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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More