Discussion on the Formation of Taiwan’s Network of Intellectual Property Collaboration System in light of Japan’s Experience
Background
Taiwan industries have been facing an increasing pressure from the competitive global market. To assist the Taiwan industries, the Government has approved the “National Intellectual Property Strategy Guideline” (the “Guideline”) on 17 October 2012. The Guideline stipulates six major strategies and twenty-seven relevant enforcement criteria in relation to intellectual property (“IP”). The six major strategies are as follows:
(a) creation and utilization of high-value patents;
(b) enforcing cultural integrity;
(c) creation of high agricultural value;
(d) support free flow of IP for academics;
(e) support system of IP trade flows and protection; and
(f) develop highly qualified personnel in IP.
Under the “innovation of high-value patents” strategy, the relevant enforcement criterion, being “establishing academia-industry collaborative system for IP management”, is to support the Taiwan’s current and future technology development program on R&D planning, IP management and technology commercialization. In other words, this enforcement criterion can greatly improve the ambiguity and inadequacy of Taiwan’s research infrastructure which have caused inefficient research operation. Furthermore, this enforcement criterion can also improve network collaboration between organizations on IP management, allowing more efficient process for managing IP and thus achieving the purpose of “creation and utilization of high-value patent”.
In light of the above, this article studies Japan’s practice on integrating the IP network resources and improving their IP management under the University Network IP Advisors Program (“IP Advisors Program”).University Network IP Advisors Framework Outline
A. Policy background, goals and methodology
National Center for Industrial Property Information and Training (“INPIT”) initiated the IP Advisors Program and commissioned Japan Institute for Promoting Invention and Innovation (“JIII”) to implement and carry out the new policy in year 2011.
Prior to the implementation of the new policy by JIII, INPIT has assisted with establishing proper IP management systems for more than 60 Japanese universities by dispatching IP experts and advisors (“IP Advisors”) to each of the universities during 2002 to March 2011. After the implementation of the initial policy, review has suggested that by expanding the network collaboration, such as establishing intervarsity IP information sharing system within their university networks, the universities can fully aware of and identify technologies that were created by them and are beneficial to the industrial sector. In addition, expanding the network collaboration can also help the universities to quickly develop mechanisms that will enable them properly protect and utilize their acquired IP rights. Accordingly, after 2011, the initial policy has expanded its scope and became the current IP Advisors Program.
Japan is expected to improve its nation’s ability to innovate and create new technologies. To attain this goal, Japan has identified that the basis for industry-academia-government R&D consortiums is through obtaining information on universities’ and other academic organizations’ research technologies and IP so that Japan can appropriately place these universities in the appropriate wide-area network. This will allow the universities within the wide-area network to establish IP management policy to properly protect and utilize their IP rights.
The current IP Advisors Program is conducted through application from the universities in established wide-area network to JIII. Upon review of the application, JIII will then dispatch the IP Advisor to the applicant university of that wide-area network. IP Advisors not only can provide solutions to general IP related problems, they can also provide professional advice and service on how to establish and operate IP management system for all the universities within the wide-area network.
B. IP advisors’ role
In principle, IP Advisors are stationed to the Administrative School or Major Supporting School within the wide-area network. IP Advisors can be dispatched to other member schools (“Member Schools”) or provide telephone inquiry service by answering IP related questions. In other words, IP Advisors are not stationed in any Member Schools to manage their IP management affairs, rather, IP Advisors advise or instruct the IP managers of the Member Schools on how to establish and utilize IP management system based on the Member School’s infrastructure. The contents of IP Advisors roles listed are as follows:
(a) Assist with activities within the wide-area network.
1. assist with establishing information sharing system between universities within the wide-area network;
2. assist with solving region-based or technology-based IP problems;
3. provide inquiry service for planning activities within wide-area network; and
4. provide inquiry service on other wide-area networks activities planning.(b) Provide services for Member Schools (Type 1) with undeveloped IP management system.
1. investigate or analyze the available IP management system in the Member Schools;
2. assist with drafting a plan to establish IP management system (through an assisting role) and provide instructions or advices accordingly;
3. direct personnel training (i.e. provide education on invention evaluation, assessment on applying for patent and contracts);
4. advocate different regimes of IP; and
5. collect relevant information on new developing technologies.(c) Provide services for Member Schools (Type 1) with developed IP management system
1. investigate or analyze the available IP management system in the Member Schools;
2. provide advices or instructions on the application of IP management department;
3. provide advices or instructions for solving IP management problems;
4. direct personnel training (i.e. provide education on invention evaluation, assessment on applying for patent and contracts);
5. advocate different regimes of IP; and
6. gather relevant information on new developing technologies.(d) Provide services for Member Schools (Type 2)
1.Share and exchange information through network conference.
