On August 23, 2008, the Consumer Case Procedure Act (CCPA) became effective, intending to provide better protection for consumers with historically little power to enforce their rights in the courts. There has been much talk about the CCPA’s fast-track provisions, which seek to expedite trial of consumer claims. Although there have been some growing pains with this legislation—particularly in regard to procedural delays—the CCPA has nevertheless enhanced consumer rights in a number of important ways.

Vietnam’s National Office of Intellectual Property (“NOIP”) recently vowed to clarify various ambiguities regarding the patentability of use claims in Vietnam. Under the current law, the NOIP prohibits use claims. Certain patent examiners in the NOIP allow use claims to be rewritten as a product or process claim, but this practice is not applied uniformly throughout the NOIP and has caused much consternation to practitioners.

According to a recent study on Vietnamese patent trends by Tilleke & Gibbins, since the formation and development of the Vietnamese patent system as well as the development of a free market in Vietnam, the number of domestic patent applications has been increasing exponentially. From 1989 to 2007 (the most recent years for which complete data is available), the number of domestic patent applications increased by 435%. In 1989, only 78 domestic patent applications were filed, in contrast to the 339 applications that were filed in 2007.

This article describes two major seizures by the Thai Customs Department in August 2009. In addition, the article offers a discussion of the border measures that are available to intellectual property rights owners and analyzes the draft of the new Customs Act, which is expected to clarify the procedures for taking actions at Thailand’s borders.

Among other successful litigation cases for Tilleke & Gibbins, the summer of 2009 is notable for three decisions announced by the Dika Court (Supreme Court) that not only have allowed our client’s valuable trademarks to register but also serve as a guideline for brand owners who may face issues of descriptiveness and similarity. Although the Supreme Court’s decisions are not considered precedents to follow under the Thai legal system, lower courts do in practice consider the merits and principles of prior Supreme Court rulings as guidelines when reviewing similar cases.

Buyers in an intellectual property acquisition in Asia and the West want to know the same information about the IP they are acquiring, but the process must be conducted differently in Asia. In Western deals, buyers typically can rely on the statements and warranties accompanying the acquisition agreements for the IP, but in Asia, buyers must be more proactive in performing their own due diligence. Buyers should therefore obtain local advice to ensure that there are no hidden difficulties accompanying their newly acquired IP.

In 1992, Thailand amended its Patent Act in order to ensure compliance with TRIPS, which significantly increased the level of pharmaceutical patent protection. Prior to this amendment, pharmaceutical products had been excluded from patentability. This article examines the patent application for the antiretroviral drug zidovudine, which was initially filed in 1986 with 15 claims covering the process for preparation of the pharmaceutical formulation.

With the techniques of intellectual property infringers and counterfeit goods traders in Thailand becoming more complex, and with the global economy proceeding toward a sluggish recovery, Tilleke & Gibbins has designed new strategies to help clients handle enforcement of intellectual property rights ever more efficiently and cost-effectively. Our years of experience combating infringement and counterfeiting have taught us that brand owners must be proactive and take all reasonable precautions to ensure that their intellectual property rights are secured.