Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins and its associate firm TGVN provided the Vietnam chapter of the Practical Law Patent Litigation Global Guide. The 2022 edition provides an overview of how patent disputes are handled in 33 jurisdictions worldwide. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand chapter of the guide. The Vietnam chapter of the guide covers the following topics in Practical Law’s signature Q&A format: Sources of law Court system Substantive law Parties to litigation Enforcement options Competition and antitrust Procedure in civil courts Preliminary relief Final remedies Appeal procedure Litigation costs Standard essential patents (SEPs); fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licensing; and antisuit injunctions Practical Law, which is owned by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a wide range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The full Vietnam overview from the Patent Litigation Global Guide can be accessed on the Practical Law website.

Thailand’s cannabis cultivation licensing scheme for the country’s transition toward legalization of the plant has now come to an end. The Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) announced in the Government Gazette that from June 9, 2022, “only cannabis extract with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of more than 0.2% by weight will be considered a narcotic.” This means that now anyone can grow, sell, or purchase cannabis seeds, plants, and inflorescence freely in Thailand, and licenses for the cultivation, possession, and distribution of cannabis are no longer required. Neither the number of cannabis plants nor the place of cultivation is restricted. It is thus the beginning of a new chapter for cannabis cultivation in Thailand, with many opining that now is a good time to enter this exciting and growing industry. The journey to this point began in 2019, when Thailand amended its laws on cannabis to allow for treatment for medical purposes, with one of the prerequisite conditions being that the cannabis must be grown in Thailand. The law was further amended to promote commercialization of the cannabis industry, allowing for cannabis to be added to food and beverages, cosmetics, and herbal products. In addition, three traditional cannabis-based formulas were listed in the universal healthcare coverage scheme, which means that almost all Thais have access to traditional cannabis recipes without cost. The successful launch of medical cannabis and its applications, and its viability as an economic industry, have become a national agenda and priority policy of the MOPH. In order to achieve the above outcomes, several legal frameworks and guidelines throughout the product’s lifecycle have been developed. For example, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has so far granted licenses to cultivate cannabis (also known as a license to manufacture a narcotic) on more than 1,977 acres (around 800 hectares). Health professionals

2022年5月23日に、2022年公開株式会社法No.4（Public Limited Companies Act (No.4) B.E.2565）が承認され、官報に掲載されました。改正法は、取締役会及び株主総会が電子システムにより開催されることを正式に許可し、公開株式会社の承認プロセスを修正するものです。 改正法は、その公布の翌日に発効しましたが、一部の改正については、実際には、関連する種々の細則が発行された後に完全に実施されることになります。新法令の主な内容は以下の通りです。   会社の通知・広告の電子的配布 以前の公開株式会社法では、会社に義務付けられた通知、声明、広告は、少なくとも連続3日間、会社が所在する地方の新聞に掲載されなければなりませんでした。改正法では、このような通知、声明、広告を電子的手段で送信することが認められました。ただし、そのプロセスは商務省が発行する下位規則に準拠する必要があります。   書類の電子的配布のオプション 改正法は、公開株式会社の通知又は文書につき、会社が、会社の取締役、株主又は債権者に対し、それらの者が電子的手段で受領することに同意している限り、書留郵便ではなく電子的に送付することを認めました。文書の電子交付は、商務省が発行する細則に従って行う必要があります。   取締役会会議の招集権限を付与された個人 改正法は、従前の法律と同様に取締役会の議長に役員会を招集する権限を付与していますが、それに加え、取締役の２名が共同して議長に会議の招集を要請できるものと規定しました。この場合、議長は14日以内に会議を招集しなければなりません。要請したにもかかわらず議長が会議を招集しなかった場合、同取締役２名は、14日間経過後、その後14日以内に取締役会会議を直接招集できるとされました。また、改正法では、議長がいない場合に副議長が取締役会会議を招集できるとしました。副議長がいない場合は、取締役のうちの2名にこの招集権限が与えられます。   電子システムによる取締役会会議 改正公開株式会社法は、会社の定款により禁止されていない限り、取締役会会議を電子的手段で招集することを認めています。このような会議は、当社の本店で開催されるものと見なされ、電子システムによる会議に関する法律に準拠して開催されなければなりません。 公開株式会社の取締役会は、少なくとも3ヶ月に1回開催する必要があります。改正前の公開株式会社法では、会議の招集通知は、少なくとも7日前に取締役本人に交付されるか、送付される必要があると規定されていましたが、改正法では通知期間が3日に短縮されました。会社の権利及び利益を保護するために緊急の事項がある場合には、通知期間をさらに短縮し、電子的に通知を送付することもできるようになりました。   電子システムによる株主総会 株主総会も、電子システムによる取締役会会議と同様、会社の定款により禁止されておらず、電子システムによる会議に関する法律に準拠している場合は、電子的に招集することができます。また電子システムによる取締役会と同様、会社の本店が総会の場所とみなされます。 発行済株式総数の10%以上の株主から株主総会の開催を要請され、取締役会が株主からの要請を受けてから45日以内に総会を招集しなかった場合、要請した株主はその後45日以内に株主総会を招集することができます。株主総会招集通知は、株主が同意した場合に限り、電子的方法で発送することができます。この文書の交付は、商務省が発行する細則に従わなければなりません。   電子的方法による代理人の選任 改正法は、株主総会における代理人の選任につき、その選任方法が安全で信頼性があり、商務省の定める規則に従っていることを条件に、株主が電子的方法によって代理人を選任することを認めました。改正前は、株主総会のための代理人の選任は、株主によって署名された書面によって行われ、議長又は議長に指名された者に同書面が提出されなければなりませんでしたが、これが変更されました。   備考：本和文は英文記事を翻訳したものです。原文については、以下のリンクをご参照ください。 Legislation Amendments for Public Limited Companies in Thailand – Tilleke & Gibbins

