March 2026
The Party Inquiry Mechanism Under the Taiwan Commercial Case Adjudication Act
I. Development of Burden of Proof Allocation and Information Request Mechanisms
In traditional civil litigation practice, courts allocate the burden of proof based on the principle that a party asserting facts favorable to itself bears the burden of proving those facts. As an exception, in certain types of cases—such as environmental pollution, product liability, medical malpractice, or where evidence is clearly concentrated in one party—the burden of proof may be alleviated pursuant to the proviso of Article 277 of the Code of Civil Procedure, taking into account the relative capabilities of the parties. In addition, Articles 342, 344, and 345 of the Code of Civil Procedure expand the scope of a party’s obligation to produce documents, allowing a party, under certain conditions, to request the opposing party to produce relevant documents to mitigate difficulties in obtaining evidence.
Compared with general civil litigation, intellectual property civil cases often involve situations where evidence concerning infringement and the scope of damages is clearly concentrated in one party [1] . To address this evidentiary imbalance, the legislature introduced Articles 34 and 35 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act (the “IPCAA”) to adjust the allocation of evidentiary risks. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, if a party fails to comply with a court order to produce documents, the legal consequence is limited to the court’s discretion to deem the opposing party’s assertions regarding such evidence, or the facts to be proven thereby, as true [2] . By contrast, under Article 34 of the IPCAA, if a holder of documents, objects for inspection, or materials required for expert examination refuses to comply without just cause, the court may impose a monetary sanction and, if necessary, take compulsory measures. Although such provisions have rarely been invoked in practice, they nevertheless provide stronger enforcement mechanisms compared to the Code of Civil Procedure.
Building upon these developments, the Commercial Case Adjudication Act (the “CCAA”), which came into force on July 1, 2021, further introduced the Party Inquiry Mechanism, drawing on the legislative model of Discovery under U.S. civil procedure. This mechanism allows parties, at the pre-trial stage, to obtain information and evidence from the opposing party to support their factual assertions and evidentiary submissions. Compared with the existing mechanisms under the Code of Civil Procedure and the IPCAA, the CCAA establishes a direct information-request channel between parties, thereby further alleviating evidentiary imbalance and constituting one of the most open mechanisms for adjusting the burden of proof under the current legal framework. Nevertheless, the legal consequence of non-compliance with the Party Inquiry Mechanism remains limited to adverse inference under the court’s free evaluation of evidence, similar in nature to Article 345 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A detailed discussion of the Party Inquiry Mechanism follows below.
II. Overview of the Party Inquiry Mechanism under the CCAA
1. Legal Basis and Legislative Purpose
Pursuant to Article 43, Paragraph 1 of the CCAA, a party may, for the purpose of preparing its claims or evidence, request the opposing party to provide specific explanations on necessary matters relating to facts or evidence within the time period designated by the court or before the conclusion of preparatory proceedings. To prevent abuse of this mechanism, Paragraph 2 of the same Article provides that the opposing party may refuse to respond where the inquiry involves abstract or non-case-specific questions, is insulting or harassing, repeats the same issue, seeks opinions, is manifestly disproportionate in terms of time and cost required, or concerns matters for which testimony may be lawfully refused. The legislative purpose of this mechanism is to enable parties, at an early stage of the proceedings, to obtain relevant information so as to properly determine their subsequent factual assertions and evidentiary submissions, thereby facilitating efficient proceedings and reducing the court’s burden. The Party Inquiry Mechanism reflects the principle of equality of arms and the pursuit of truthful adjudication, recognizing the necessity for both parties to share relevant information at an early stage of litigation [3] .
2. Operation of the Procedure and Legal Effects
Under Article 44 of the CCAA, inquiries must be made in written form to ensure procedural efficiency and to safeguard the opposing party’s procedural rights. If the opposing party intends to refuse the inquiry, it must state the reasons within 20 days of receipt. Where the requesting party considers such refusal unjustified, it must apply to the court within 10 days for a ruling on the legitimacy of the refusal.
