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 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More