C. Recruitment process and criteria
JIII adopts an open recruitment process without a set number of allocated IP Advisor positions. Working location is based in Member Schools of wide-area network in Japan. In principle, IP Advisors are stationed in Administrative Schools or Major Supporting Schools within the wide-area network and can only provide telephone inquiry service or temporary assignment for assistance to the Member Schools (Type 1). However, it is noted that IP Advisors do not belong to any specific university within the wide-area network, they are employed by JIII under an exclusive contract. Based on 2013 example, IP Advisors’ employment contract started from 1 April 2013 and expires on 31 March 2014. IP Advisors’ salary and travelling expenses are paid by JIII. However, expenses for Members School (Type 1) establishing a working environment and any other disbursements should be paid by the Member School (Type 1).
Furthermore, under the implementation of the current policy with respect to IP Advisors who are unable to comply with the new criteria, previous contract is considered as a non-periodical contract for the IP Advisors to continue to station in the university. However, if IP Advisor is stationed in a specific university, it must be limited to a maximum of 3 years. Due to the IP Advisors’ work, they must comply with the privacy law and keep any obtained information confidential.
D. IP advisors’ qualification
1. Require a high level of professional knowledge on IP management system
IP Advisor candidates must have relevant experience working in the industry with IP management system department, operation planning department, R&D department (collectively refer as “IP Management Related Departments”).
2. Have relevant experience in directing trainings in IP Management Related Departments
IP Advisor candidates must have the ability to train personnel in IP Management.
3. Can provide IP strategies based on the demands.
IP Advisor candidates must have the ability to plan and utilize IP strategies to achieve optimal outcomes in R&D base on the circumstances and needs of different universities.
4. Have referral from the supervisors.
IP Advisor candidates who are currently employed must be able to obtain a referral from their current positions’ supervisor, IP manager or personnel from higher up. IP Advisor candidates who are current unemployed must be able to obtain a referral from their previous employment.
E. IP advisors’ selection process
Based on JIII’s “University Network IP Advisors Adopted Standards” (“Adopted Standards”), IP Advisors are selected first through written application followed by interview. After a comprehensive assessment, all qualified candidates will be compared based on their compatibility of the essential criteria and other non-essential criteria, and finally selecting the most suitable candidate for the wide-area network.
F. Application criteria for IP advisors services
1.Common requirements for Member Schools of wide-area network
(a) must be an university or educational organization pursuant to the School Education Act (No. 26 of 1947) and must be able to conduct research and have set number of entry students and graduates per year;and
(b) university must have developed IP related technology or design.
2. Criteria for wide-area network
(a) Must have minimum of 3 and maximum of 8 Member Schools (Type 1) and 10 or less Member Schools (Type 2) combined, and have Member School (Type 1) entering wide-area network;
(b) Must clearly state the nature of network as region-based or technology-based;
(c) With Administrative School as base, the network must have collaborative system to plan network events;
(d) Administrative School must be able to propose and carry out network events which can benefit Member Schools (Type 1) and the society through annual business plan.
(e) Must be capable to provide indirect assistance to IP Advisors who are limited by time and region such that there is a proper environment to conduct wide-area network events.
3. Entry requirement for Member Schools (Type 1)
(a) Must include in the university’s policy that they will become a Member School (Type 1) in the network and provide assistance to IP Advisors accordingly;
(b) IP management and IP utilization system must be clearly implemented;
(c) must clearly state the scope of responsibility in relation to the collaboration with the Administration School;
(d) Propose and carry out an annual business plan which can improve IP management and utilization system to a certain level on their own; and
(e) Has the facility to allow IP Advisors to provide assistance and service.
4. Entry requirement for Member Schools (Type 2)
(a) Must include in the university’s policy that they will become a Member School (Type 2);
(b) Same as paragraph F(3)(b) in this article; and
(c) Same as paragraph F(3)(c) in this article.
G. Current status quo
The original aim was to establish the initial IP Advisors Program to assist with university’s IP management system by dispatching IP Advisors to 60 and more universities from 2002 to March 2011. The current wide-area university network IP Advisors Program started on April 2011. Since then, JIII has dispatched IP Advisors to 8 wide-area networks. In addition, IP Advisors have also been dispatched to wide-area network with art and design colleges/universities.
