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​ 

July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
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