Yearly Update on the Progress of the TIPS Project – summary of a research report on corporate investors’ view on introducing a corporate IP disclosure framework
Chien-Shan Chiu
Background
In the era where inventions drive the economy, the ability to create, capture and protect these inventive ideas has become vital for a corporation to stay competitive and sustain profit growth. Various government policies have been implemented in order to stimulate inventions and to strengthen the ability to protect these inventions through effective use of intellectual property (“IP”) rights. For the past few years, the TIPS (Taiwan Intellectual Property Management System) project has been promoted extensively aiming to increase public awareness towards IP rights and to assist local companies to establish a systematic and comprehensive IP management system.
Over the years, the TIPS project has received wide recognition and positive feedbacks, and many TIPS-implemented companies are ready for the next challenges. After an extensive research, the project proposes to follow the international trend of encouraging companies to make better and more disclosure of intangible assets that are not often shown in the traditional financial statements1 . Local companies with effective IP management system and strategy are encouraged to compile an “Intellectual Property Management Report” summarizing its business, R&D and IP management strategies as well as their accumulated IP assets.
In order to compile an Intellectual Property Management Report, a company is advised to re-identify its intellectual property, re-think about its strength and weakness in every aspect and where necessary, the company may also need to re-conduct a market, technology trend or competitor’s analysis, through which it is believed that a better and more effective IP strategy will be re-formulated. Formulating a well-planned corporate strategy that takes into account various IP issues is one of the main reasons for introducing the corporate IP disclosure framework.
Promoting the disclosure of IP-related information so that the management efforts, visions and true capabilities of a corporation can be fully disclosed and recognized is the second major reasons for introducing the corporate IP disclosure framework.
This essay begins with a brief update on the yearly progress of the TIPS project, follows by a summary of the research report on corporate investors’ view on initiating a framework for enhancing disclosure of corporate IP-related information. The research report contains the result of a survey conducted between April and June this year (year 2009), consisting questions to uncover local investors’ view and attitudes towards corporate IP, and to identify kinds of IP-related information required when making an investment decision as well as to find out to what extend local investors would support the government’s initiative on promoting a corporate IP disclosure framework.
Update on the Yearly Progress of the TIPS Project
In order to facilitate the promotion of TIPS, several supplementary services have been introduced (fees and expenses are fully or partially subsidized by the government this year) :
(1) Free On-Line Self-Assessment Tool;
(2) On-Site Diagnostic and Consulting Service (selected companies were fully subsidized);
(3) “Demonstrative” Model Companies (selected companies were partially subsidized);
(4) IP Management Courses (partially subsidized);
(5) On-Site Auditing (for the Conformance of TIPS requirements) and issuing of the TIPS Compliance Certification (fully subsidized)
.
To the end of 2009, 401enterprises have completed the on-line self-assessment questions; 93 companies have received on-site diagnostic and consultation services; 847 persons have taken the IP management courses; 64 enterprises have successfully obtained the certificates for the compliance of TIPS and more than 299 enterprises have either completed or in the middle of implementing TIPS.
Summary of the Research Report on Corporate Investor s’ View on Introducing a Corporate IP Disclosure Framework
Even though it is clear that the idea of encouraging corporations to disclose non-financial information has started few decades ago in Europe and are currently being vigorously promoted by many major countries, we believe that in order to facilitate smooth promotion of the new IP disclosure framework, it is important to find out the local investors’ views and attitudes towards IP and to know how investors see the role of IP can play in a local corporation. Hence a survey was conducted at the initial stage of preparing the new corporate IP disclosure framework in Taiwan.
The survey was sent via both mails and emails to 357 corporations, including venture capital firms; trust, investment consulting or management firms; security corporations, financial institutions and banks. More than one set of survey questionnaires could be distributed in one corporation to be filled by investors/analysts that are specialized in investing different industrial sectors. As a result, a total of 495 set of questionnaires were distributed..
Basic Data
The survey was conducted between April to June 2009. At the end of June, a total of 150 investors/analysts responded which equals to a 33% response rate. Most of the survey respondents specialized in investing in various industrial sectors which include: semi-conductor; telecommunication; electronic components; 3C products; IT; optical; biotechnology; pharmaceuticals; new energy resources; media; creative and culture and traditional manufacturing industries.