On May 23, 2022, the Public Limited Companies Act (No. 4) B.E. 2565 (2022) was approved and published in the Government Gazette. The updated law amends the previous version of the Public Limited Companies Act by formally allowing board of directors (BOD) and shareholders’ meetings to be held electronically, and amending corporate approval processes for public limited companies. The new act came into effect the day after its publication, but full implementation of certain amendments will only become practical after the issuance of various related subrules and subregulations. The key elements of the new act are described below. Electronic Dissemination of Company Notices and Advertisements Under the previous version of the Public Limited Companies Act, required company notices, statements, and advertisements had to be published in a local newspaper where the company is located, for at least three consecutive days. However, the amended act allows such notices, statements, and advertisements to be sent via electronic means, though the process must comply with subregulations to be issued by the Department of Business Development (DBD). Electronic Delivery Options for Documents The amended act allows public limited company notices or documents to be sent to company directors, shareholders, or creditors electronically instead of by registered mail, as long as the recipients have consented to receive such documents via electronic means. Electronic delivery of documents must comply with subregulations to be issued by the DBD. Additional Individuals Authorized to Call BOD Meetings In keeping with the previous version of the law, the amended act grants the chairperson of the BOD the authority to call a board meeting, and allows any two directors to jointly request that the chairperson call a meeting, in which case the chairperson must call the meeting within 14 days. The amended act further stipulates that if the chairperson does not call the meeting in accordance with the

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) entered into force in full on June 1, 2022. The PDPA, which contains similarities to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) introduces obligations and restrictions relating to the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data in Thailand. While the new law applies to franchisors and franchisees in the same way that it applies to other businesses, there are a number of issues that are of specific importance in franchise businesses. As franchisors and franchisees have the power and duty to make decisions concerning the collection, use, and disclosure of customers’ and employees’ personal data in the course of their operations, they are considered “data controllers” under the PDPA. The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand, via its Notification on the Guidelines for the Consideration of Unfair Trade Practices in Franchise Businesses issued under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017), defines a franchise relationship as one which, among others, involves an element of control by the franchisor over the business operations of the franchisee. It follows then that in some situations, franchisees’ collection, use, and disclosure of personal data will be according to the instructions of their franchisors. In such circumstances, a franchisee will be considered a “data processor” under the PDPA. Whether acting as data controllers or data processors, franchisors and franchisees must nonetheless comply with the requirements of the PDPA in the course of their operations. To ensure their activities are in compliance with the law, franchise businesses should consider five major actions: 1. Auditing existing data collection and retention practices Whether operating online or via a brick and mortar shop, it is increasingly common for franchise businesses to store and process customers’ personal data. This may include the storage and transmission of credit card information for auto-billing systems, or the

