Article 34, Paragraph 2 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act provides: “A judge handling the intellectual property civil or criminal action may participate in the related intellectual property administrative litigation, to which Subparagraph 3, Article 19 of the Code of Administrative Litigation Proceedings shall not apply.” Although such clause means that a judge handling the intellectual property civil or criminal action may still participate in the related intellectual property administrative litigation, it is unclear whether a judge handling the intellectual property administrative litigation could participate in the related intellectual property civil or criminal action. However, the legislative intent of such clause is, “The cases within the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Court include intellectual property civil or criminal actions. The suits involving the same intellectual property may be heard by the same judge, and this helps prevent the inconsistency of decisions. Article 19, Subparagraph 3 of the Code of Administrative Litigation Proceedings provides that a judge who was in charge of an administrative action shall not handle the civil or criminal action related to such administrative action. Because the application of such clause to intellectual property administrative cases is obviously improper, Paragraph 2 is designed to prevent such application.” According to the explanation of the legislative reasons, the legislative intent of the Act is to unify decisions related to intellectual property cases to prevent inconsistency. If intellectual property cases can be handled by the same judge, the above-mentioned situation could be avoided. Therefore, the principle should be that the review of intellectual property cases should be handled by the same judge. As to why Article 34, Paragraph 2 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act excludes the application of Article 19, Subparagraph 3 of the Code of Administrative Litigation Proceedings, among the litigation proceeding codes, the Code of Administrative Litigation Proceedings is the only one that has a clause limiting a judge once involved in a civil or criminal case from participating in related administrative cases, whereas the “disqualification of a judge” clauses of either the Code of Civil Procedure or Code of Criminal Procedure have no similar language requiring a judge once involved in an administrative case not to hear the corresponding civil or criminal cases. Therefore, it is not necessary to devise a clause in the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act to expressly exclude the application of some clauses of either the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure. Yet it cannot be right that the explanation of Article 34, Paragraph 2 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act is to exclude a judge once involved in an administrative decision from participating in the review of corresponding civil or criminal cases. Otherwise, if such explanation is adopted, the corresponding civil, criminal and administrative cases involving related intellectual property would be heard by different judges.

Code of Administrative Litigation Proceedings: Article 19, Subparagraph 3