八卷十三期　89年07月16日

本　期　提　要HEADLINES
1.八十九年七月一日起施行訴願新制
New Administrative Appeal System Implemented
2.專利法規定之「政府主辦或認可之展覽會」釋義
IPO Issues Opinion an Exhibition Sponsored or Approved by the Government
3.智慧局公告「唯讀記憶體晶片標示執行方案」
IPO Announces ROM Chip Mark Enforcement Plan
　
1.八十九年七月一日起施行訴願新制
經濟部為配合89年7月1日施行之訴願新制，業已訂定訴願案件閱卷、陳述意見及言詞辯論等三種新增程序之作業要點，前揭要點規定事項，由該部訴願審議委員會掌理之。

自是項期日起，訴願申請人應具訴願書正副本，經由原處分機關向該部提出，不需將副本另送該部，訴願書未附理由者，由該部依據訴願法第62條規定通知限期補正，補正時，訴願書理由書正副本，逕送原處分機關，俾便該本部答辯。委任代理人提起訴願者，應逐案檢附代理人委任書，未附委任書者，應為補正，委任書格式不限，只要表示為本案代理即可；委任書可不須經認證手續。茲將前揭作業要點分別摘述如下：

經濟部訴願案件閱卷作業要點簡介：

訴願人、參加人、訴願代理人得分別依本法第49條或第75條規定，向該部請求閱覽、抄錄、影印或攝影訴願卷內文書，或請求閱覽、抄錄或影印原行政處分機關據以處分之證據資料。惟是項證據資料，經原行政處分機關標明依法令應予保密不予閱覽之資料裝訂成卷者，該部不予交閱。

而第三人依本法第50條之規定，亦得請求閱覽、抄錄、影印或攝影訴願卷內文書，惟應檢附訴願人同意或釋明有法律上利害關係之文件。

該部依本法第51條規定應拒絕申請人閱覽之訴願卷內文書，包括：訴願決定擬辦之文稿、訴願決定之準備或審議文件、為第三人正當權益有保密之必要者及其他依法律或基於公益有保密之必要者等文書。

經濟部訴願案件陳述意見作業要點簡介：

該部認陳述意見對訴願案情瞭解或增進訴願審理效能有必要者，得依本法第63條第2項規定，通知訴願人、參加人或利害關係人於指定期日到達指定處所為之。

另訴願人或參加人得附具理由，依本法第63條第3項規定，申請陳述意見。惟其申請陳述意見有下列情形之一者，該部得認為無正當理由拒絕之：(1)未具訴願理由者。(2)未附陳述意見理由者。(3)申請陳述意見事項顯與訴願案情無關者。(4)案情已臻明確，無陳述意見必要者。(5)無故未於指定期間到場陳述意見，且未合法申請改期，而於事後重複申請者。(6)其他有與行政程序法第103條各款之性質相當者。

而得出席陳述意見之訴願人、參加人、利害關係人或其代理人等，不得請求錄音、錄影等行為。

經濟部訴願案件言詞辯論作業要點簡介：

該部審理訴願案件依職權審查，認有言詞辯論之必要者，得通知訴願人、參加人或其代表人、訴願代理人、輔佐人及原處分機關派員，於指定期日到達指定處所言詞辯論。而訴願人、參加人申請言詞辯論，經審查認有必要者，亦得依前項規定辦理。但認無必要時，得敘明理由拒絕之。

