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.
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.