Lee, Tsai & Partners Attorneys-at-Law 理慈國際科技法律事務所

  • Home
  • Taiwan
  • Taipei
  • Lee, Tsai & Partners Attorneys-at-Law 理慈國際科技法律事務所
Directions Website Contact the business

Lee, Tsai & Partners Attorneys-at-Law 理慈國際科技法律事務所 We are a full-service law firm.

Our highly qualified local attorneys and technicians possess legal savvy and technical know-how, allowing us to provide our clients with comprehensive legal services.

💡 Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Agreements: Three Practical Lessons from ChinaWhen a former employee joins a competitor...
23/10/2026



💡 Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Agreements: Three Practical Lessons from China

When a former employee joins a competitor, their conduct may constitute both a breach of a non-compete agreement and trade secret infringement. These are distinct legal claims, each with its own procedural and evidentiary requirements.

📝 Key Takeaways:

✔️ Choose the appropriate route. A non-compete claim is generally considered a labor dispute and typically requires labor arbitration first. In contrast, a trade secret claim is an unfair competition tort that may be filed directly in court without the need for prior arbitration.

✔️ The two claims can proceed independently. Proving a breach of a non-compete agreement generally depends on whether the former employee joined or engaged in a competing business. In contrast, trade secret infringement requires proof of protected information, confidentiality measures, and improper acquisition, disclosure, or use. Therefore, pursuing one claim does not necessarily preclude pursuing the other.

✔️ Avoid double recovery. When non-compete liquidated damages and trade-secret damages compensate for the same harm, a court may offset the former against the latter. Employers should therefore ensure clear contractual language that distinguishes the intended purpose of non-compete penalties from liability for trade-secret misappropriation.

The practical approach is to act swiftly: pursue the non-compete route when there is immediate evidence of competitive employment, while simultaneously preserving and developing evidence for a potential trade secret claim. At the same time, ensure that confidentiality measures, exit procedures, employee records, and R&D documentation are sufficiently robust to support enforcement.

👉 Explore the article and connect with our professionals, Teresa Huang and Jolene Chen: https://www.leetsai.com/trade-secret-infringement-and-non-compete-choice-boundary-and-set-off-under-concurrence-circumstances-mainland-china?lang=en-US

💡 Taiwan Implements Import Restrictions on Goods Produced Using Forced LaborTaiwan’s Executive Yuan approved new operat...
19/10/2026



💡 Taiwan Implements Import Restrictions on Goods Produced Using Forced Labor

Taiwan’s Executive Yuan approved new operating rules on 29 July 2026 to restrict the importation of goods produced using forced labor. These measures implement forced labor commitments under the Taiwan–U.S. Agreement on Reciprocal Trade and establish an interagency Review Committee to assess whether specified entities or goods should be restricted from entering Taiwan.

📝 Key features include:

✔️ Information received by the Ministry of Economic Affairs from a partner country—for example, a foreign determination that goods were produced using forced labor—may trigger a domestic review process.

✔️ Before a final decision is made, the Review Committee’s standing members may impose temporary import restrictions for up to 60 days.

✔️ The Review Committee must decide within 30 days whether to restrict the identified entity or goods from being imported into Taiwan.

✔️ Restrictions may also require prior approval before the affected goods can enter a free trade zone.

✔️ Where a partner country later modifies or revokes its forced labor determination, Taiwan may lift the corresponding restrictions through an additional committee process.

Importers who violate the restrictions may face fines ranging from NT$60,000 to NT$3 million, suspension or revocation of import/export registration, and orders to re-export the goods. Free-trade zone enterprises may be subject to separate fines, re-export orders, or confiscation. More severe cases of customs evasion may result in fines of up to three times the value of the goods, along with confiscation.

For businesses, an import restriction related to Taiwan may be linked to a foreign forced-labor determination. Therefore, removing the Taiwan restriction may first require resolving the underlying determination in the relevant foreign jurisdiction.

Companies with cross-border supply chains should review supplier due diligence, labor-practice controls, product traceability, country-of-origin records, and response plans for forced labor allegations—especially when goods may be subject to scrutiny in multiple markets.

👉 Explore the article and connect with our professionals, Teresa Huang and Chad Chao-Yong Fan: https://www.leetsai.com/taiwans-executive-yuan-approves-rules-restricting-the-importation-of-goods-produced-with-forced-labor?lang=en-US

💡 Taiwan Inheritance Law Update: Abolition of Siblings’ Compulsory ShareTaiwan’s Legislative Yuan passed an amendment a...
16/10/2026



💡 Taiwan Inheritance Law Update: Abolition of Siblings’ Compulsory Share

Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan passed an amendment abolishing the compulsory portion previously reserved for siblings under Article 1223 of the Civil Code. The amendment was promulgated on 17 August 2026 and will apply to successions commencing on or after 17 February 2027.