During year 2011, IP Advisors has achieved and completed several IP management policies as follows: 7 IP policies, 3 academia-industry collaboration policies, 2 conflicting interest policies and 2 collaborative research policies etc.
Recommendation
This article is based on a legal perspective view point, taking Japan’s IP Advisors Program as a reference to provide the following recommendations on the topic of network for academia-industry collaboration in Taiwan.
A. Separate levels of collaboration base on needs
Using Japan’s policy as an example, universities within the wide-area network require different content of services tailored to each university individually, and the universities can be categorized into two types of member schools based to the content of services. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Government should consider a similar approach to the Japan’s policy when establishing IP management alliance and forming network of IP management system. For instance, design different levels of content and collaboration, and thus expand collaboration targets to gradually include major legal research institute, technology transfer centre for universities, and IP services in northern, center and southern area of Taiwan. This will allow collaboration of these organizations to coordinate IP programs such as IP northern, application and utilization with ease.
B. Emphasis on the idea of establishing and maintaining IP basic facilities
Based on Japan’s past experience, it is recommended that before expanding IP Advisors related policy to solve regional IP problems, universities must first be assisted to improve their own IP management system, which has taken Japan almost 10 years to improve their universities’ IP management system. From the current IP management system policy, it can be observed that the establishment of IP management system has a certain relevant importance. Furthermore, there is an emphasis on IP Advisors’ experience in training IP managers. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Government in future planning of network IP collaborate system should set short term and long term goal flexibly, such that the basic IP facilities within the members of the network can develop continuously. For example, short term goal for a legal research institute can be growing to a certain size for it to adjust or implement IP related policies. As for longer term goal, it can be a requirement to set up a unit or department to operate and manage IP.
C. Expanding the definition of ‘Networks”
Taiwan and Japan are high populated country on an island with limited land. Thus, if Taiwan and Japan insist on maintaining the geographic position for networking concept and adopting such concept on the regional economics for cluster effects, then it is difficult for Taiwan and Japan to compete with American Silicon Valley or other overseas universities.
In light of the above, on establishing network of IP collaborative system, the Government should take reference from Japan’s practice in 2012 and combine same industry such as medicine industry or art industry in the definition of network. This will accelerate the integration of IP experience, information, and operation management capability within the network of same industry.
Conclusion
In conclusion, in order to establish academia-industry IP collaboration system and efficiently improve Taiwan’s IP management system in research organizations, first must focus on various policies tailored for different levels of collaboration so that it can be integrated and expand the integration of IP resources such that there is a good foundation to develop IP basic facilities. Following the establishment of good IP foundation, it can then be further develop to more complex IP programs such as IP landscape, planning and strategizing etc.
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)
Taiwan Intellectual Property Survey Report 2023Taiwan Intellectual Property Survey Report 2023 2024/06/27 Innovation & Intellectual Property Center, Science & Technology Law Institute (STLI), Institute for Information Industry has conducted the survey of “The Intellectual Property Survey Report” to listed companies since 2012. The Intellectual Property Survey Report 2023 on Taiwan's Listed and Over-the-Counter Companies was released in February 2024. Among the 331 publicly listed companies surveyed in 2023, the information technology sector had the largest representation, accounting for 44% (145 companies). This was followed by the manufacturing sector at 27% (90 companies), the pharmaceutical and livelihood sector at 18% (58 companies), and the industrial and commercial services sector at 11% (38 companies). Data source: Innovation & Intellectual Property Center, Science & Technology Law Institute (STLI), Taiwan Intellectual Property Survey Report 2023. Fig. 1 types of industry Based on the survey result, three trends of intellectual property management for Taiwanese enterprises have integrated with detail descriptions as below. Trend 1: Positive Growth in Intellectual Property Awareness and Intellectual Property Dedicated Department/Personnel, Budget and Projects 1. Taiwanese enterprises believe that intellectual property plays an important role More than 70% of companies believe that intellectual property can enhance product/service value, help profitability, and protect research results/core competitiveness. Specifically, 72% believe that intellectual property can enhance product/service value and help profitability, and 78% believe