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 15, 2013

Global Patent Protection under the PCT System

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Abraham Lincoln once said, “The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius.” It was an unmistakably true statement; patents have undoubtedly become an essential tool for protecting new inventions. Not only do patents guard against the unauthorized use of an inventor’s creation, but they foster innovation by granting exclusive legal rights for limited durations.

However, one may ask how legal patent rights can be obtained on a global scale. Clearly, a patent’s efficacy is severely limited if its privileges and effects are limited to just a single country. The solution to this question may lie with the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). This article will discuss how patent owners can extend protection for their inventions under this system.

The PCT is an international treaty regulated by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It provides member states with a unified protocol for filing patent applications. Currently, 148 countries including Thailand, which joined in 2009, are members of the PCT.

In recent years, filing patent applications through the PCT has attracted much interest from Thai individuals, businesses, and legal entities. But there is still a misunderstanding that filing a patent application through the PCT will grant worldwide patent protection.

In fact, the PCT does not offer universal or worldwide protection for a claimed invention; it only offers a provisional solution for the unified processing of an application, and it establishes whether or not the claimed invention meets the patentability requirements. Therefore, it helps to ascertain whether or not patent protection is worth pursuing. For PCT applications that meet the patentability requirements, the process for obtaining a fully-protected patent in each PCT-adhering jurisdiction is much quicker and more straightforward.

Obtaining patent protection through the PCT begins with filing an International Application either at the national or regional patent office (known as the Receiving Office) or directly with WIPO. Next, the application will proceed to the International Search and International Publication stages. During the search stage, the appointed patent office will conduct a worldwide search to locate any existing inventions, patents, and non-patent literature (known as “prior art”) that may compromise the patentability of the claimed invention.

After this search is completed, an International Search Report (ISR) and a written opinion will be issued, which list all the documents that may affect the patentability of the claimed invention, and which contain the examiner’s opinion as to why the invention may or may not be patented. In the event of an unfavorable ISR, there will be an opportunity to amend the claims and/or description to improve patentability, and a chance to discuss with the examiner ways to further improve patentability.

As mentioned above, WIPO does not issue a lawfully protected patent; it merely evaluates how likely it is to obtain a patent in a PCT member state. Therefore, PCT applications must be filed at the patent office of a PCT member state to obtain a legally protected patent in that jurisdiction.

Since the PCT process already evaluates the patentability of the claimed invention, any advantageous assessments contained within the ISR and/or written opinion can be used to further facilitate the acceptance of the claimed invention, which reduces the time between filing and grant of a patent. Patent offices of PCT member states are required to accept all PCT applications, and fewer formal documents are required.

From a business perspective, filing a patent application through the PCT offers a number of advantages. For instance, protection can be obtained in 148 member states by filing a single PCT application in one language. PCT applications can also delay payments relating to the filing and prosecuting of a patent application before a national or regional patent office, as they provide an extended time limit for filing additional applications in other member states.

During this extended period, more market research can be conducted to locate potential business partners or investors, and the commercial value of a claimed invention can also be further evaluated. Most importantly, the PCT evaluation allows an informed decision to be made with regard to pursuing a claimed invention, which effectively lowers the cost of filing an application at a national or regional patent office. Ultimately, the PCT system reduces the chance of making a bad investment.

Clearly, the PCT offers many valuable advantages over other patent application systems; but careful steps must be taken to ensure that a PCT application will yield its full range of benefits. Armed with a full understanding of how the PCT system works, patent owners will be in a much stronger position to derive commercial advantages from their inventions.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More