You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

May 29, 2017

Thailand Introduces Changes to the Appeal Proceedings for IP-Related Cases

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Prior to the establishment of the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (“IP&IT Court”) in 1997, which was the first specialized IP court in South East Asia, an IP-related lawsuit was normally heard in an ordinary court of first instance, which at the time had jurisdiction over such a dispute. The judgment of the first-instance court could then be appealed to the relevant Court of Appeal that had jurisdiction over the lower court, and then a further appeal to the Supreme Court could be pursued based on the conditions set forth in the Civil Procedure Code or Criminal Procedure Code.

With the inauguration of the IP&IT Court on December 1, 1997, came a major change to the process for appeals. The Act for the Establishment of the Procedure for the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (“IP&IT Court Act”) prescribed that all intellectual property and international trade cases must be filed with the IP&IT Court. In addition, an appeal against any judgment of the IP&IT Court was required to be submitted directly to the Supreme Court. This streamlined procedure sought to redress the procedural delays in delivering timely judgments, specifically for intellectual property and international trade cases.

Changes to Appeal Process

In 2015, Thailand again made significant changes to its procedure regarding appeal proceedings. On September 1, 2015, the Civil Procedure Code was amended to change from the previous rights-based process to a new permission-based process. A few months later, on December 4, 2015, the Thai parliament passed two new laws affecting the appeal proceedings for intellectual property and international trade cases:

  1. The Act for the Establishment of the Procedure for the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (No. 2) B.E. 2558 (2015), which amended the IP&IT Court Act. This new law outlined several significant revisions to previous practice, including the overhauling and streamlining of the appeal procedure in IP cases.
  2. The Act for Establishment of the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases B.E. 2558 (2015) (“Specialized Appeal Court Act”).

The first major change resulting from the implementation of these new laws is that as from October 1, 2016, any judgments or orders of the IP&IT Court must be appealed directly to the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases (“Specialized Appeal Court”). The second major change is that under the amended IP&IT Court Act, the appeal procedure for civil cases must be made based on provisions under the Civil Procedure Code, which has also been amended, and the appeal procedure for criminal cases must be made based on provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code.

This means that judgments and orders of the IP&IT Court—whether they are in civil or criminal cases—can be appealed further, provided that they fulfill the conditions prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code or under the Criminal Procedure Code, as the case may be. All eligible appeals must be submitted directly to the Specialized Appeal Court.

The Specialized Appeal Court

The Specialized Appeal Court was established and empowered by the Specialized Appeal Court Act to adjudicate cases appealed from the following lower specialized courts:

  1. The Tax Court
  2. The Labor Court
  3. The Bankruptcy Court
  4. The Juvenile and Family Court
  5. The IP&IT Court

The Specialized Appeal Court has five divisions corresponding to the specialized courts over which it has jurisdiction. The Intellectual Property and International Trade Case Division (“IP&IT Division”) has the power to handle all appeals filed against judgments of the IP&IT Court, including judgments handed down in all IP cases, including, for example, IP infringements, IP licensing disputes and appeal decisions of the Board of Trademarks and Board of Patents.

The Specialized Appeal Court is comprised of judges with specific knowledge and expertise in the respective subject area. Each case is adjudicated by a quorum of judges. However, any case dealing with an important issue that impacts many different areas of the law may be decided by a divisional meeting or an inter-divisional meeting of judges.

Such a meeting would include the Vice President of the Specialized Appeal Court, who is in charge of the relevant division where the matter had been heard, and all the judges in the relevant division who are on duty provided that (1) the number of judges attending the meeting cannot be less than two-thirds of all judges in the division; and (2) the resolution of the meeting will be reached by a majority vote. Currently, the IP&IT Division has three quorums of judges. The number of judges in the IP&IT Division is not publicly available, but given that each quorum consists of at least three judges, the division likely consists of at least nine judges.

As of April 7, 2017, the Specialized Appeal Court has rendered six judgments in IP-related lawsuits. All of these judgments were in criminal cases. Only one of them has been sent to the IP&IT Court for reading to the parties in the case. The other five are currently in the process of being sent to the IP&IT Court for reading. 

Further Appeal to the Supreme Court

It is possible to further appeal a judgment or order of the Specialized Appeal Court, although the process varies for criminal and civil cases. In criminal cases, parties who disagree with judgments or orders of the Specialized Appeal Court may further appeal to the Supreme Court, provided that the appeal is made only on legal issues. For factual issues in criminal cases, the right to appeal depends on the severity of the punishment as set out in the lower court’s judgment.

In civil cases, judgments or orders of the Specialized Appeal Court will be deemed final. However, any party who disagrees with a judgment or order may ask the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the decision further. The Supreme Court may grant permission if it finds that there is an issue(s) in the appeal that sets out a significant matter worthy of clarification.

Section 249 of the amended Civil Procedure Code sets out “significant matters” as follows:

  1. Matters related to the public interest or public order;
  2. When a Court of Appeal determines a significant question of law in a manner of discrepancy or contrary to a Supreme Court precedent;
  3. When a Court of Appeal determines a significant question of law in its judgment or order without citing any Supreme Court precedent;
  4. When the judgment or order of a Court of Appeal is contrary to the final judgment or order of other courts;
  5. For the purpose of developing legal interpretation; and
  6. Other significant questions according to the Regulations of the President of the Supreme Court.

On November 24, 2015, the President of the Supreme Court issued further regulations stating that other significant questions under Section 249(6) include:

  1. Judgment or order of a Court of Appeal that has a dissenting opinion(s) in substance; and
  2. Judgment or order of a Court of Appeal that rules on a significant question of law contrary to an international agreement that binds Thailand.

To request permission to appeal, the party must file a request for permission, together with the appeal petition, as well as pay the relevant court fee to the first-instance court, within one month from the reading of the Specialized Appeal Court’s judgment or order. This deadline is extendable.

After checking that the formalities have been satisfied, the first-instance court will forward a copy of the documents to the respondent in the case, who will then have the right to file their opposition against the request. At the same time, without waiting for the opposition petition, the first-instance court will forward the request and the appeal to the Supreme Court, which will have to consider the request in a timely manner.

The Supreme Court’s decision as to whether or not to permit the appeal will be sent to the first-instance court for reading to the parties in the case. If the request is granted, the other party will have the right to file their response to the appeal with the first-instance court within 15 days. This deadline is also extendable. After receiving the response to appeal, the first-instance court will forward it to the Supreme Court for consideration.

Outlook

According to The Court of Appeal for Specialized Case, a volume published by the Specialized Appeal Court, the reason for the establishment of the Specialized Appeal Court is to harmonize the appeal system for specialized courts with the systems of the ordinary courts of first instance. Based on this, it would not be reasonable to expect that the establishment of the Specialized Appeal Court will shorten the length of time needed to conduct a lawsuit. It is true that we can expect a timely judgment from this court, at least in the first two to three years of its operation, as the number of appeals that it currently handles is still minimal.

But it is important to recognize that the appeal system for criminal cases has been changed from a two-tier to a three-tier procedure, while civil lawsuits retain the possibility of a further appeal to the Supreme Court. This raises the probability that it may now actually take longer for an IP-related lawsuit to reach a final decision. Of course, this will affect IP owners, as they may need to invest more money and time in seeing their legal matters through to a final conclusion.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More