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​ 

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