Previously, when a sibling qualified as a statutory heir, the sibling was entitled to a compulsory portion equal to one-third of their statutory share. The reform reflects changing family structures and places greater emphasis on individual property autonomy and testamentary freedom.

📝 Key Points:

✔️ The amendment removes the compulsory portion for siblings but does not eliminate their statutory inheritance rights.

✔️ Siblings remain third-order statutory heirs, and their statutory shares remain unchanged when there is no will or other valid estate arrangement.

✔️ Individuals without descendants, whose parents have predeceased them, may, after the amendment takes effect, exclude siblings from inheritance through a valid will.

✔️ For successions commencing before 17 February 2027, the previous compulsory portion rules continue to apply.

The practical takeaway is clear: this reform provides greater flexibility in estate and family succession planning, but it does not eliminate the need for a properly drafted will. Anyone who wishes to determine how their estate will be distributed should make clear, legally valid, and practical arrangements in advance.

👉 Explore the article and connect with our professionals, Lilian Hsu and Alice Kuo: https://www.leetsai.com/taiwan-inheritance-law-update-legislative-yuan-formally-passes-legislation-abolishing-siblings-compulsory-portion?lang=en-US

💡 Co-Owned Land in Taiwan: Where Does Majority Rule End?Developing or operating co-owned land often depends on decision...
13/10/2026



💡 Co-Owned Land in Taiwan: Where Does Majority Rule End?

Developing or operating co-owned land often depends on decisions made without unanimous consent. Under Article 820 of Taiwan’s Civil Code, co-owners who meet the statutory thresholds may manage co-owned property by majority vote. However, recent Supreme Court decisions indicate that this authority has limitations.

Judgment No. 106-Tai-Shang-151 recognized majority management while distinguishing it from agreements that allocate use or benefits differently from co-owners’ shares under Article 818. Later decisions—Nos. 111-Tai-Shang-27 and 114-Tai-Shang-1288—questioned whether a decision allowing one co-owner to use and profit from the property exclusively still constitutes “management,” particularly when it benefits that co-owner alone.

📝 Useful analytical approach:

✔️ Exclusive use by one co-owner should not, by itself, result in a decision outside the scope of Article 820, as centralized development, leasing, or operation can be economically efficient.

✔️ The critical question is whether the resolution merely determines the method of use or also alters the allocation of benefits.

✔️ If the other co-owners continue to receive benefits proportional to their shares, majority management may still be feasible.

✔️ If all use and profits go to one co-owner, the arrangement falls under Article 818 and, in principle, should be agreed upon by contract rather than imposed by a majority vote.

The practical implication is significant: if a resolution crosses this threshold, the favored co-owner may face challenges to the legal basis for exclusive possession, including potential claims for the return of the property or the removal of structures.

For co-owned land projects, meeting the majority threshold may not be sufficient. When economic benefits do not correspond to undivided shares, the co-owners should explicitly agree in writing on the terms for use and profit allocation before development or operation commences.

👉 Explore the article and connect with our professional, Julian Lai: https://www.leetsai.com/the-limits-of-majority-rule-in-the-development-and-operation-of-co-owned-land-in-taiwan-risks-in-the-use-of-co-owned-property-and-the-allocation-of-benefits-in-light-of-recent-supreme-court-judgments?lang=en-US

📢 We are pleased to share the updated Taiwan Data Breach Guidance Note from Lee, Tsai & Partners Attorneys-at-Law, publ...
05/10/2026



📢 We are pleased to share the updated Taiwan Data Breach Guidance Note from Lee, Tsai & Partners Attorneys-at-Law, published on OneTrust DataGuidance. This update was co-authored by our Senior Of Counsel, Jaime Cheng, and Senior Associate, Hannah Kuo.

The note provides a practical overview of Taiwan’s current breach-notification framework under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), addressing both notification to affected individuals and sector-specific reporting obligations.

📝 Key Takeaways:

✔️ Affected individuals must be notified through appropriate channels once the relevant facts have been clarified, especially when personal data has been stolen, disclosed, altered, or otherwise compromised.

✔️ Taiwan’s PDPA does not currently impose a single, general statutory deadline for notifying data subjects. However, many sector-specific regulations require designated businesses to report incidents to their competent authorities, often within 72 hours.

✔️ Reporting thresholds and procedures vary by industry. In sectors such as finance and the digital economy, reporting typically focuses on major incidents, whereas other sectors may require the reporting of any personal data incident.

