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

November 22, 2018

Clearing the Air on Cannabis Patents

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post

The patent system has become an unlikely hot topic in Thailand in light of reports that some overseas pharmaceutical companies have applied for Thai patents for cannabis. The revelations have added more fuel to the ongoing debate about the utility of cannabis, a Thai local plant. The reports have led many to criticize the patent system, questioning whether patent rights may obstruct Thai researchers’ studies on cannabis. It is important not to oversimplify this issue. Such dialogue is extremely important and must be encouraged, but as a patent attorney I find the broader context of the patent system very enlightening in understanding the arguments on both sides.

The most important context of course is the reasoning behind the patent system in the first place. An internationally accepted rationale for patent law is that a patent grants security to an inventor who, through his or her intellect and labor, has conceived an invention that benefits the society. Granting that inventor patent rights prevents others from exploiting the fruit of that inventor’s labor without consent. Simply put, patents prevent anyone from stealing an inventor’s idea. In exchange, the inventor has a duty to make the details (or the “secret trick”) of his or her invention available to the public through the process of patent application. Importantly, a patent is in force for no more than 20 years, after which the knowledge in that patent will become public information for anyone’s free use.

With that in mind, we can begin to look at the specific context of cannabis-based patents.

 

The patent system has become an unlikely hot topic in Thailand in light of reports that some overseas pharmaceutical companies have applied for Thai patents for cannabis. The revelations have added more fuel to the ongoing debate about the utility of cannabis, a Thai local plant. The reports have led many to criticize the patent system, questioning whether patent rights may obstruct Thai researchers’ studies on cannabis. It is important not to oversimplify this issue. Such dialogue is extremely important and must be encouraged, but as a patent attorney I find the broader context of the patent system very enlightening in understanding the arguments on both sides.

The most important context of course is the reasoning behind the patent system in the first place. An internationally accepted rationale for patent law is that a patent grants security to an inventor who, through his or her intellect and labor, has conceived an invention that benefits the society. Granting that inventor patent rights prevents others from exploiting the fruit of that inventor’s labor without consent. Simply put, patents prevent anyone from stealing an inventor’s idea. In exchange, the inventor has a duty to make the details (or the “secret trick”) of his or her invention available to the public through the process of patent application. Importantly, a patent is in force for no more than 20 years, after which the knowledge in that patent will become public information for anyone’s free use.

With that in mind, we can begin to look at the specific context of cannabis-based patents.

Current State of Cannabis Patents in Thailand

A preliminary investigation into the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) database shows that 91 patent applications have been filed in Thailand relating to the group of chemicals found in cannabis. This search excludes any incidental uses such as traditional medicines and textile industry applications. Among these, only one application has been registered as a Thai patent, and that patent was later revoked. Of the remaining 90 applications, 51 were abandoned without registration. The remaining 39 have been published and are pending substantial examination by the DIP.

It is important to clarify that a patent application is not the same as patent registration. Rights do not exist until an application is registered, and before registration the applicant has no right to sue anyone. Therefore, no one, Thai or foreign, is currently able to sue anyone for infringing a cannabis extract patent in Thailand.

Natural Substances

One hotly debated point is whether or not people should be able to patent “natural substances.” This is an odd argument from a patent attorney’s point of view, because the law already addresses it. Section 9 (1) of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979) expressly prevents “animals, plants or extracts from animals or plants” from being patented. The next logical step is to dig deeper into what that actually means.

The DIP’s Patent Examination Guideline B.E. 2555 (2012), section 1, part 1, page 28, explains that unpatentable “animals, plants or extracts from animals or plants” includes “higher animals and higher plants that are available in nature” and “extracts from animals or plants that have not undergone any man-made substantial processing” (emphasis added). The underlying reason is that a protectable invention must owe its existence to human’s intelligence. The existence of plants, animals, or other things that exist in nature may not be claimed by a human. In cannabis’ case, this law means that the cannabis plant, including its stem, flower, leaf, and crude extracts are not patentable. 

On the other hand, if a human brings a natural thing to be processed by technical means, and thereby causes results and benefits that are not found in the natural state of that thing, then that processed natural thing may be patented. For example, suppose that a certain plant contains Substance A which, in its natural state, does not exhibit any therapeutic effects. Suppose that a researcher later found a way to transform Substance A, or make a pharmaceutical formula containing Substance A, which enables Substance A to perform as an active ingredient for effective treatment of hypertension. The method for transforming that substance, or the pharmaceutical formula, is an invention which may be lawfully patented.

Section 9 (1) must be interpreted with care, and in the proper context of the rationale for patent law, to avoid it leading to slippery slope arguments that negatively affect the patent system. It is true that all human inventions can be traced back to products of nature. For example, many polymers are derived from crude oil, which is found in nature. However, a new petroleum-based polymer that is stronger than steel should be patentable, despite being developed from a product of nature. If Section 9 (1) is interpreted to mean that anything related to nature in any way cannot be patented, then nothing would be patentable.

Preventing the Obstruction of Research

Another hotly debated issue surrounding cannabis patents is a concern that Thai patent registration (which has yet to occur, as noted above) may obstruct medical cannabis research by Thai researchers. This is a rather unlikely scenario for two extremely important reasons.

Firstly, patent protection has a limited scope. Using the Substance A example above, suppose that a patent has been issued for the use of Substance A as a treatment for hypertension (and that the patent has passed all other provisions of the Patent Act). That patent will only cover the use of Substance A for the reasons, and by the means, specified in the patent. The patentee has no right to prevent others from using Substance A for other purposes, for treating other illnesses, or for treating hypertension by a means that is substantially different from what is specified in the patent. In addition, since the patent claims for the “use,” not for Substance A itself (which cannot be patented, as noted above), the patentee is not entitled to prevent others from using or handling Substance A in any other way.

Secondly, research and study are not patent infringement. Section 36, paragraph 2, subsection 1 of the Patent Act provides that “any act for the purpose of study, research, experimentation or analysis” does not infringe upon any patent. This means any study or research that does not compete with the patentee’s business, such as a research conducted by a professor in a medical school, will not expose the researcher to any liability.

The Usefulness of Patents

Finally, in considering these matters in the broader context, it is important to be aware of the general usefulness of the patent system in a broader sense. The patenting system is important for the modern economy. It incentivizes research and development activities, and it allows for knowledge transfer for the public benefit. Patent applications must disclose clear and detailed information about the invention that they relate to, making the complete details of an invention publicly available, from which new ideas and further developments will arise. Researchers are free to study the patents and then seek a technical improvement, which may be patentable in its own right. In addition, when the patent has expired (no longer than 20 years), the once-patented invention will become public knowledge available for anyone’s free use.

The case of cannabis patents is a great opportunity for the Thai public to converse, debate, and consider the benefits and shortcomings of the current patent law system, and hopefully to provide critiques for the betterment of our patent law. However, it is important for any such critique to have a good understanding of the facts on both sides of the argument, before a thorough analysis can take place.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More