Around 50% of the survey respondents have more than 5 years’ experience in investment; among them, 23% of the survey respondents have more than 10 years’ investment experience.
Investors recognize the importance of IP
A remarkable 94% of the survey respondents recognized that the ability to create, protect, manage and exploit IP has become an essential element for a company to stay competitive and sustain growth in today’s market environment. 88% of the survey respondents believe that companies with more or better IP assets are more likely to generate profits and 91% believe that such companies are more likely to survive in this ever-increasing competitive environment.
Yet, 94% of the survey respondents agreed that not only a company should actively create IP assets, but the ability to exploit and thus extract value from the accumulated IP assets is what makes a company stand out among the others.
Taking a step further, the survey result reveals that the respondent investors believe a company with effective and well-planned IP strategy is likely to:
– Enhance its market competitiveness (84%);
– Raise its overall corporate value (71%);
– Maintain its market position (55%);
– Increase its profitability (32%);
– Affect its share price (30%);
– Assist investors in evaluating such company’s managerial ability and performance (29%) as well as evaluating its future growth potential (28%).
IP-related information influences investors’ investment decisions
Given that most investors see the ability to create, manage and exploit IP assets as well as having a well-planned IP strategy are crucial for the survival of a company, 82% of the survey respondents indicate that IP-related information has been considered when making an investment decision. Furthermore, 85% of the survey respondents think that they will place greater emphasis on IP in assessing companies in the future.
Indicators that used to assess/evaluate a company
Most often used IP-related indicators identified by the survey respondents when making investment decisions are:
– Core technology and its market competitiveness (77%)
– Research ability (experience and achievement) (73%)
– IP protection and management measures (41%)
– IP strategy (align with overall corporate strategy and market/technology characteristics) (40%)
– Ability to fully utilize self-owned IP assets (38%)
– R&D expenditure and investment (35%)
– No. of IP assets (35%)
– Time taken for competing products to enter into the market (33%)
– Cost of maintaining IP assets (19%)
Ratio of intangible assets as to the overall corporate value (19%)
:
20% of the survey respondents indicated that they have turned down investment in the past for inadequate IP awareness of the target companies.
List of local companies with good and effective IP strategy
The survey respondents were asked to name local Taiwanese companies which in their mind have most effective and sound IP strategy.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), Foxconn, United Microelectrc (UMC), HTC, Acer are the top 5 most named companies given by the survey respondents.
Having good quality of patents (such as essential or new technology patents); detailed and complete patent map; sound IP strategy; brand and professional IP/legal department are cited as the reasons that impress these investors.
Inadequacy of public available IP-related information
While most investors acknowledge the importance of IP and take into account various IP-related indicators when making investment decisions, 76% of the survey respondents expressed that currently, the amount of IP-related information disclosed by companies are not sufficient for them to make an informed investment decision.
When a question asking the survey respondents to identify the channels by which they obtained their desired IP-related information, the results were quite spread out. 45% of the survey respondents relied on asking the top managers directly; 43% relied on annual report; media and news (35%); website (34%); industrial journals (25%); competitors (15%) and other private channels (15%). It appears that various sources were used but no particular source provides sufficient information. Indeed, a remarkable 91% of the survey respondents believe that if there are more channels provided for corporations to disclose their internal IP information, more accurate assessment of the corporate value can be made.
Support government’s initiative of promoting IP reporting framework
Further, 73% of the survey respondents expressed their willingness to support the government’ s initiative of encouraging local companies to disclose their IP-related information. In relation to the initiation and promotion of the corporate IP disclosure framework, 64% of the survey respondents responded that it would be better to adopt a voluntarily disclosure policy and decide whether to switch to mandatory disclosure later; 22% think that only a voluntarily disclosure policy should be adopted followed by 14% of the survey respondents who believe that the government should adopt a mandatory disclosure policy from the start. When the survey respondents were asked to provide suggestions to facilitate the promotion of the corporate IP disclosure framework, the following suggestions were picked by the survey respondents:
– Provide valuation tools to assist investors in assessing and analyzing IP related information (40%);
– a central platform to collect and display all the complied IP management reports (21%);
– lists of compulsory items to be disclosed in the report (21%); and
– regulate the frequency of updating the contents of the report (15%).