The Indonesian government has launched a number of strategic initiatives aimed at getting the country removed from the Priority Watch List in the US Trade Representative’s annual Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Protection. In trying to leave behind this ignominious status—which has been stubbornly persistent for over 30 years—Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) is leading an IP Operations Task Force consisting of five ministries and agencies, including the National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM), Customs, the State Police, and the Ministry of Communications and Information (MOCI). According to statistics from the task force, 554 infringement cases were handled by the police and the IP Office in 2019–2021, with trademark infringement and copyright infringement being most prevalent. Year on year, the number of trademark infringement cases increased from 90 in 2020 to 137 in 2021, while copyright infringement cases over the same period decreased slightly, from 42 to 38. While the cases occurring in physical markets remain high, the battleground has now expanded to online platforms and social media. Indonesia has embraced digital technology with enthusiasm, and the country’s citizens are among the world’s most avid users of e-commerce, social media, and other mobile apps. Research from Google, Temasek, and Bain & Company indicates sizable growth in Indonesia’s digital economy, from USD 47 billion in 2020 to USD 70 billion in 2021—a digital marketplace that now includes more than 158 million e-commerce customers. Separately, the MOCI reported suspension of 1,745 websites and other infringing online content from 2017 to 2019. Meanwhile, the DGIP banned hundreds of problematic e-commerce portals related to trademark infringement during 2019. There is no official report on recent online infringement cases; however, the numbers are predicted to rise in tandem with the increasing use of online platforms. Aside from these enforcement actions, authorities in Indonesia

TV game shows play an important role in the Vietnamese entertainment industry, as in the global market. Many well-known game shows from other countries have been franchised or licensed for broadcast in Vietnam, including Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, Vietnam’s Got Talent, and The Voice, drawing large audiences and generating billions of VND from commercialized activities. Other popular shows have been developed domestically—some wholly original, but many bearing a heavy resemblance to existing shows from other markets, with similar gameplay, similar sets, and even similar names. This raises an interesting question from the intellectual property perspective as to whether owners or creators of game shows can charge these copycat shows with infringement. In other words, are format rights recognized as a copyright and can a game show be protected under intellectual property law? Globally, this is a question without a clear and explicit answer. The Format Recognition and Protection Association (FRAPA), a trade association formed in 2000 to advocate recognition of television formats as intellectual property, strongly believes that format rights are protectable and has been working to convince courts and lawmakers around the world to define these rights under law. However, recognition of format rights is still very limited, and is often determined on a case-by-case basis. A common argument from legal experts is that because the format of a game show is only composed of ideas, which are not protected by law, it cannot be the subject of copyright (for reference, Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand in 1989). However, others argue that if the format of a game show is an intellectual creation and contains key elements which have unique originality, and it is not just a combination of general and commonplace elements, it can be protected under copyright law (for reference, Meakin v BBC [2010] EWHC

The Thailand Research and Innovation Utilization Promotion Act B.E. 2564 (2021) (TRIUP Act), which is also referred to as the Thai Bayh-Dole Act, came into force on May 7, 2022. The enactment of the TRIUP Act is a culmination of years of deliberation by the Thai government and various stakeholders, and is modeled after the success of the adoption of the Bayh-Dole Act in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, Japan, and Korea. Under existing intellectual property laws in Thailand, patentable inventions are owned by the employer, hirer, or commissioning party by default, unless they explicitly agree to a different arrangement with the inventor. Public research organizations and government agencies in Thailand have always had their own institutional policies addressing the ownership, management, and exploitation of intellectual property rights. While certain government funding agencies may co-own such intellectual property rights with the relevant research institutes, some have adopted a more restrictive approach by retaining full ownership of any intellectual property rights arising from research and development efforts carried out using their funds. Instead of allowing the inventors to have full ownership rights over their inventions, these funding agencies would grant them a license instead. The promulgation of the TRIUP Act changes this. Under this new law, inventions made with the government’s funding belong to their inventors (e.g., universities and research institutes). Overview The TRIUP Act requires fund recipients and researchers (usually represented by their employing institution) who wish to own their research or innovation results to disclose them to the funding government agency or organization within a specified period, and to notify the funding party of their intention of ownership together with a commercialization plan. If a fund recipient or researcher fails to do so, the research or innovation results will belong to the funding party instead. The funding government agency or