Article 16 of the Constitution provides people with the right of instituting legal proceedings. The scope of this guaranteed right includes the right of people to seek redress with courts when their rights are infringed upon. How to exercise their right, however, shall be stipulated in law. The law imposes reasonable restrictions on public and private prosecutions in order to prevent frivolous lawsuits which infringe upon the liberties of others and waste limited judicial resources. These restrictions must conform to the principle of proportionality set forth in Article 23 of the Constitution. Paragraphs 2-4 of Article 131 of the Patent Act as amended on January 21, 1994, provide: "In instituting a complaint against the offenses specified in Articles 123 through 126, a patentee shall submit along with his/her complaint an infringement analysis report and a written notice given by the patentee to the infringer requesting discontinuation of the infringement. In the absence of the documents set forth in the preceding Paragraph, the complaint filed shall be deemed not in accordance with the law. The Judicial and Executive Yuans shall coordinate with each other in appointing professional infringement analysis agencies." According to these provisions, the injured party must submit an infringement analysis report in order to file a complaint. This is an unnecessary restriction on the right of instituting legal proceedings and violates the abovementioned principle of proportionality. From the date of this Interpretation, the provisions of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 131 of the Patent Act shall no longer be applicable, which require that an infringement analysis report be submitted and that complaints be deemed not in accordance with the law if infringement analysis reports are not submitted.

　　　 Article 16 of the Constitution provides people with the right of instituting legal proceedings. The scope of this guaranteed right includes the right of people to seek redress with the criminal and administrative courts. Therefore, when people's rights are infringed upon, the infringing party shall be accountable for the criminal liabilities, and the injured party has the right to request the judicial sector to investigate, indict, and render judgments. The State shall also provide a system to guarantee the exercise of such a right. The law imposes reasonable restrictions on public and private prosecutions in order to prevent frivolous lawsuits which infringe upon the liberties of others and waste limited judicial resources. These restrictions must conform to the principle of proportionality set forth in Article 23 of the Constitution. Paragraphs 2-4 of Article 131 of the Patent Act as amended on January 21, 1994, provide: "In instituting a complaint against the offenses specified in Articles 123 through 126, the patentee shall submit along with his complaint the infringement analysis report and the written notice given by the patentee to the infringer requesting discontinuation of the infringement. In the absence of the documents set forth in the preceding Paragraph, the complaint filed shall be deemed not in accordance with the law. The Judicial and the Executive Yuans shall coordinate with each other in appointing professional infringement analysis agencies." Assessment is one of many ways of determining evidence, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure. Based on the provisions prescribed in the said Code, the analysis shall be applicable upon commencement of the suit proceedings. The appointment of the infringement analysis agency shall be exercised by the public prosecutors during investigation and by the courts during court proceedings. Even if the injured party submits the so-called infringement analysis report, the public prosecutors shall still investigate evidence according to the laws, but not determine the criminal charges solely based on such an analysis report. According to these provisions, the injured party must submit an infringement analysis report in order to file a complaint. This is an unnecessary restriction on the right of instituting legal proceedings and violates the abovementioned principle of proportionality in Article 23 of the Constitution. Besides, the professional infringement analysis agencies’ refusal to accept the injured party's request to conduct analysis, procedural delays attributed to the professional infringement analysis agencies, or the agencies' inability to conduct analysis due to the advanced technical issues in the patent disclosures, may also prevent the injured party from exercising his/her right of instituting legal proceedings within the statutory time limit. Hence, in instituting a complaint, as long as the patentee submits along with his/her complaint the facts and evidence clearly indicating the infringement of his/her patent rights, the complaint filed shall be deemed in accordance with the law. In summary, from the date of this Interpretation, the provisions of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 131 of the Patent Act shall no longer be applicable, which require that an infringement analysis report be submitted and that complaints be deemed not in accordance with the law if infringement analysis reports are not submitted.