Conclusion
Based on the results of the survey, we can conclude that the local investors’ view and attitude towards IP are similar to those in overseas. Majority of the investors (> 90%) see IP as valuable tools that could assist companies to create profits and sustain growth in today’s competitive market. While most of the investors (82%) have taken into account relevant IP information when making investment decisions, 76% of the survey respondents expressed that the amount of corporate IP-related information disclosed by companies are insufficient for them to make informed investment decisions. This is an important message that local companies should pay particular attention.
It is hoped that through the introduction of the corporate IP disclosure framework, more adequate corporate IP information will be disclosed to assist investors in making better and accurate investment decisions. Consequently, a company’s true capabilities, managerial efforts and the intangible assets created upon can thus be fully appreciated and reflected on its market value.
1 Various national and institutional initiatives addressing the disclosure of corporate intellectual assets are currently being promoted vigorously at the international level such as Japan’s “IA based Management Report, (METI)”; Denmark’s “Intellectual Capital Statement (MSTI)”; European Union’s “Guidelines on Intangibles, MERITUM project”; U.S.’s “EBR 2.0 (Enhance Business Reporting Consortium)”; and The World Intellectual Capital/Assets Initiative (WICI) is currently working on developing a voluntary global framework for measuring and reporting corporate performance.
Antitrust Liability to the Conduct of “Refusal to License” of the Standard Essential Patent 2022/07/19 The notion of Standard Essential Patent（SEP）emerges in the era when manufacturers seek ‘‘compatibility’’ and ‘‘interoperability’’ of their products. The concept of SEPs is proposed to help manufacturers ‘‘talk’’ to each other so the collective manufacturers enjoy the advantage of economies of scales. Meanwhile, the compatibility and interoperability derived from SEPs enhance the consumers’ valuation of the product which creates the ‘‘network effect’’ of the products. There is a long-debated issue in the field of SEP—to what extent shall the SEP holders license their patents in the various level of the supply chain. This issue has much to do with the ‘‘FRAND commitment’’, and is worthy of further analysis. I. SEP and FRAND Commitment The concept of SEP is—when any certain patented technology is selected by the ‘‘Standard Setting Organization’’（SSO）as the commonly used standard, such the patented technology is categorized as a SEP. The SEP holder therefore enjoys stronger ‘‘market power’’ because market participants have no choice but to use the SEP and are required to seek license from the SEP holders. Therefore, to prevent the SEP holders from abusing their market power, SSOs usually require SEP holders to make the FRAND commitment; that is, to license on ‘‘fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory’’ terms. Once the SEP holder breaches the commitment, the SSOs might exclude that technique from the standard. II. “License to all”or“Access to all”issues under FRAND Commitment The FRAND commitment, by textual reading incorporates the wording of ‘‘non-discriminatory’’, and can infer two co-related yet debatable concepts—the ‘‘License to all’’ or ‘‘Access to all’’ arguments. The ‘‘License to all’’ argument holds that all participants in the supply chain retain the access to the specified SEP, while the ‘‘Access to all’’ argument, on the contrary, contends that FRAND commitments don’t necessarily ask SEP holder to license to all practitioners, but when a SEP holder is going to license, he must license on FRAND terms. According to observations, there is a common phenomenon in the SEP licensing practice—most SEP holders tend to license only to the End-Product manufacturers rather than to the manufacturers of the ‘‘Smallest Saleable Patent Practicing Unit’’（SSPPU）. What the SEP holders expect through ‘‘refusal to license’’ to the SSPPU manufacturers are to maximize the potential royalties. Cases inclusive of the Qualcomm case[1] and the Continental case[2] have shown such practical tendency, and only when the SSOs can well define the definitions of FRAND commitments might the issue be truly settled. There are some End-Product manufacturers that consider it ‘‘discriminatory’’ and against the FRAND commitments if the SEP holders refuse to negotiate with SSPPU manufacturers requesting to be the licensee. On the other hand, some consider it inappropriate for the End-Product manufacturers to refuse all negotiations when the SEP holder requests it to be the party to the licensing negotiations[3]. III. The ‘‘refusal to license’’ and the derived Anti-Trust Issue As generally admitted, a firm has no general duty to deal with others[4]; however, there are times when SEP holders’ ‘‘refusal to deal∕license’’ behaviors can constitute wrongful monopoly under Sherman Act section 2. The U.S. judicial practices have categorized three main ‘‘refusal to deal∕license’’ behaviors as wrongful monopoly under Sherman Act section 2; they are[5]: 1.dominant