A first-case judgment holding that a front light structure protected by Daimler AG (for the fog light applied to Mercedez-Benz E-Class (W212)) was encroached by one of Taiwan’s most dynamic auto light makers. Notwithstanding allowing Daimler’s changeless directive cases, the choice granted Daimler compensatory harms On the off chance that this choice, as of now engaged the second-example level, is in the long run maintained by the higher courts, Taiwan’s vigorous automobile parts and frill industry may need to reshape their improvement procedures, in light of the fact that under this choice the car post-retail in Taiwan is probably not going to be considered as an autonomous market to win more extensive insurance by the Fair Trade Act. Among the numerous issues examined in the more than 100-page judgment, the most strongly discussed one is whether Daimler disregarded Taiwan’s enemy of trust guidelines (primarily stipulated in the Fair Trade Act) for denying the litigant’s solicitation for the permit of the contested plan patent. In particular, the judges tended to two inquiries. To start with, under what conditions would we be able to esteem a patentee’s refusal to bargain as a demonstration that unlawfully compels rivalry? Second, under what conditions would we be able to consider a unique vehicle producer as having the prevailing force in the car reseller’s exchange (additionally called auxiliary market), particularly the secondary selling relating to assembling and retailing of automobile parts? The judgment’s response to the principal question is as per the following: Turning down a permit solicitation is, truly, a method for practicing patent right at the decision of the patentee. Regardless of whether a refusal to permit establishes maltreatment of a prevailing position and dangers limiting rivalry in the market will not be resolved on an indulgent premise.