✔️ Notices to affected individuals should clearly explain the details of the incident and the remedial measures that have been implemented.

✔️ The 2025 PDPA amendments propose more uniform reporting, response, and record-retention obligations but had not yet taken effect as of May 2026. Draft regulations published in January 2026 outline the proposed detailed framework.

✔️ Non-compliance may result in administrative fines, and authorities may inspect an organization’s security controls, supporting documentation, and incident response procedures.

The practical message for organizations is clear: breach response in Taiwan should be aligned not only with the PDPA but also with the relevant sector-specific requirements. Incident response plans should identify the competent authority, applicable reporting deadlines, necessary internal escalation routes, notification templates, and documentation procedures before an incident occurs.

👉 Read the full guidance here: https://lnkd.in/gqnfJk8u

💡 China’s Supreme People’s Court: Key Messages from the Top Ten Cases of 2025The Supreme People’s Court has published i...
30/09/2026



💡 China’s Supreme People’s Court: Key Messages from the Top Ten Cases of 2025

The Supreme People’s Court has published its analysis of the People’s Court Daily’s Top Ten Cases of 2025. These selected cases cover criminal, civil, labor, and minors’ protection matters, providing valuable insight into current judicial priorities in China.

Three cases are particularly noteworthy:

✔️ Assisted reproduction and employee death benefits: In a groundbreaking decision, the court recognized that an eligible child conceived through IVF may receive statutory survivor benefits typically available to close relatives of an employee who dies from a work-related injury. This ruling reflects the principle of prioritizing the child’s best interests and underscores the necessity for legal interpretation to adapt to advancements in reproductive technology.

✔️ The “engagement rape” case: The court reaffirmed that engagement does not imply consent to sexual activity. The decision emphasizes sexual autonomy, bodily integrity, and individual consent—not relationship status—as central to criminal law analysis.

✔️ Enforcement of financial loan judgments: In financial loan disputes, the case illustrates the courts’ approach to compulsory enforcement: protecting creditors’ legitimate claims through measures such as asset investigation, freezing, seizure, and auction, while also striving to minimize unnecessary disruption to the debtor enterprise’s normal operations.

Taken together, these cases demonstrate a judicial approach that combines the protection of individual rights, responsiveness to social and technological changes, and a balanced approach to commercial enforcement.

👉 Explore the article and connect with our professionals, Teresa Huang and Di Wu: https://www.leetsai.com/the-supreme-peoples-court-releases-analysis-of-the-peoples-court-dailys-top-ten-cases-of-2025-part-i-mainland-china?lang=en-US

💡 China’s Supreme People’s Court strengthens judicial protection for technical secretsThe Supreme People’s Court’s Guid...
29/09/2026



💡 China’s Supreme People’s Court strengthens judicial protection for technical secrets

The Supreme People’s Court’s Guiding Case No. 273 offers crucial guidance for technology-driven businesses regarding trade secret protection, talent mobility, and IP compliance.

The case arose from the alleged misappropriation of core vehicle chassis technology following the mass recruitment of more than 40 technical employees from a competitor. The Court’s approach addresses three recurring challenges in trade secret litigation: the right holder’s burden of proof, the enforceability of cease-and-desist orders, and deterrence against non-compliance with final judgments.

📝 Key takeaways include:

✔️ Shift of burden of proof: Once a rights holder makes a preliminary showing that it owns protected technical secrets, has adopted adequate confidentiality measures, the defendant had access to those secrets, and the technologies are substantially similar, the defendant must prove a legitimate source for its technology.

✔️ Indirect evidence matters: The mass recruitment of core personnel and a product development timeline significantly shorter than the industry’s typical independent R&D cycle may support an inference of access and unlawful use.

✔️ More enforceable injunctive relief: Cease-and-desist orders may extend beyond a general prohibition to include production and sales restrictions, patent-related actions, disposal of confidential materials, internal notifications, ongoing confidentiality obligations, and public corrective notices.

✔️ Stronger remedies: The Court recognized punitive liquidated damages for delayed compliance with cessation obligations. It also applied double punitive damages, resulting in total compensation exceeding RMB 630 million.

For innovative businesses, the case underscores the importance of robust confidentiality controls, well-documented R&D processes, and carefully managed employee onboarding and offboarding. For companies recruiting technical teams or accelerating product development, it highlights the need for thorough IP due diligence and clear safeguards to prevent the use of competitors’ confidential information.

👉 Explore the article and connect with our professionals, Teresa Huang and Joyce Wen: https://www.leetsai.com/guiding-case-no-273-issued-by-the-supreme-peoples-court-judicial-innovations-in-the-protection-of-technical-secrets-mainland-china?lang=en-US

24/09/2026

Wishing you a bright and peaceful Mid-Autumn Festival! 🌕

As the fullest moon of the year rises this Friday, our team at Lee, Tsai & Partners pauses to appreciate what the season truly represents: coming home, sharing a table, and taking a moment of rest with the people who matter most.

