... Both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence may be considered in defining disputed claim terms. However, intrinsic evidence is accorded higher priority. If the intrinsic evidence is sufficient to render a clear interpretation to the claim language and the meaning of its technical features, it is not necessary to consider the extrinsic evidence. If extrinsic evidence and intrinsic evidence are in conflict or inconsistent with respect to the interpretation of the claims, priority will be given to the intrinsic evidence (Important Notes on Patent Infringement Assessment).