firm forces its customers not to do business with new competitors of that firm, or the dominant firm will terminate business with the customer[6]; 2.dominant firm tries to abandon or alter an existing relationship[7]; 3.dominant firm refuses to provide access to ‘‘essential facility’’ (the equipment or techniques that is indispensable when others would like to compete in the relevant market with the dominant firm). As SEP can be categorized as an ‘‘essential facility’’, this paper will only focus on the third category. The ‘‘Essential Facility Doctrine’’ is—when any monopolist withholds an essential facility and refuses to provide his competitors with the access to the said essential facility, a wrongful monopoly due to the Facility holders’ ‘‘refusal to deal∕license’’ is constituted. According to the leading case—the MCI case[8], four factors are to be proved by the plaintiff when seeking resort to ‘‘Essential Facility Doctrine’’; they are:（1）the monopolist’s control of an essential facility;（2）the inability of a competitor to duplicate that essential facility;（3）the monopolist’s denial of access to that essential facility to a competitor;（4）the feasibility of providing the essential facility to the competitor by the monopolist. As we can shortly conclude here, if a SEP holder constitute wrongful monopoly because of his ‘‘refusal to license’’ behavior, the perquisite is that the SEP holder would like to join in the ‘‘competition’’ in the relevant market himself. IV. Conclusion—the commonly seen ‘‘refusal to license’’ behavior of SEP holders doesn’t constitute wrongful monopoly As mentioned before, ‘‘competition’’ serves as the prerequisite for the ‘‘Essential Facility Doctrine’’; thus, some SEP holders’ refusal to license to SSPPU manufacturers behaviors—such as Qualcomm in the Qualcomm case and Nokia in the Continental case—are not in accordance with ‘‘Essential Facility Doctrine’’ and do not constitute wrongful monopoly. Qualcomm and Nokia chose not to license to SSPPU manufacturers merely because they want to earn more royalties by licensing to End-Product manufacturers; they didn’t make this choice because themselves would like to compete in the SSPPU markets. However, since there is no clear definition of FRAND yet, whether the SEP holders have truly breached the FRAND commitment remains unsolved puzzle and shall retain to SSO’s clearer definition and the Court’s further rulings. [1]FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020). SEP holder Qualcomm would only like to license to the cellphone OEM manufactures rather than to other chips manufacturers. [2]Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Avanci, LLC, et al, No. 20-11032 (5th Cir. 2022). SEP holder Nokia and a licensing platform—Avanci (that Nokia had joined) would only like to license to car manufacturers rather than to Telematics Control Unit（TCU）manufacturers. [3]Japan Patent Office [JPO], GUIDE TO LICENSING NEGOTIATIONS INVOLVING STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENTS (2018), https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/support/general/sep_portal/document/index/guide-seps-en.pdf(last visited July 19, 2022). [4]See United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919);Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009); Aerotec Int'l v. Honeywell Int'l, 836 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2016) [5]ANDREW I. GAVIL, WILLIAM E. KOVACIC & JONATHAN B. BAKER, ANTITRUST LAW IN PERSPECTIVE: CASES, CONCEPTS AND PROBLEMS IN COMPETITION POLICY 630-654 (2002). [6]See Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143 (1951) [7]See Image Technical Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 504 U.S. 451 (1992); Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985) [8]MCI Communications Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 708 F.3d 1081 (7th Cir. 1983)
Blockchain in Intellectual Property ProtectionBackground Blockchain is a technology with the ability to decentral and distribute information. It records encrypted information of the user’s behavior. Blockchain has disintermediate, transparency, programmable, autonomous, immutable and anonymous essential features. The first application of blockchain is to develop cryptocurrency and a payment system, Bitcoin, which has overturned traditional concept of the currency model we knew. So far, blockchain has been widely applied in many territories, such as the intellectual property protection system, called the Blockai, which is a website using blockchain to overcome the plight of piracy in the United States. Example The Library of Congress in the United States found that it had been lack of efficiency for the copyright management. Blockai provided a solution for the Library. Authors will benefit from having proof of publication and copyright monitoring by registering with Blockai. The Blockai system securely timestamps copyright claims in the distributed database based on the Bitcoin protocol. For each copyright claim, a proof file is made available through the footer of the certificate and can be verified by authors using this open source proof verification tool, and it is free of charge for everyone. Although the "Proof of Publication" does not constitute admissible evidence in a trial, it is still credible in its technical features. Conclusion In Taiwan, there is still no copyright registering system. Before a copyright infringement suit may be filed in court, the burden of proof is on the copyright owner. For it is difficult for the copyright owner to provide a credible evidence in trial. We may consider using the experiences of other countries for our reference, developing the intellectual property protection system based on blockchain technology in order to help authors preserve their rights, and provide legal services as a legal technology.
