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

March 3, 2014

Expediting the Patent Examination System in Thailand: Recent Developments

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In Thailand, patents applications can often remain pending for quite a long time, and this is causing great concern to both Thai and foreign patent applicants. The average time required to obtain a patent in Thailand, from application to grant, is seven-and-a-half years. For pharmaceutical patent applications, the process from requesting substantive examination to granting can take anywhere from 4 to 13 years.

The Thai Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has been working hard to solve this problem by trying to find ways to expedite patent registration. As a step in this direction, the long debate surrounding the controversial issue of “use” claims in relation to pharmaceutical patent applications has now been concluded, as the DIP has issued new examination guidelines for chemical and pharmaceutical patents. Also, within the past few months, the DIP has taken steps to improve its level of international collaboration in an attempt to speed up the examination process for certain applications. This article will provide an update on recent progress on these issues.

New Examination Guidelines for Chemical and Pharmaceutical Patents

In 2013, the Thai Patent Office, which falls under the authority of the DIP, drafted revised guidelines for the examination of chemical and pharmaceutical patent applications. During the drafting process, the Patent Office held a number of meetings with government officials, private sector representatives, and other stakeholders to brainstorm and debate the contents of the revised guidelines. The guidelines underwent substantial revisions as a result of this collaborative effort. Among the many issues that were heavily debated included the patentable subject matter in view of the definition and interpretation of Section 3 (which includes the definitions of “invention” and “process,” among others) and Section 9 (unpatentable inventions) of the Thai Patent Act, as well as the allowable claim formats. The meetings came to an end after eight sessions, and on September 30, 2013, the DIP adopted new patent examination guidelines for chemical and pharmaceutical inventions.

One of the most talked-about issues during the debates was whether “use” claims should be allowable as an invention. Representatives from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) argued that “use” cannot be regarded as an invention, because it is neither a product, nor a process, nor an improvement, referring to the definition of an invention under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), as amended. Nevertheless, in the meetings, the majority agreed that “use claims” should be permissible for registration, in certain circumstances. The new, revised guidelines state the following:

“A use claim indicating a process or method which results in an actual/concrete outcome is considered a process according to Section 3. To consider said use claim, it shall be determined whether the use is a method of treatment of human or animal disease pursuant to Section 9(4), which is not patentable. Provided that the use is not prohibited under Section 9(4), general criteria under Section 5 shall be taken into consideration, i.e., whether the use is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application. In this regard, in considering whether the use is prohibited under Section 9(4), the Examiner shall mainly determine the specification and claims of the subject patent application. If the Examiner views that the main details thereof relate to a method of diagnosis, treatment, or cure of a human or animal disease, then the Examiner shall instruct deletion of such claims or reject the patent application, as the case may be.”

Before 2011, a “Swiss-type claim” would be readily acceptable. Under the new guidelines, the first pharmaceutical indication of a new compound is acceptable when framed in accordance with Swiss-type claims. This is not the case, however, for second indications of a known product. The DIP will consider whether the claim is related to a method of treatment explicitly excluded from patentability under Section 9 (4) and whether the invention surpasses the novelty requirement. Furthermore, the specification must sufficiently disclose the claimed subject matter. For example, in a claim directed to “Use of X for the preparation of a medicament for the treatment of Y,” the description must disclose the preparation process or the formulation and the use of the medicament.

Pharmaceutical patent claims that relate to polymorphs, active metabolites, and isomers were also fervently debated in the meeting. Representatives from NGOs pointed out that polymorphs, isomers, and active metabolites are compounds that are normally discovered during drug research and development. They may, therefore, be considered to have natural properties, and thus, are unpatentable subject matter. While, in principle, these subject matters may be patentable, the guidelines suggest that the Patent Examiners shall examine whether an invention related to the above subject matter demonstrates any “increased therapeutic effectiveness” or “overcomes any technical issues,” which is non-obvious in the view of a person with ordinarily skill in the art. Accordingly, the Patent Examiners may request the applicant to provide related additional pharmaceutical testing results—particularly in cases of controversial patent claims (e.g., polymorphs and isomers)—as evidence of inventiveness. 

The DIP anticipates that the new, revised guidelines will hasten the patent examination process. The guidelines have already been adopted and used in conducting examinations. Office Actions based on the new guidelines will be issued this year, especially for those applications that relate to chemical and pharmaceutical inventions. Nevertheless, it is too early to see how effective the new, revised examination guidelines will be, or how the nature of Office Actions or cited grounds for rejecting claims will change. In the meantime, it is recommended that applicants carefully review their claims and consult patent lawyers and/or agents to overcome any rejections, questions, or requests for additional documents from the DIP.

Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program

The DIP has issued an Announcement dated January 6, 2014, regarding requests to use the examination results of the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) in conducting patent examinations. This move is in accordance with the agreement between the Thai DIP and the JPO to implement a two-year Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program (PPH Pilot Program), effective from January 1, 2014. This agreement aims to provide an alternative method to obtain a patent quicker in Thailand, to reduce the time to examine patent applications, and to support the exchange of information used in the examination of patents between Thailand’s and Japan’s patent offices. 

Thai applications that are eligible to enter into the PPH Pilot Program must claim priority to a corresponding Japanese application. In addition, a request to participate in the PPH Pilot Program must be filed at the DIP, either at the same time as, or after, the filing of the request for a substantive examination, but before a first Office Action has been issued.

A first Office Action is expected to be issued approximately six months from the date on which the request for a substantive examination under the PPH Pilot Program is filed. Filing the substantive examination request under the PPH Pilot Program is expected to accelerate the examination and granting of patents. Under the regular route of filing the request for a substantive examination, the time to receive a first Office Action may range from one to two years from the date on which the request is filed.

ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation

Another channel through which the DIP in Thailand provides an accelerated examination process for patent applications is the ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation (ASPEC) program. The DIP has issued an Announcement dated December 26, 2013, under which applicants can request to use the examination results of ASEAN member states to conduct patent examinations. ASPEC has been created for its members to share examination and search results, so that the examination process will be faster and less duplicative.

Any applicant who wishes to choose the ASPEC channel to expedite the examination process may file the request form to prosecute the application under ASPEC at the time or after requesting substantive examination, but before a first Office Action is issued. The examination is expected to be shortened to only about six months for a first Office Action to be issued, in comparison to a standard substantive examination request, which could take up to one to two years.

Taken together, these international coordination efforts through the PPH Pilot Program and ASPEC, together with the new examination guidelines for chemical and pharmaceutical patents, demonstrate that Thailand is making strides toward solving the current issue of the long pendency periods before patents are granted. IP owners will hope to see even more progress in this area in 2014.

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