To our clients, colleagues, and friends across Taiwan and beyond: thank you for the trust you have placed in us throughout the year. It is a privilege to work alongside you.

Here's to reunion, gratitude, and a season of quiet brightness.

中秋佳節愉快！

💡 Generative AI Content: Key Compliance Issues for Businesses in ChinaAs generative AI becomes increasingly integrated ...
24/09/2026



💡 Generative AI Content: Key Compliance Issues for Businesses in China

As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into content creation, customer engagement, and product development, companies must look beyond technical capabilities and address the legal risks associated with generated text, images, audio, and video.

📝 Key issues include:

✔️ Copyright Ownership: AI-generated content may qualify for copyright protection only when the user’s personal intellectual input—such as creative choices, parameter adjustments, selection, and aesthetic judgment—demonstrates sufficient originality. Businesses should retain records of the creative process, including prompts, parameter settings, work logs, and version comparisons.

✔️ Copyright Infringement: Generated outputs that reproduce, adapt, or closely resemble pre-existing works may infringe copyright. Courts typically evaluate factors such as access to the original work and the degree of substantial similarity between the output and the prior work.

✔️ Platform exposure: When user-generated AI content infringes on third-party IP, a platform may face contributory liability. User terms alone may be insufficient; providers should implement proportionate technical and operational safeguards.

✔️ Personality rights: Unauthorized use of a person’s name, portrait, or recognizable voice in AI-generated content may infringe upon rights related to name, likeness, voice, reputation, or other personality interests.

✔️ Training data: PRC regulations require generative AI service providers to process training data lawfully and avoid infringing on others’ IP rights. Judicial standards regarding copyright use in model training remain unsettled, making data governance and source documentation especially important.

The practical message is clear: AI content compliance should be integrated throughout the entire workflow—from data input and model training to output review, commercial use, and user-facing contractual terms.

👉 Explore the article and connect with our professional, Teresa Huang: https://www.leetsai.com/compliance-tips-for-the-application-of-artificial-intelligence-technology-iv-compliance-in-ai%e2%80%91generated-content-mainland-china?lang=en-US

💡 Taiwan Supreme Court Clarifies "Confession" Standard in Bank Account Provision CasesTaiwan's Supreme Court has issued...
23/09/2026



💡 Taiwan Supreme Court Clarifies "Confession" Standard in Bank Account Provision Cases

Taiwan's Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling regarding the offense of providing bank accounts without justification under Article 22 of the Money Laundering Control Act.

In Criminal Judgment No. 114-Tai-Fei-83, the Court held that whether a defendant has made a qualifying confession for sentence reduction purposes should depend on the substantive content of the statement—specifically, whether the defendant admits all or the principal parts of the relevant criminal facts.

In this case, the defendant admitted to providing four bank accounts and explained the surrounding circumstances but maintained that he did not know his conduct could constitute aiding criminal activity and that he had been deceived. The lower court found that this did not amount to a confession because the defendant had not admitted to relevant subjective elements, such as intent or knowledge.

The Supreme Court disagreed, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case. It emphasized that:
✔️ An assessment of a confession should focus on admissions of the core criminal facts.
✔️ Denying liability for aiding fraud or money laundering does not necessarily preclude a confession to the separate offense of providing accounts without justification.

✔️ Claiming to have been deceived is not, in itself, an assertion of a "justifiable reason" that would negate the confession.
✔️ Whether the asserted reason is legally justifiable remains a fact-specific issue for the court to determine.

The ruling provides important guidance for Taiwan's ongoing efforts to combat fraud-related financial flows, while clarifying the availability of sentence reductions when a defendant has substantively admitted the key facts of the relevant offense.

👉 Explore the article and connect with our professionals, Frank Sun and Elesha Wang: https://www.leetsai.com/supreme-court-clarifies-the-standard-for-determining-confessions-in-cases-involving-the-offense-of-providing-bank-accounts-without-justification-taiwan?lang=en-US

Address

Taipei

Opening Hours

Monday 09:00 - 18:00
Tuesday 09:00 - 18:00
Wednesday 09:00 - 18:00
Thursday 09:00 - 18:00
Friday 09:00 - 18:00

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Lee, Tsai & Partners Attorneys-at-Law 理慈國際科技法律事務所 posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Lee, Tsai & Partners Attorneys-at-Law 理慈國際科技法律事務所:

Shortcuts

Share

Category