Article 21 of the Taiwan Patent Act stipulates: “An invention refers to a creation of technical ideas utilizing the laws of nature." Specifically, an invention must be one based on the laws of nature and used to solve specific technical problems. Pure mathematical methods, logical rules, or abstract concepts, as they do not utilize the laws of nature, generally do not meet the requirements for patent eligibility.
Algorithms are typically computational processes based on logical rules or mathematical formulas, such as mathematical methods for data sorting, searching, or compression. These computational processes themselves do not directly rely on the laws of nature, and therefore conflict with the requirement of "utilizing the laws of nature." However, in practice, the patent eligibility of algorithm-related inventions is often indirectly satisfied by combining them with specific hardware devices, integrating them with particular technical applications, or solving specific technical problems.
Furthermore, the patent examination guidelines explicitly state in the chapter on the “definition of inventions”: "Whether an invention for which a patent application is filed meets the definition of an invention should be determined by the substantive subject matter of the invention, rather than the literal expressions in the claims, to confirm whether the invention as a whole possesses technical features. That is, the means disclosed in an invention for solving a particular problem should be considered, and if such means have technical features, the invention meets the definition of an invention." On this score, merely defining algorithmic steps as executed by a computer is insufficient to render them patent-eligible. Conversely, algorithmic steps cannot be assumed to lack patent eligibility simply because they are seemingly abstract or are artificial settings. The most critical evaluation actually lies in whether the invention as a whole has technical features and whether it can solve specific technical problems.
For example, in the civil Judgments of the IP Court, Case No. 56, 2012 and Case No. 25, 2013, the IP court held that the "method of bargain-style auction" featured in the disputed patent falls under the category of a business model, with its core concept being the establishment of auction rules and processes. Although Claim 1 of the patent literally includes technical equipment, the IP Court deemed the invention essentially a set of artificial rules not integrated with specific machines or devices. Furthermore, the method itself does not necessarily require computer hardware or software to achieve its purpose. The IP court thus reached a conclusion that the disputed patent does not constitute a technical creation utilizing the laws of nature and is not patent-eligible.
On the other hand, in the IP Court's Judgment No. 11, 2022, the IP Court held that although the steps defined in the disputed patent include data that are artificial forms and events, these settings cannot be determined solely by human planning. The objective problems to be solved and the hardware limitations of the control device should be considered to determine the relevant settings which enable the control device to achieve the planned operational mode. Therefore, the IP Court concluded that the disputed patent constitutes a technical creation and meets the requirements for patent eligibility.
In summary, the patent eligibility of algorithm-related inventions should be determined based on their technical features. The aforementioned court rulings suggest that in evaluating patent eligibility, one should not rely solely on the literal expressions in the patent claims but should thoroughly consider the substantive subject matter of the invention. The focus should be on whether the invention as a whole possesses technical features and can solve specific technical problems. This principle holds significant importance for algorithm-related inventions, as it helps establish the criteria for determining their patent eligibility and ensures that such inventions receive appropriate legal protection.