Among the amendments, the most significant 2 changes include repealing the re-appealing procedure/changing the administrative proceedings into two instances one of which explains for the repealed re-appealing procedure and introducing actions of confirmation and performance which require no more a former appeal procedure.

　  It is anticipated that the first change is effected is generally beneficial in that theoretically, an independent court judge will play a far more fair and justified role than an official in the governmental organization of the upper level.　　In addition, presently, the commissioners in the appeal or re-appeal proceedings generally have law or technical backgrounds but none of them has patent-practicing experience.　　Although one or two commissioners among them are interested in or devoted themselves to the researches of the patent law, it is believed hard for anyone to fully get the underlying gist or key spirit of the patent law when he has no live patent-practicing experience or never fully got involved in the litigation or settlement of a patent dispute.　　It is naturally imaginably questionable to present before such commissioners for judgement as to whether or not a patent dispute has been properly rendered with a decision by the IPO (Intellectual Property Office).　　From the viewpoint of the applicant or a third party, if a competent patent examiner cannot appropriately render a decision in a specific patent application, the specific application should be heard by a court judge or a patent expert more senior than the decision-rendering examiner, rather than a presumably equitable third party in the governmental organization of an upper level, in order to have a justifiable solution.　　It is thus considered that the first change will enhance people's administrative rights.

　　The second change will allow the interested party to claim damages against the administrative organization rendering an inappropriate decision.　　By such measure, the administrative organization will be more alert in its decision-rendering in order not to place itself in a position subject to a damages-claim from the decision-receiving party.　　It is apparent that such measure should be able to better protect administrative interests of the general public.

　　Nevertheless, the above changes take effect only after the Administrative Court Organization Law has passed into law.　　Taiwan is an island of miracles.　　It was proposed to pass 39 acts into law on the very same day of January 14, 1999.　　This administrative Court Organization Law was proposed to pass by the Legislation Yuan in the midnight of that day.　　Eventually, as a result of formality interruptions and intermittent protests, the session was announced to be closed at 2320 on January 16, 1999 by the President in consideration of the fact that the assistants in the Legislation Yuan had been continuously working for 38 hours and could stand no more so far as their bodies were concerned.　　The Administrative Court Organization Law was passed into law at the afternoon of that day.