Chen Jingchan

Case:

Key Words:

patent infringement warning letter, Taipei City Government Department of Rapid Transit Systems

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of February 10, 2010 (the 954th Commissioners' Meeting); Disposition 99 Kung Ch’u Tzu No.023

Industry:

Other Glass and Glass Product Manufacturers (2319)

Relevant Laws:

Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. Chen Jingchan (hereinafter referred to as the offender) issued a letter of warning against the use of glazed glass supplied by Tsy Fong Glass Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the informer) for the platform doors on the Luzhou Line of the Taipei Mass Rapid Transit System constructed by the Department of Rapid Transit Systems (hereinafter referred to as DORTS) of Taipei City Government without confirming the alleged infringement before the issuance of the letter. The conduct was confirmed as a violation of the Fair Trade Law.
2. Findings of the FTC after investigation:
1. The offender owned the No.139889 invention patent for the method of manufacturing color painted glass as well as the patent on the paint applied. Married to the owner of Jiunnwei Co., Ltd. and also an employee of the company, she had licensed Jiunnwei to use the said patents. The informer was a supplier for the contractor CTCI Corporation (hereinafter referred to as CTCI) who built the Luzhou line of the Taipei Mass Rapid System. The products that the informer supplied to CTCI are partially self-manufactured and partially purchased from Jiunnwei.
2. As a patent is an exclusive intellectual property right, exercising or licensing the patent will have an effect on the production and marketing of related products. Even if a patent holder does not yet apply the patent to produce and market the products, there’s a possibility that the holder may decide to enter the market at any time as he or she is entitled to produce or market the products as an object of transaction to other enterprises for economic benefits. Moreover, the definition of unfair competition as prescribed in the Fair Trade Law refers to the concept of potential competitor and thus the patent holders are regarded potential competitors and are subject to the Fair Trade Law.
3. Grounds for Disposition:
   On March 18, 2009, the offender, without disclosing the exact content and scope of the patent right she held or any concrete evidences of infringement on her patents and without any verification of the alleged infringement, asked a lawyer to issue a legal attest letter to the informer, as well as a copy to DORTS, accusing the informer of infringing upon her patents. There is a possibility that the DORTS might terminate its contract with CTCI because of the letter. In addition, CTCI’s business relations with the informer might also encounter the danger of termination. The informer therefore was held liable for violation of business ethics. The conduct apparently was unfair and had an impact on trading order. It was in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law and FTC ordered the offender to stop the said illegal conduct immediately.

Summarized by: Hung,Chin An Supervised by: Sun,Ya Chuan