The Introduction to the Trade Secret Management System StandardThe Introduction to the Trade Secret Management System Standard 2024/02/06 The “Trade Secret Management System”, released by the Science & Technology Law Institute of Institute for Information Industry on March 1, 2023, is a standard to guide organizations developing a systematic trade secret management system in alignment with relevant regulations and their operation objectives. Its aim is to assist the organizations reducing the risks of trade secret leakage while improving organizational competitive advantages. The Trade Secret Management System standard provides a framework for organizations to design, implement, and continuously improve their trade secret management performance. As defined in Article 2 of the Trade Secrets Act, "trade secret" could be any method, technique, process, formula, program, design, or other information that may be used in the course of production, sales, or operations, meeting following requirements: 1. It is not known to persons generally involved in the information of this type; 2. It has economic value, actual or potential, due to its secretive nature; and 3. Its owner has taken reasonable measures to maintain its secrecy. The Trade Secret Management System standard comprises a total of 10 chapters. The following is a brief overview of each chapter: Chapter 1: This chapter indicates the standard is applicable to all organizations regardless of their types, sizes, and the products or services they provide. It mentions that the organization can determine their management approached to meet the requirements of the standard. Chapter 2: This chapter provides the definitions of specific terms used in the standard. Chapter 3: This chapter introduces the top management’s responsibility to ensure the establishment, continuous appropriateness, completeness, and effectiveness of the trade secret management system. Chapter 4: This chapter requires the organization to define the scope of its trade secrets and ensure the defined trade secrets can be identified. This chapter also requires organization set up the permission to restrict access to personnel who need to know or use the trade secrets. Chapter 5: This chapter introduces the organization shall control the use of trade secrets, including actions such as copying, destruction, etc. Additionally, organization shall preserve the records of the aforementioned use of trade secrets and detect if any abnormal usage exists. Chapter 6: This chapter discusses measures the organization shall take for internal personnel control. These measures include regular training on trade secret-related requirements, signing of confidentiality agreements, and various management actions the organization should take throughout the processes of personnel recruitment, employment, and departure. Chapter 7: This chapter demonstrates the organization’s management of environments, equipment and internet involving its trade secrets. It requires the implementation of access control measures for places where trade secrets are stored or processed. It also stipulates controls on the use of record media and devices which can access trade secrets, as well as controlling the transmission of trade secrets via network. Chapter 8: This chapter introduces the management measures the organization shall take when interacting with other parties. These measures include signing non-disclosure agreement (NDAs) with the party who will access trade secrets and requiring such party not to hold the trade secrets once the corporation ends. Chapter 9: This chapter introduces that the organization shall establish a trade secret dispute resolution procedure to prevent or mitigate damages to the organization caused by disputes. Chapter10: This chapter outlines the supervision and the improvement of the trade secret management system of the organization. Organizations can follow the standard to build their own trade secret management system based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) concept. The trade secret management system would include defining trade secrets to be managed, establishing protocols for the use of trade secrets, managing employees, controlling of internet, devices and environment related to trade secrets, regulating external activities, developing trade secret dispute resolution procedure, and regularly monitoring the effectiveness to improve trade secret management performance. This standard could serve as a benchmark for the organization or third parties to evaluate compliance with expected trade secret managements.