得參與言詞辯論程序之人員包括：該部訴願審議委員會委員及相關人員、原處分機關代表及相關機關人員、訴願人、參加人或其代表人、訴願代理人、輔佐人及其他經通知到場之人。

New Administrative Appeal System Implemented
On 1 July 2000, the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) implemented a new system to govern administrative appeals. (The MOEA is in charge of appeals regarding intellectual property cases from the Intellectual Property Office.) The MOEA had already drafted new regulations governing procedures for appeals within the MOEA for three new types of administrative appeal procedures: review of files, statement of oral opinions, and oral arguments. The matters governed by these regulations are handled by the MOEA Appeal Review Committee.
Under the new appeal procedures, appeal applicants must submit an original and a copy of a written application to the MOEA though the government agency which executed the original administrative act. (It is not necessary to submit a copy separately to the MOEA.) The MOEA will, according to Article 62 of the Law of Administrative Appeal, notify applicants to amend applications if the applications do not contain statements of reasons. Applicants must submit amended original and copies of applications containing statement of reasons through the government agency which executed the original administrative act. The MOEA will then issue a written response. Appeal applications filed by agents must include powers of attorney. Such applications without powers of attorney must be amended. The only restriction on the form of the power of attorney is that the power must state that the agent is authorized for the case. The power of attorney does not have to be notarized.
The MOEA regulations regarding administrative appeal review of files provide as follows:
Pursuant to Articles 49 and 75 of the Law of Administrative Appeal, appellants, participating parties, and agents of appellants may make separate applications to the MOEA to request to review, manual copy, photocopy, or photograph documents in appeal files, or to request to review, manual copy or photocopy the evidence on which the government agency which made the original administrative act based its decision. The MOEA, however, will not allow the release of documents in files if the government agency which made the original administrative act clearly indicates in accordance with law that the files contain confidential information not for public disclosure.
The rights of third parties to request to review, manual copy, photocopy, or photograph documents in appeal files shall be handled in accordance with Article 50 of the Law of Administrative Appeal. Thus, third parties must attach to their applications evidence of the appellants' consent or establish their legal interest in the appeals.
The MOEA in accordance with Article 51 of the Law of Administrative Appeal shall refuse requests to review the following documents: documents provided for the decision of the administrative appeal; preparatory documents and deliberation documents for the decision of administrative appeals; documents which must be kept confidential to protect the rights and interests of third parties; and other documents which must be kept confidential according to law or the public interest.
The MOEA regulations regarding administrative appeal statement of oral opinions provide as follows:
When the MOEA believes that a statement of oral opinions is necessary for an understanding of an appeal or to advance the deliberations of the appeal, the MOEA may, according to paragraph 2 of Article 63 of the Law of Administrative Appeal, notify the appellant, participating party, or interested party to be present at a designated place on a specific date for a statement of oral opinions.
The appellant or participating party may, according to paragraph 3 of Article 63 of the Law of Administrative Appeal, attach reasons applying for statement of oral opinions. However, the MOEA may reject such an application if the MOEA believes that the application does not have proper reasons, including:
a) Does not provide reasons for appeal;
b) Does not provide reasons for statement of oral opinions;
c) Application for items in a statement of oral opinions has no relationship to the details of the appeal;
d) The details of the case are already clear and a statement of oral opinions is not necessary;
e) The applicant without reason is not present at the designated place for statement of oral opinion, does not file a proper application to change the time, and thereafter files another application for statement of oral opinion; and
f) Other reasons such as under Article 103 of the Law of Administrative Procedure.
Appellants, participating parties, interested parties and their agents attending statements of oral opinions may not request to audio record or video record the proceedings.
The MOEA regulations regarding administrative appeals oral arguments provide as follows:
The MOEA may on an ex officio basis when it considers it necessary to require oral arguments in administrative appeal cases. In such instances, the MOEA may notify the appellant, participating party or its resentative, agent of appellant, assistant of appellant, and the government agency which executed the original administrative act to send persons to be present at a designated place on a specific date for oral arguments. The appellant and participating party may also apply for oral arguments. The MOEA may grant such application if it determines oral arguments are necessary. The MOEA may reject such applications with reasons for the refusal.
Persons that may participate in oral arguments include the MOEA administrative appeal committee members and related persons, representatives of the government agency which executed the original administrative act and personnel from related agencies, the appellant, participating party or its representative, agent of the appellant, assistant of appellant and other persons notified to appear.

2.專利法規定之「政府主辦或認可之展覽會」釋義
關於國內近期舉辦之電腦展，是否屬專利法第20條規定之「政府主辦或認可之展覽會」疑義事項，經濟部智慧財產局於日前表示如下意見：
(1)依據巴黎公約規定，展覽會必須是當地政府主辦或認可，且必須是國際性之展覽，方給予六個月優惠期之待遇；德、法、英、EPO、中國大陸等大多數國家均依此規定。而日本除亦遵循巴黎公約之規定外，另明訂數個地方公共團體辦理之展覽會，亦給予政府認可之地位。
(2)我國專利法規定之「政府主辦或認可之展覽會」為符合互惠國公平性及國際化之原則，亦宜參照巴黎公約之規定認定，即展覽會必須為政府單位列名，或政府單位協辦或委託辦理之展覽會，方得適用此規定。
(3)而將商品公開陳列銷售者，是屬專利法第20條第1項前段（同法第98條第1項、第107條第1項亦同）：「已見於刊物或已公開使用者」之適用範疇，因此，同條第一項第三款所定之展覽會，應不包括公開銷售商品之展覽會。
(4)故本次電腦展主辦單位為外貿協會及電腦同業公會，均非受立法院監督之官方單位，亦無政府明訂給予認可之地位，應無本規定之適用。

