Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act Article 19
To determine the truthfulness of a factum probandum in a patent infringement case, the court may, upon motion filed by a party, appoint a verifier to verify the documents or devices or equipment held or managed by the opposing party or a third party, unless the time or costs required for the verification or the burden on the verified party is obviously disproportionate.An application for verification as in the preceding paragraph shall specify the following expressly in writing:1. the probable cause for patent infringement or the likelihood of patent infringement2. the reasons the applicant is unable to collect evidence by itself or by other means3. the necessity to order a Technical Examination Officer to assist a verifier with verification4. the object to be verified and its location5. the connection between the factum probandum and evidence to be obtained through verification6. the matter, method of, and necessity for verificationA preliminary showing shall be made of the items in Subparagraphs 1 to 3 of the preceding paragraph.The court shall accord the parties or a third party an opportunity to be heard before making a ruling as in Paragraph 1.A ruling granting verification shall specify the following:1. the name of the verifier and that of the Technical Examination Officer assisting with verification2. the object verified and its location3. the reasons and matter for, and method of, verificationAn interlocutory appeal may be filed against a ruling denying the application in Paragraph 1.
中文原文 智慧財產案件審理法第19條
專利權侵害事件，法院為判斷應證事實之真偽，得依當事人之聲請選任查證人，對他造或第三人持有或管理之文書或裝置設備實施查證。
但與實施查證所需時間、費用或受查證人之負擔顯不相當者，不在此限。
前項查證之聲請，應以書狀明確記載下列事項：
一、專利權有受侵害或受侵害之虞之相當理由。
二、聲請人不能自行或以其他方法蒐集證據之理由。
三、有命技術審查官協助查證人實施查證之必要。
四、受查證標的物與所在地。
五、應證事實與依查證所得證據之關聯性。
六、實施查證之事項、方法及其必要性。
前項第一款至第三款事項，應釋明之。
法院為第一項裁定前，應予當事人或第三人陳述意見之機會。
准許查證之裁定，應記載下列各款事項：
一、查證人姓名及協助查證之技術審查官姓名。
二、受查證標的物與所在地。
三、實施查證之理由、事項及方法。
駁回第一項聲請之裁定，得為抗告。
但與實施查證所需時間、費用或受查證人之負擔顯不相當者，不在此限。
前項查證之聲請，應以書狀明確記載下列事項：
一、專利權有受侵害或受侵害之虞之相當理由。
二、聲請人不能自行或以其他方法蒐集證據之理由。
三、有命技術審查官協助查證人實施查證之必要。
四、受查證標的物與所在地。
五、應證事實與依查證所得證據之關聯性。
六、實施查證之事項、方法及其必要性。
前項第一款至第三款事項，應釋明之。
法院為第一項裁定前，應予當事人或第三人陳述意見之機會。
准許查證之裁定，應記載下列各款事項：
一、查證人姓名及協助查證之技術審查官姓名。
二、受查證標的物與所在地。
三、實施查證之理由、事項及方法。
駁回第一項聲請之裁定，得為抗告。