After undergoing several major reforms on the intellectual property substantive laws at the end of last millennium, Taiwan promulgated Intellectual Property Courts Act and Intellectual Property Litigation Act in 2007, furthering the reform movements into the procedural side. By establishing a specialized court system and strengthening the procedural mechanisms, Taiwan intended to improve its legal protection for intellectual property rights. From the procedural law perspective, one of the most significant reform measures is the introduction of the ”protective order” device. While the protective order device adopted by Taiwan is most influenced by the Japanese reform in 2004, both the Taiwanese law and Japanese law still owe their origin to the U.S. thinking of protective order. This article purports to examine the protective order device adopted by Taiwan and compare it with the protective order scheme under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This article finds that because Taiwan and the United States vary greatly on their discovery systems, their respective protective order devices perform different functions. More significantly, this article argues that the interjection of the common-law device of protective order into the continental civil procedure strikes a much better balance between promoting a just and fair adjudication and protective trade secrets than the traditional approach adopted by the continental system. Through the insights learned from the America's long experiences in operating the protective order device, the author criticizes certain shortcomings of Taiwanese law and proposes several amendments to be made in the future.