Pursuant to Article 45, if the court finds the refusal unjustified, it shall issue a ruling ordering the opposing party to provide explanations within a specified period. Such a ruling is made in the course of the proceedings and, under Article 74 of the CCAA and Article 483 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not subject to interlocutory appeal. If the party subject to inquiry refuses, without just cause, to provide explanations on the requested factual or evidentiary matters, the court may, based on its free evaluation of evidence, deem the requesting party’s assertions regarding such facts, or the facts to be proven thereby, as true. This serves as a practical sanction for non-compliance with the duty to cooperate in the inquiry process. Furthermore, to safeguard procedural rights, the court must afford the parties an opportunity to be heard before issuing such rulings.
3. Practical Observations
Given the relatively recent enactment of the CCAA, the number of commercial cases handled in practice remains limited. Since its implementation in July 2021, as of the fourth quarter of 2025, only approximately 600 cases have been newly accepted, with 505 cases concluded [4] .
In terms of the actual application of the Party Inquiry Mechanism, observable cases remain extremely rare. To the author’s knowledge, the only decision that explicitly addresses this mechanism is the civil judgment of the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court, 111-Shang-Su-Zi No. 21. However, the court’s application of the mechanism in that case appears to diverge from its original legislative intent. The court held that, since the plaintiff had already obtained relevant information through an audit report retrieved by the court—indicating that certain shareholders had consistently appointed representatives of the defendant to attend shareholders’ meetings—the plaintiff could have utilized Article 43 of the CCAA to inquire about the identities of the relevant personnel as a basis for requesting witness examination. As the plaintiff failed to exercise this right despite having access to the relevant information, the court found such omission “not advisable” and denied the necessity of its subsequent application to examine witnesses.
In other words, rather than serving as a tool to assist parties in collecting evidence and strengthening their claims or defenses, the Party Inquiry Mechanism was used as a standard to evaluate the parties’ procedural conduct. Failure to utilize the mechanism at an earlier stage may lead the court to deny subsequent evidentiary requests. This approach effectively transforms the mechanism from a proactive tool for information acquisition into a passive procedural obligation. Parties who fail to make use of it may face adverse consequences, including the rejection of later evidentiary motions—an issue that warrants careful attention by practitioners.
III. Comparison with Article 34 of the IPCAA: Concluding Remarks
The practical phenomenon observed in the application of the Party Inquiry Mechanism is not unique. A structurally similar “adverse effect” can also be observed in the application of Article 34 of the IPCAA (formerly Article 10).
In prior research, it has been found that Article 34 has rarely been actively invoked in practice—namely, cases in which courts have actually imposed fines or compulsory measures remain exceedingly rare. Paradoxically, however, this provision frequently appears in decisions on evidence preservation as a basis for denying the necessity of such preservation. The reasoning in such decisions is that, since Article 34 allows the court to impose sanctions for unjustified refusal to produce documents, a party may request evidence production in the main proceedings, and the opposing party will bear adverse consequences if it fails to comply. Therefore, there is no urgent necessity to preserve evidence in advance. As a result, a provision that is rarely enforced in practice has instead become a ground for denying applications for evidence preservation. Consequently, the intended purpose of Article 34 has not been realized; rather, it has, in effect, become an obstacle to evidence acquisition.
A comparative observation of Article 34 of the IPCAA and the Party Inquiry Mechanism under Article 43 of the CCAA reveals that, although their specific applications differ, both exhibit similar structural adverse effects. While the legislative intent was to enhance parties’ ability to obtain evidence, in practice, these mechanisms have, to some extent, been transformed into tools that constrain parties’ procedural options, thereby preventing the full realization of their intended functions.
[1] Legislative reasons for Article 10 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act (prior to its amendment).
[2] Article 345 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
[3] Shih-Huan Hsu（許士宦）, New Developments in Commercial Litigation Procedure (Part II)（商業訴訟程序之新變革（下））, Taiwan Jurist, No. 214 (Aug. 2020), page 31.