it can protect research results/core competitiveness. Additionally, 65% of companies believe that intellectual property can protect and enhance brand value, and 65% believe it can reduce the likelihood of disputes and infringements with others. Data source: Innovation & Intellectual Property Center, Science & Technology Law Institute (STLI), Taiwan Intellectual Property Survey Report 2023. Fig.2 The benefit of intellectual property for the company 2.Taiwanese enterprises maintain investment in the dedicated department and full time personnel for intellectual property 33% of listed companies set up full time personnel for intellectual property and over 32% of those have established dedicated department to handle its business that is higher than 35% in 2023. Data source: Innovation & Intellectual Property Center, Science & Technology Law Institute (STLI), Taiwan Intellectual Property Survey Report 2023. Fig.3 Department or personnel for intellectual property by year 3. Taiwanese enterprises plan budget for intellectual property each year 79% of enterprises have invested a certain amount of funds this year in acquiring, maintaining, and managing intellectual property. By industry, the information technology and pharmaceutical/livelihood sectors have a higher proportion of investment in related expenses, both exceeding 80% Data source: Innovation & Intellectual Property Center, Science & Technology Law Institute (STLI), Taiwan Intellectual Property Survey Report 2023. Fig. 4 fixed budget for intellectual property each year Trend 2: Taiwanese enterprises are willing to disclose their intellectual property information to the public, which can have a positive impact on the company. 1. Enterprises have a positive attitude towards disclosing intellectual property information. 72% of enterprises believe that disclosing intellectual property helps external parties objectively assess the company's value and competitiveness. This is followed by highlighting brand value (52%) and improving the internal management and control of intellectual property. By industry category, 77% of manufacturing companies believe it helps external parties objectively assess the company's value and competitiveness, which is higher than other industries. In the business services sector, 81% believe it helps highlight brand value, a significantly higher proportion. Data source: Innovation & Intellectual Property Center, Science & Technology Law Institute (STLI), Taiwan Intellectual Property Survey Report 2023. Fig. 5 Benefits of disclosing intellectual property management information for enterprises 2. The main channels for public disclosure are company annual reports, sustainability reports, and intellectual property management plans The proportion of companies disclosing intellectual property plans in annual reports reaches 72%. Additionally, approximately 39% and 38% disclose in sustainability reports or intellectual property management plans, respectively. The proportion disclosed in company marketing and promotional materials is 29%, while the proportion in English-language sustainability reports is 20%. Data source: Innovation & Intellectual Property Center, Science & Technology Law Institute (STLI), Taiwan Intellectual Property Survey Report 2023. Fig. 6 Channels for publicly disclosing corporate intellectual property management information Trend 3: Taiwanese enterprises use various types of intellectual property rights to protect their core competitiveness. 1. Trade secrets are considered crucial by enterprises but are less commonly owned forms of intellectual property Enterprises consider trademark rights, invention patents, utility model patents, and trade secrets to be more important, each with an importance score above 4. Design patents and copyrights are considered somewhat less important, each with an importance score of 3.8. However, there is a gap between the importance and the ownership rates of some types of intellectual property. The importance and ownership rates are consistent for trademarks, with an importance score of 4.5 and an ownership rate of 88%. Patents have an importance score of 4.7 and an ownership rate of 70%. Trade secrets have an importance score of 4.6 and an ownership rate of 49%. Copyrights have an importance score of 3.8 and an ownership rate of 30%. Data source: Innovation & Intellectual Property Center, Science & Technology Law Institute (STLI), Taiwan Intellectual Property Survey Report 2023. Fig. 7 Owned and Importance of Various Intellectual Properties 2. The priority of using intellectual property rights varies across different industries Patents are used to protect important assets by the largest proportion of companies, about 86%. This is followed by trademarks at 77%, trade secrets at 66%, and copyrights at 33%. By industry, the order is consistent in information services, manufacturing, and pharmaceutical/livelihood industries: patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights. In the business services sector, the order is trademarks, trade secrets, patents, and copyrights. Data source: Innovation & Intellectual Property Center, Science & Technology Law Institute (STLI), Taiwan Intellectual Property Survey Report 2023. Fig.8 which type of intellectual property rights do companies use to protect important assets The complete survey report can be accessed in the Taiwan Intellectual Property Management System (TIPS) website. The download link is https://www.tips.org.tw/body.asp?sno=BGCHDC#460
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.