DJSI x TIPS: STLI Supports Enterprises in Optimizing IP Management to Achieve ESG-Oriented Sustainable Operations Through Promoting Taiwan Intellectual Property Management System (TIPS)DJSI x TIPS: STLI Supports Enterprises in Optimizing IP Management to Achieve ESG-Oriented Sustainable Operations Through Promoting Taiwan Intellectual Property Management System (TIPS) 2025/05/21 With the global push for sustainable development, the connection between Intellectual Property (IP) and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) considerations has become increasingly significant. Leading economies such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the United States, the European Union, and Japan have all incorporated IP policy into their ESG development strategies to drive green innovation and reinforce corporate social responsibility. Taiwan is actively responding to this global trend. In addition to transforming its Corporate Governance Evaluation into an ESG Evaluation by 2026, adjustments are also being made at the policy level. Government agencies such as the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) have introduced resources like the "Green Trademark Analysis" and "Green Technology Patent Analysis" to support enterprises in integrating ESG strategies with IP management. Furthermore, the Science & Technology Law Institute (STLI) of the Institute for Information Industry has been promoting the Taiwan Intellectual Property Management System (TIPS), urging enterprises to connect IP management with ESG principles to enhance their sustainability practices. As IP management becomes a critical element in sustainable development and evaluation systems, enterprises are encouraged to actively engage with these policy tools to strengthen their ESG performance and global competitiveness. Promotion of TIPS and 2025 Award Ceremony The Industrial Development Administration (IDA) of the Ministry of Economic Affairs commissioned the Science & Technology Law Institute (STLI) of the Institute for Information Industry (III) to promote the Taiwan Intellectual Property Management System (TIPS). On February 20th, the 2025 TIPS Award Ceremony and Special Seminar on IP Management and ESG Integration was held at the Center for Public and Business Administration Education National Chengchi University, where Deputy Director-General Yu-Hsin Tsou awarded TIPS certification certificates to 91 enterprises that passed the verification in 2024, including Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC), United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC), Yulon Motor Co., Ltd., Vanguard International Semiconductor Corporation, Sino-American Silicon Products Inc., and Yuanta Futures Co., Ltd.—companies that have ranked in the top 5% for corporate governance for 11 consecutive terms—demonstrating that intellectual property management contributes to enhanced corporate governance performance. Phote source: Photos from the 2025 TIPS Award Ceremony and Special Seminar on IP Management and ESG Integration, Innovation & Intellectual Property Center, Science & Technology Law Institute (STLI). TIPS Certification Reaches Record High, Nearly 80% of Certified Companies Listed in the DJSI World Index and the DJSI Emerging Markets Index Deputy Director General Tsou stated that the number of companies passing TIPS certification in 2024 has reached a new high of 140. Companies certified under TIPS not only perform excellently in Corporate Governance Evaluation but also stand out in ESG-related performance rankings. In 2024, nearly 80% of the Taiwanese enterprises listed in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (DJSI World Index) and the Dow Jones Sustainability Emerging Markets Index (DJSI Emerging Markets Index) have obtained certification under the Taiwan Intellectual Property Management System (TIPS). Adapting to International Trends: Aligning Corporate Governance with ESG In response to the global emphasis on ESG and sustainable development, companies are encouraged to enhance sustainable operations through improved corporate governance. At this award ceremony, special seminars were given by Director Chen-Shan Chang of the Securities and Futures Bureau, Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC), Deputy Director Chun-Chieh Lai of the Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection, Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA), and Director Cheng-Wei Liao of the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO), Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA). Securities and Futures Bureau: Guiding Companies to Explore and Implement a Dual-Track Strategy IP and ESG through ESG Evaluation The Securities and Futures Bureau outlined its plan to transition the Corporate Governance Evaluation into the ESG Evaluation by 2026, highlighting the connection between corporate governance and sustainable development, as well as the policy rationale behind the shift. It also introduced the structure of the forthcoming ESG evaluation, including the principles of indicator design and their