[4] Intellectual Property and Commercial Court, Number of Cases Lodged and Concluded by Case Type, available at: https://ipc.judicial.gov.tw/tw/dl-176933-81c3c6eeb26545fd82a5e065dfa25a24.html
In traditional civil litigation practice, courts allocate the burden of proof based on the principle that a party asserting facts favorable to itself bears the burden of proving those facts. As an exception, in certain types of cases—such as environmental pollution, product liability, medical malpractice, or where evidence is clearly concentrated in one party—the burden of proof may be alleviated pursuant to the proviso of Article 277 of the Code of Civil Procedure, taking into account the relative capabilities of the parties. In addition, Articles 342, 344, and 345 of the Code of Civil Procedure expand the scope of a party’s obligation to produce documents, allowing a party, under certain conditions, to request the opposing party to produce relevant documents to mitigate difficulties in obtaining evidence.
Compared with general civil litigation, intellectual property civil cases often involve situations where evidence concerning infringement and the scope of damages is clearly concentrated in one party [1] . To address this evidentiary imbalance, the legislature introduced Articles 34 and 35 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act (the “IPCAA”) to adjust the allocation of evidentiary risks. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, if a party fails to comply with a court order to produce documents, the legal consequence is limited to the court’s discretion to deem the opposing party’s assertions regarding such evidence, or the facts to be proven thereby, as true [2] . By contrast, under Article 34 of the IPCAA, if a holder of documents, objects for inspection, or materials required for expert examination refuses to comply without just cause, the court may impose a monetary sanction and, if necessary, take compulsory measures. Although such provisions have rarely been invoked in practice, they nevertheless provide stronger enforcement mechanisms compared to the Code of Civil Procedure.
Building upon these developments, the Commercial Case Adjudication Act (the “CCAA”), which came into force on July 1, 2021, further introduced the Party Inquiry Mechanism, drawing on the legislative model of Discovery under U.S. civil procedure. This mechanism allows parties, at the pre-trial stage, to obtain information and evidence from the opposing party to support their factual assertions and evidentiary submissions. Compared with the existing mechanisms under the Code of Civil Procedure and the IPCAA, the CCAA establishes a direct information-request channel between parties, thereby further alleviating evidentiary imbalance and constituting one of the most open mechanisms for adjusting the burden of proof under the current legal framework. Nevertheless, the legal consequence of non-compliance with the Party Inquiry Mechanism remains limited to adverse inference under the court’s free evaluation of evidence, similar in nature to Article 345 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A detailed discussion of the Party Inquiry Mechanism follows below.
II. Overview of the Party Inquiry Mechanism under the CCAA
1. Legal Basis and Legislative Purpose
Pursuant to Article 43, Paragraph 1 of the CCAA, a party may, for the purpose of preparing its claims or evidence, request the opposing party to provide specific explanations on necessary matters relating to facts or evidence within the time period designated by the court or before the conclusion of preparatory proceedings. To prevent abuse of this mechanism, Paragraph 2 of the same Article provides that the opposing party may refuse to respond where the inquiry involves abstract or non-case-specific questions, is insulting or harassing, repeats the same issue, seeks opinions, is manifestly disproportionate in terms of time and cost required, or concerns matters for which testimony may be lawfully refused. The legislative purpose of this mechanism is to enable parties, at an early stage of the proceedings, to obtain relevant information so as to properly determine their subsequent factual assertions and evidentiary submissions, thereby facilitating efficient proceedings and reducing the court’s burden. The Party Inquiry Mechanism reflects the principle of equality of arms and the pursuit of truthful adjudication, recognizing the necessity for both parties to share relevant information at an early stage of litigation [3] .
2. Operation of the Procedure and Legal Effects
Under Article 44 of the CCAA, inquiries must be made in written form to ensure procedural efficiency and to safeguard the opposing party’s procedural rights. If the opposing party intends to refuse the inquiry, it must state the reasons within 20 days of receipt. Where the requesting party considers such refusal unjustified, it must apply to the court within 10 days for a ruling on the legitimacy of the refusal.
