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

March 14, 2019

Myanmar Passes Patent Law

Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Law No. 7/2019—Myanmar’s Patent Law—was enacted on March 11, 2019, providing a framework for the protection of inventions related to products and processes. This is the first legislation specifically addressing the protection of patents in the history of Myanmar.

The law will be administered by the Directorate of Patents of the Intellectual Property Office, to be established under the Ministry of Commerce, and implementing regulations will be issued in due course.

Overview

Under the Patent Law, an invention is patentable if it is novel, involves an inventive step, and is industrially applicable. Non-patentable inventions include discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; schemes, rules and methods for doing business, performing purely mental acts or playing games; computer programs; essentially biological processes for production of plants and animals other than man-made living micro-organisms and processes; plant or animal varieties; methods for the treatment of human and animal body and such diagnostic techniques; inventions related to known matters including naturally-existing objects or their new usage and features; and inventions which negatively affect the morals, peace, and tranquility of Myanmar.

Importantly, in accordance with the extended transition period for meeting obligations under the TRIPS Agreement for Least-Developed Country Members, the Patent Law contains special provisions exempting the protection of pharmaceutical patents until January 1, 2033, and the protection of chemical products used in agriculture, food products, and microbiological products until July 1, 2021, unless the Myanmar government specifies otherwise. 

Priority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty or the Paris Convention can be claimed in Myanmar within one year from the date of the initial application. Unless a request for early publication is submitted, applications are published 18 months after the date of application, whereas requests for substantive examination must be submitted within 36 months from the date of application. If official actions are issued by the Directorate of Patents, responses must be filed within 60 days.

The law contains provisions addressing compulsory licenses to be issued by the Directorate of Patents, and also makes the recordation of patent licenses mandatory. Further, the new law stipulates a national security clearance procedure, requiring applicants and inventors residing in Myanmar to obtain written authorization from the Directorate of Patents before applying for patents outside of Myanmar.

Granted patents are valid for a term of 20 years from the filing date, or 10 years for petty patents. Annuities are payable.

Patent infringement claims can be filed at the specialized Intellectual Property Court (which will be established by the Supreme Court of the Union via powers conferred under the law). Criminal penalties include imprisonment of up to a year, a fine not exceeding MMK 2,000,000 (approx. USD 1,300), or both.

Applications under the New Law

Patent applications can be filed in English or Myanmar language, but the registrar may request the submission of a certified translation in either language. Applications should contain:

  1. The request for grant of patent;
  2. The applicants’ names, nationalities or countries of incorporation, and addresses;
  3. The inventors’ names, nationalities, and addresses;
  4. The representative or agent’s name, national registration card number, and address;
  5. Patent specifications and drawings;
  6. One or more patent claims;
  7. Priority documents, if applicable; and
  8. The request for early publication, if applicable.

If an application made by joint applicants is executed by only one of the applicants, a written agreement evidencing the approval of all applicants must also be submitted. A disclosure statement on the origin of genetic resources and prior informed consent of the use of traditional knowledge in the claimed inventions must also be submitted if appropriate.

The Directorate of Patents and the Intellectual Property Office may stipulate additional required documents and information from time to time.

Next Steps

As with the recently enacted Trademark Law and Industrial Design Law, new applications under the Patent Law are not yet accepted. The effective date of the Patent Law will be announced via a Presidential Notification at a later stage. At present, no timeline has been set out for the issuance of implementing regulations or the establishment of the Intellectual Property Office. We will provide details as they become available.

For more information on this development, or to enquire about any of the steps above, please contact our Myanmar office at [email protected] or on +95 1 255 208.

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
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
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
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In