1. The provisions in Article 101 of the Patent Act amended and promulgated on May 12, 1960, with respect to the object proceeding, and the provisions in the first paragraph of Article 26 that apply mutatis mutandis to Article 110 of the same Act with respect to the invalidation of procedures in connection with patent rights that have been delayed beyond the statutory peremptory or any specified period, are intended for the prudent granting of patent rights and the prevention of a person from delaying the prompt, irrevocable decision of a patent application, and should not be construed as an infringement of the people's litigation and property rights or as contradictory to our Constitution.

　　　 2. Article 28 of the Administrative Proceedings Act does not include "an irrevocable judgment may also be objected to by an action for retrial, provided that some important evidence which might affect the judgment was not taken into consideration" as prescribed in Article 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure as one of the reasons for filing an appeal. When an administrative court accepts an appeal for administrative relief, it is natural for the court to determine if there are reasons for the action as stated in Article 28 of the Administrative Proceedings act and if there was some important evidence not taken into consideration in the irrevocable judgment. Precedents of the Administrative Court in Case (49) Tsai-Tze No. 54, Case (50) Tsai-Tze No.8 and Case (54) Tsai- Tze No.95, maintaining that the reasons for appeal for retrial provided in Article 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to appeal for retrial against a judgment rendered in an administrative procedure, are not contradictory to the aforementioned intents and cannot be construed as contradictory to the people's litigation right as protected by the Constitution.

　　　 3. Precedents of the Administrative Court Case (27) Pan-Tze No.28 and Case (20) Pan-Tze No.16 were rendered in light of the fact that a suit for the purpose of revoking an administrative sanction is predicated upon the existence of an administrative sanction, provided that there is no need to initiate or continue the action when the sanction no longer exists at the time of the initiation of an action or ceases to exist during the course of a suit. The rulings falling within such an extent do not contradict provisions provided in the Constitution for the protection of the people's litigation rights. However, if an administrative act becomes invalid due to the passage of time or other reasons, while the legal effects produced before its invalidation do not disappear along with the invalidation of the original sanction, the party concerned should be allowed to initiate or continue the suit, provided the revocation of said act can restore his legal interest. In such event, the aforesaid Precedents are no longer applicable.

　　　 1. To promote industrial development, most countries make laws to grant patents for new inventions having industrial applicability or new models or improvements in the design, construction or fitting of an object having practicality so as to encourage inventiveness and creativity. The granting of patent rights concerns the interests of the applicant and interested parties. It also has a bearing on the interest of the public. To ensure that the patent examination process is fair and thorough, and the granting of patent rights prudent, the ROC government amended and promulgated the Patent Act on May 12, 1960, stipulating that an invention or creation that is deemed patentable following examination should first be published. Article 101 of the same Act also provides: "Any person who deems an approved new utility model, during its publication period, as having violated the provisions of Articles 95 through 97 of this Act, or any interested party who deems that the approved model is in contravention of the provisions of Article 12 of this Act, may, within six months from the date of publication, file an objection with the Patent Office by submitting a written application, together with supporting evidence, requesting re-examination." The intent of the aforesaid clause is to allow the public or an interested party to request re-examination of a new model following an established objection procedure to prevent the granting of an application for patent rights for a model that should not be patented. Nevertheless, this objection procedure is predisposed to abuse in the hands of people who want to block the irrevocable decision of a patent application in order to make unlawful gain. Thus, in consideration of the interest of the patent applicant, the first paragraph of Article 26 of the Patent Act also applies mutatis mutandis to Article 110 of the same Act, prescribing that "when a patent application or any other procedure in connection with patent rights has been delayed beyond the statutory peremptory or any specified period, this proceeding shall be rendered void, provided that if it has been shown to the satisfaction of the Patent Office that some obstacles existed, this provision shall not apply." The aforesaid clause contains a proviso ensuring the reasonable exercise of right of objection, which is necessary in the case where people use an objection as an excuse to delay the prompt, irrevocable decision of a patent application. It should not be construed as an infringement of the people's litigation and property rights or contradictory to the Constitution. In addition, Article 101 of the Patent Act requires the person who files an objection to submit a written application, together with supporting evidence as a part of the objection procedure, which does not limit the administrative procedure and the power of investigation by the vested authority.

　　　 2. Retrial is an action of the court to render judgment on a litigation case that has been irrevocably decided. To uphold the irrevocability of a ruling, the basis for filing an appeal for retrial or re-examination should be as prescribed in the law. Article 28 of the Administrative Proceedings Act does not include "an irrevocable judgment may also be contested by an action for retrial, provided that some important evidence which might affect the judgment was not taken into consideration" as prescribed in Article 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure as one of the reasons for filing an appeal. Though the current system of the administrative court conducting trials based on both the matter-of-law and matter-of-fact and adopting a one-tier system does not seem consistent with the intent of retrial as provided in the civil and Code of Criminal Procedures, when an administrative court accepts an appeal for administrative relief, it is natural for the court to determine if there are reasons for the action as stated in Article 28 of the Administrative Proceedings Act and if there was some important evidence not taken into consideration in the irrevocable judgment. Precedents of the Administrative Court in Case (49) Tsai-Tze No.54, Case (50) Tsai-Tze No.8, and Case (54) Tsai-Tze No.95 maintaining that the reasons for appeal for retrial provided in Article 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to appeal for retrial against a judgment rendered in an administrative procedure, are not contradictory to the aforementioned intents and cannot be construed as contradictory to the people's litigation right as protected by the Constitution.

　　　 3. An administrative litigation is a measure for seeking administrative relief when the petitioner thinks that the illegal administrative act of a central or local agency has injured his rights. The administrative litigation provided by our prevailing Administrative Proceedings Act aims primarily at revoking illegal administrative act to be deemed non-existent ab initio so as to eradicate the injury to people's rights. Precedents of the Administrative Court Case (27) Pan- Tze No.28 and Case (20) Pan-Tze No.16 maintain that, "The subject matter of an administrative litigation is the act of a government agency. If in fact the original act ceases to exist, the reason for the appeal also ceases to exist due to non-existence of the subject matter, such that the appeal should be rejected" and "If the subject matter of appeal ceases to exist, the suit relationship is considered ended," were rendered in light of the fact that a litigation for the purpose of revoking an administrative sanction is predicated upon the existence of an administrative act, provided that there is no need to initiate or continue the action when the act no longer exists at the time of initiation of an action or ceases to exist during the course of a litigation. Precedents falling within such an extent do not contradict provisions in Article 16 of the Constitution for the protection of people's litigation rights. However, if an administrative act becomes invalid due to the passage of time or other reasons, while the legal effects produced before its invalidation do not disappear along with the invalidation of the original sanction, the party concerned should be allowed to initiate or continue the litigation, provided the revocation of said act can restore his legal interest. In such event, the aforesaid Precedents are no longer applicable.