Pursuant to Article 45, if the court finds the refusal unjustified, it shall issue a ruling ordering the opposing party to provide explanations within a specified period. Such a ruling is made in the course of the proceedings and, under Article 74 of the CCAA and Article 483 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not subject to interlocutory appeal. If the party subject to inquiry refuses, without just cause, to provide explanations on the requested factual or evidentiary matters, the court may, based on its free evaluation of evidence, deem the requesting party’s assertions regarding such facts, or the facts to be proven thereby, as true. This serves as a practical sanction for non-compliance with the duty to cooperate in the inquiry process. Furthermore, to safeguard procedural rights, the court must afford the parties an opportunity to be heard before issuing such rulings.
3. Practical Observations
Given the relatively recent enactment of the CCAA, the number of commercial cases handled in practice remains limited. Since its implementation in July 2021, as of the fourth quarter of 2025, only approximately 600 cases have been newly accepted, with 505 cases concluded [4] .
In terms of the actual application of the Party Inquiry Mechanism, observable cases remain extremely rare. To the author’s knowledge, the only decision that explicitly addresses this mechanism is the civil judgment of the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court, 111-Shang-Su-Zi No. 21. However, the court’s application of the mechanism in that case appears to diverge from its original legislative intent. The court held that, since the plaintiff had already obtained relevant information through an audit report retrieved by the court—indicating that certain shareholders had consistently appointed representatives of the defendant to attend shareholders’ meetings—the plaintiff could have utilized Article 43 of the CCAA to inquire about the identities of the relevant personnel as a basis for requesting witness examination. As the plaintiff failed to exercise this right despite having access to the relevant information, the court found such omission “not advisable” and denied the necessity of its subsequent application to examine witnesses.
In other words, rather than serving as a tool to assist parties in collecting evidence and strengthening their claims or defenses, the Party Inquiry Mechanism was used as a standard to evaluate the parties’ procedural conduct. Failure to utilize the mechanism at an earlier stage may lead the court to deny subsequent evidentiary requests. This approach effectively transforms the mechanism from a proactive tool for information acquisition into a passive procedural obligation. Parties who fail to make use of it may face adverse consequences, including the rejection of later evidentiary motions—an issue that warrants careful attention by practitioners.
III. Comparison with Article 34 of the IPCAA: Concluding Remarks
The practical phenomenon observed in the application of the Party Inquiry Mechanism is not unique. A structurally similar “adverse effect” can also be observed in the application of Article 34 of the IPCAA (formerly Article 10).
In prior research, it has been found that Article 34 has rarely been actively invoked in practice—namely, cases in which courts have actually imposed fines or compulsory measures remain exceedingly rare. Paradoxically, however, this provision frequently appears in decisions on evidence preservation as a basis for denying the necessity of such preservation. The reasoning in such decisions is that, since Article 34 allows the court to impose sanctions for unjustified refusal to produce documents, a party may request evidence production in the main proceedings, and the opposing party will bear adverse consequences if it fails to comply. Therefore, there is no urgent necessity to preserve evidence in advance. As a result, a provision that is rarely enforced in practice has instead become a ground for denying applications for evidence preservation. Consequently, the intended purpose of Article 34 has not been realized; rather, it has, in effect, become an obstacle to evidence acquisition.
A comparative observation of Article 34 of the IPCAA and the Party Inquiry Mechanism under Article 43 of the CCAA reveals that, although their specific applications differ, both exhibit similar structural adverse effects. While the legislative intent was to enhance parties’ ability to obtain evidence, in practice, these mechanisms have, to some extent, been transformed into tools that constrain parties’ procedural options, thereby preventing the full realization of their intended functions.
[1] Legislative reasons for Article 10 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act (prior to its amendment).
[2] Article 345 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
[3] Shih-Huan Hsu（許士宦）, New Developments in Commercial Litigation Procedure (Part II)（商業訴訟程序之新變革（下））, Taiwan Jurist, No. 214 (Aug. 2020), page 31.
[4] Intellectual Property and Commercial Court, Number of Cases Lodged and Concluded by Case Type, available at: https://ipc.judicial.gov.tw/tw/dl-176933-81c3c6eeb26545fd82a5e065dfa25a24.html