Introduction to Essential Data Governance and Management System(EDGS)Introduction to Essential Data Governance and Management System(EDGS) 2022/12/30 I. Background Along with organizations face the industrial, social and economic level of Digital Transformation trend brought by the development of emerging technology or the occurrences of disasters or emergencies(such as COVID-19), and so on. Inducing the increasing demand for transformation of digital governance and management. Including the board of directors and the top managements’ decision making, supervision to internal audit, internal control etc. It is necessary to establish and implement the digitized management measure of content or process step by step. Strengthening the reality, integrity and full disclosure of data, in order to improve the efficiency of organizational decision making, execution, supervision and management. Although implementing the digitization process, brings convenience and efficacy to the organization, accompanied by risks. Digital data has characters of being easy to modify and spread. This often results in difficulty for the original version owner in proving the originator’s identity and then impacts rights protect. Additionally, when cooperating with others, the organizations may provide essential digital data to others, or receive others’ essential digital data. When data breaches or controversies occur, it is required to have measures assisting in the identification or prove the origin of the data. In order to delineate the responsibilities and enhance mutual trust. Essential Data Governance and Management System(hereinafter referred to as, EDGS) is a management model which is to be introduced at the discretion of each organization. Looking forward to improve the degree of the ability in organizations’ digital and governance level progressively. Starting to improve the protected process of the digital data in the first place, reinforcing the long-term preservation of validity of the essential digital data. In order to guarantee the evidence capacity and reinforce the probative value by the time litigations has been instituted or the related competent authority investigates. II. Setting Objectives The purpose of EDGS is to help organizations consolidate with existing internal auditing, internal control or other management process and then implement tweaks that establish an organizations’ essential data governance and management system that meets the requirements of EDGS. In order to attain the following benefits(as shown in Figure 1 below): a. Improve the digitalization level of governance and management in internal control, internal auditing or surveillance. b. Improve organizations’ cooperation, trust and the chance of digital transformation. c. Reinforce organizations to identify and manage the self-generated, provided or received external digital data. d. Reinforce organizations’ validity of evidence presented in litigation or the inspection certification of competent authority. Figure 1: Setting Objectives of EDGS III. Scope of Application EDGS is designed to be applicable to all organizations, regardless of their type, size, and the products or services they provide. In addition, the requirement of EDGS are centered on the organizations’ essential data governance and management system process (as shown in Figure 2 below). The so-called organizations’ essential data governance and management system process refers to from the digital data process of generation, protection and maintenance to the digital evidence preservation information process of acquisition, maintenance and verification by setting management objectives in accordance with the management policies established by the organization. Figure 2: The Conceptual Flow Chart for the Organizations’ Essential Digital Data Governance and Management System Process IV. Process of Application EDGS encourages organizations to link and reinforce the existing “process management” approach and “PDCA management” cycle(as shown in Figure 3 below) in developing, implementing and improving their essential data governance and management system. Figure 3: The “PDCA management” Cycle of EDGS V. Table of Contents Chapters 0 to 4 of EDGS are the description of the system structure, scope of application, definition of terms and consideration factors; Chapters 5 to 10 are important management items. 0. Introduction 0.1. General Description 0.2. Target 0.3. Process Management 0.4. Management Cycle 0.5. Setting Objectives 0.6. Compatibility with other management systems 1. Scope of Application 2. Version Marking 3. Definition of Terms 3.1 Organization 3.2 Digital record 3.3 Identification Technology 3.4 Metadata 3.5 Hash Function 3.6 Hash Value 3.7 Time-Stamp 4. Organization Environment 4.1 Internal and External Issues 4.2 Stakeholders 5. Management Responsibility of Digital Governance and Management 5.1 Management Commitment 5.2 Management Policy 5.3 Management Objective Planning 5.4 Management Accountability and Communication 6. System Planning 6.1 Basic Requirements 6.2 Response to Risks and Opportunities 6.3 Change Planning 7. Support 7.1 Resources 7.2 Personnel 7.3 Equipment or System Environment 7.4 Communication Channels 8. Practice Process of Essential Digital Data Governance and Management 8.1 Generation, Maintenance and Protection of Digital Data 8.2 Acquisition, Maintenance and Verification of Digital Evidence Preservation Information 9 Performance Evaluation 9.1 Basic Requirements 9.2 Data Analysis 9.3 Internal Audit 9.4 Management Review 10 Improvement For the full text of the EDGS(Chinese Version), please refer to： https://stli.iii.org.tw/publish-detail.aspx?d=7198&no=58
- 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
- Blockchain in Intellectual Property Protection
- Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Research Legal System and Response Thereto (2) – Observation of the Swiss Research Innovation System
- Recent Federal Decisions and Emerging Trends in U.S. Defend Trade Secrets Act Litigation
- The effective and innovative way to use the spectrum: focus on the development of the "interleaved/white space"
- Copyright Ownership for Outputs by Artificial Intelligence
- Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Research Legal System and Response Thereto (2) – Observation of the Swiss Research Innovation System