IPO Issues Opinion an Exhibition Sponsored or Approved by the Government
A dispute has recently arisen regarding whether the annual computer exhibition held in Taiwan falls within Article 20 of the Patent Law as an "exhibition sponsored or approved by the government". Article 20 provide that inventions displayed at such exhibitions shall not be considered ineligible for patent protection. The Intellectual Property Office recently issued the following opinion on the issue:
a. The Paris Convention provides that in order for inventions displayed at exhibition to be eligible for six months, the exhibitions must be sponsored or approved by the government where the exhibition is taking place and must be open to international participation. The majority of countries follow this requirement, including Germany, France, Great Britain, the European Patent Office, and mainland China. Japan, besides adhering to the requirements of the Paris Convention, also provides the status of government approval for exhibitions that are organized by local public associations.
b. In order to conform with the principles of reciprocity, fairness and internationalization, the provision regarding "exhibition sponsored or approved by the government" in Taiwan's Patent Law is based on the provision of the Paris Convention. Thus, in order to use the provision in Article 20, the exhibition must be arranged or sponsored by a government agency, or organized under the direction of a government agency.
c. The products publicly displayed for sale at the exhibition are considered to have been put to use in accordance with the language "have been published or put to public use" of Article 20-1-1 of the Patent Law (and article 98-1 and 107-1 of the Patent Law). Therefore, the exhibitions mentioned in Article 20-1-3 do not include exhibitions staged for the public sale of products.
d. The computer exhibition sponsors this time, the China External Trade Development Council and the Computer Association, were not official agencies under the supervision of the Legislative Yuan. Lacking government approval, the exhibition therefore does not qualify to use this provision.

3.智慧局公告「唯讀記憶體晶片標示執行方案」
經濟部智慧財產局為建構完善晶片標示制度，於日前公告「唯讀記憶體晶片標示執行方案」暨該局認可之晶片標示登錄機構。
前述方案並在該局網頁週知大眾，該方案主要內容包括晶片標示作業及晶片標示登錄作業二大部分，此項晶片標示制度主要的精神，在於從唯讀記憶體晶片植入辨識記號，並予登錄，藉以瞭解晶片的設計者及製造者，而達成產品的可追溯性。
該局經依該方案，認可財團法人台灣經濟發展研究院及財團法人中華工商研究所為晶片標示登錄機構，執行辦理晶片標示之登錄，為期二年。
該方案中晶片標示作業之部分，業由我國半導體業者在自律之精神下，於民國八十八年七月七日起實施；晶片標示登錄作業之部分，於晶片標示登錄機構公告於民國八十九年七月一日起辦理晶片標示之登錄業務後正式實施。
另為配合本執行方案之實施，該局還擬訂了Mask-ROM晶片標示自律公約，請廠商簽署。同時經濟部國際貿易局近期內將在「貨品輸出管理辦法」內，增訂唯讀記憶體晶片出口時應標示晶片標記之規定，並公告相關之出口管制的作業規定。屆時Mask-ROM唯讀記憶體晶片出口時，廠商均應在出口報單備註欄填報晶片標示登錄證明書號碼，執行單位尚可請求廠商出具該登錄證明書，由海關查驗。

IPO Announces ROM Chip Mark Enforcement Plan
In order to strengthen the system of chip marking, the Intellectual Property Office recently announced the ROM Chip Marking Enforcement Plan and approval of chip marking registration organizations.
The Enforcement Plan is being promoted to the public on the IPO's website. The principle components of the plan include details on chip marking and chip marking registration. The main purposes of the chip marking system is that by imbedding registered identification numbers on read-only memory chips, the designers and manufacturers of chips will be able to be identified, thereby allowing the origin of the chips to be traced.
The Enforcement Plan provides that the IPO authorizes the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research and the Chinese Institute for Industry to handle chip marking registration for two years.
Taiwan semiconductor manufacturers on 7 July 1999 began chip marking regulations in the spirit of self-regulation. Official implementation of chip marking registrations starts on 1 July 2000.
To assist enforcement of the Enforcement Plan, the IPO has drafted a mask-ROM chip marking self-regulation agreement and invited chip manufacturers to sign the agreement. In addition, the Board of Foreign Trade will soon amend the Commodity Export Management Regulations to provide that ROM chip exports must be marked. Related regulations on export controls will also be announced. When Mask-ROM chips are exported, manufacturers must include the chip marking registration certificate number on export declarations. Agencies charged with enforcement may order manufacturers to produce registration certificates for inspection by customs.