strategic underpinnings. The Bureau noted that companies currently participating in the governance evaluation are predominantly part of corporate groups, which often lead efforts to emphasize intellectual property (IP) management. Companies with stronger ESG performance are likewise more likely to view IP as a strategic asset. Based on these findings, the Bureau encouraged enterprises to strategically integrate IP management into their ESG frameworks to generate synergy through a dual-track approach, while also advocating for enhanced ESG-related information disclosure to strengthen sustainable operations, and recommending the acquisition of TIPS (Taiwan Intellectual Property Management System) certification to showcase ESG strengths. Bureau of Standards: Effectively Utilizing Management Standards to Accelerate the Implementation of ESG Sustainability Management in Enterprises The Bureau of Standards advised that, in the course of implementing ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) through management systems such as ISO, companies should exercise due diligence in verifying whether the engaged training or certification bodies have been accredited by competent authorities or credible independent third-party organizations, so as to ensure the credibility and substantive effectiveness of their ESG performance and to prevent potential challenges to its legitimacy. Intellectual Property Office: Understanding the Key Points of IP and ESG Integration through Global Policy Trends, including Green Patents and Green Trademarks The Intellectual Property Office actively highlighted how international policy frameworks are increasingly integrating intellectual property with environmental (E) and social (S) aspects. For example: In April 2024, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published Mapping Innovation: Patents and the Sustainable Development Goals, which found that 13 out of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are associated with relevant patent technologies. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has promoted the "Patents for Humanity Award" since 2013 and launched the "Trademarks for Humanity Award" in 2024to recognize innovators who leverage patents and trademarks to tackle challenges related to energy, the environment, and climate change. Japan’s Patent Office (JPO) released a Green Transformation Technology Classification List in June 2022 to guide green innovation. In recent years, the Taiwanese Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) has responded to international trends by increasingly emphasizing green patents and green trademarks in its policies, and has provided tools such as the "Taiwan Green Trademark Analysis" and "Green Technology Patent Analysis." During seminars, it has shared practical cases from well-known companies like Apple and TSMC, demonstrating how green patents and trademarks can be integrated into ESG strategies. As a result, the TIPO encourages companies to leverage both domestic and international resources to strategically align intellectual property with ESG objectives, using green patent and trademark portfolios to protect ESG-driven innovation and build sustainable brands. Science & Technology Law Institute: Exploring New Approaches to Trade Secret Protection and Capital Market Integration through the Concept of IP ETFs Finally, Deputy Director Tsung-Hsuan Tsou of the Science & Technology Law Institute at the Institute for Information Industry stated that, in response to the 2026 transition from Corporate Governance Evaluation to ESG Evaluation, and given that trade secret protection and supply chain management have become critical for companies facing global competition and pursuing sustainable development, the Institute will continue to guide enterprises in accordance with the TIPS intellectual property management framework to strengthen trade secret protection and supply chain management and to align with international trends; furthermore, it will promote the integration of intellectual property with capital markets, for example, by developing Intellectual Property Exchange-Traded Funds (IP ETFs) to provide enterprises with new perspectives on value creation and investment decision-making.
- Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Scientific Research Legal System and Response Thereto (1) – For Example, The Finnish Innovation Fund (“SITRA”)
- The Demand of Intellectual Property Management for Taiwanese Enterprises
- Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Research Legal System and Response Thereto (2) – Observation of the Swiss Research Innovation System
- Blockchain in Intellectual Property Protection
- Recent Federal Decisions and Emerging Trends in U.S. Defend Trade Secrets Act Litigation
- Copyright Ownership for Outputs by Artificial Intelligence
- The effective and innovative way to use the spectrum: focus on the development of the "interleaved/white space"
- Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Research Legal System and Response Thereto (2) – Observation of the Swiss Research Innovation System