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 25, 2016

Intellectual Property Linkage: Connecting IP Offices with Regulators

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Intellectual property (IP) linkage refers to connecting an IP office, through open communication lines and complementary processes, to other government agencies that work on IP. This generally includes agencies tasked with regulating food, drugs, and agricultural products, in order to ensure not only that there is proper communication between the officials of both agencies, but also that each agency’s regulations are in line with one another, and the agencies do not promulgate conflicting requirements. IP linkage is also useful in suppressing IP infringement, especially when health regulators work closely with IP offices.

Subcommittee to Suppress IP Infringement

The Suppression of Intellectual Property Infringement Subcommittee was set up earlier this year in Thailand to resolve issues related to preventing IP infringement, reduce problems for IP rights holders, increase IP protection in accordance with international standards, and improve Thailand’s image as an IP-friendly country (a particularly important undertaking, as Thailand has been listed on the U.S. Trade Representative’s Priority Watch List for the past several years for providing insufficient IP protection).

The agencies that are part of the Subcommittee include the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and 15 other government agencies. Their inclusion in the Subcommittee is a clear indication that the government has recognized the importance of linkage between intergovernmental agencies that work on IP. The next agency to be added to the Subcommittee should be the Ministry of Agriculture, in order to ensure that agricultural inputs, animal health, and new plant variations are adequately protected.

IP Linkage with Health Regulators

There are many examples of IP linkage around the world. For instance, the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center) in the United States is composed of 23 partner agencies, of which 19 are federal agencies and 4 are foreign agencies (Interpol, Europol, and the Canadian and Mexican governments). The IPR Center is structured as a cohesive task force, in order to allow resources and skills to be pooled and leveraged, and to foster the sharing of information.

There is also a patent linkage system in the United States. When filing a New Drug Application with the U.S. FDA, an applicant must list any patents that cover the drug. The FDA will take these existing patents into consideration when reviewing the application, and if a patent exists, marketing approval will not be granted to a generic applicant unless and until the patent expires or is found invalid.

In the European Union, the EU Agencies Network is comprised of various agencies across EU member states, including the EU Intellectual Property Office. It promotes the sharing of information and expertise among these agencies. While the EU does not have a patent linkage system in place, generic drugs are still not allowed to be placed on the market until an existing patent expires. The EU also provides a period of data exclusivity, during which no other company may use the patent holder’s pre-clinical and clinical trials data in their regulatory filings for a generic version of a patented drug substance for a set amount of time. The EU also provides patent holders with a two-year period of market exclusivity, meaning that a generic drug company cannot market an equivalent generic version of an original product, but can instead submit an application for authorization so that they can begin marketing their generic product once the two years have expired.

Thailand has begun to provide linkage between the Department of Intellectual Property and the Thai FDA, but the system is in a very undeveloped stage. Since 2008, the Thai FDA has imposed a requirement on all applicants that are applying for a new drug to fill out a form listing all of their existing patents. While this is a step in the right direction, this type of mandatory disclosure should be enforced on applications for generic drugs, as infringement is most likely to occur with such drugs.

Thailand – Going Forward

Thailand can look to Singapore, its regional neighbor, for guidance on moving forward. After entering into a free trade agreement with the United States, Singapore introduced patent linkage as one of the requirements in an application for marketing approval. This system allows patent owners to monitor for potential infringement before generic drugs are launched by providing a framework that warns a patent owner any time a competitor’s application is submitted to market the same drug.

This framework is provided under Singapore’s Medicine Act. Under the Act, in order for applicants to obtain a product license, they must declare whether or not a patent is currently in force for the medical product that is the subject of the application. If there is a patent in force, the applicant needs to state that the patent is invalid. However, if the applicant cannot state that the patent is invalid, a notification may be sent to the patent holder to give the holder an opportunity to obtain a court order against the generic company’s launch of the drug. This is an example of successful linkage between an IP regime and health regulators—one which allows for better protection of patent holders’ rights.

This type of linkage should be implemented in Thailand, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. Thailand should implement a system of patent linkage in which generic drug applications must include patent information. If any patents that cover the drug exist, marketing approval for a generic drug should not be granted until the patent in question has expired or been found invalid. Such a system will better protect IP rights and reduce the risk of infringement.

Thailand Network Information Center

In Thailand, one instance in which linkage has been successfully implemented involves the Thailand Network Information Center (THNIC), which handles country code top-level domain names. In order to obtain a country code top-level domain name from THNIC, an applicant must confirm one of two things: (1) they are a business registered under that name in Thailand; or (2) they have a registered trademark in Thailand that uses that name.

THNIC is an example of well-implemented IP linkage and providing another means of enforcing IP rights. THNIC is a sign that steps have been taken in the right direction, but there is still more work to be done to link up more agencies and protect IP rights.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals
Jessica Grimm
Email

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Intellectual Property

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
On June 17, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 on Nutritional Information on Processed Food Labels. The new regulation, which revokes three previous nutrition labeling regulations, introduces several notable changes affecting food and beverage manufacturers, importers, and distributors. These changes range from updated nutrient reference values and serving-size requirements to the introduction of the Nutri-Level front-of-pack labeling system for certain beverage products. Businesses operating in Indonesia should carefully review these developments and assess their products’ compliance with the new requirements during the transition period. Implementation of the Nutri-Level Labeling System To implement the recently issued decree on Nutri-Level labeling, BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 stipulates the requirements to implement the Nutri-Level labeling system on the front-of-pack. Under the new framework, ready-to-drink beverages, powdered beverages, and liquid or solid concentrates are required to display Nutri-Level labeling on the front label of their packaging. The Nutri-Level labeling system classifies products into color-coded levels A through D based on their sugar, sodium, and total fat content. The applicable Nutri-Level is determined based on the lowest level measured in the assessment of sugar, sodium, and total fat content. For products classified as level C or D, the Nutri-Level label must be accompanied by information on the relevant sugar, sodium, and total fat content per 100 ml of the ready-to-consume product. Products classified as level A or B may either display only the Nutri-Level designation or display the Nutri-Level together with the relevant nutritional information per 100 ml. Minimum Vitamin and Mineral Content Required for Declaration BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 introduces a stricter threshold for the declaration of vitamins and minerals in the nutritional value information section (ING). Vitamins or minerals may only be declared if they are present at a
Read More
August 10, 2026
The drug registration process in Vietnam will be simplified, particularly for foreign applicants, following the recent issuance by Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH) of a new circular that is expected to reduce administrative hurdles. Circular No. 32/2026/TT-BYT on the registration of drugs and medicinal ingredients (Circular 32) was issued on July 29, 2026, and will take effect on October 1, 2026, replacing Circular No. 12/2025/TT-BYT. Key provisions of the new circular are discussed below. Five-Year Data Exclusivity and Five-Month Public Disclosure Framework Circular 32 updates data protection guidelines by explicitly referencing Article 128 of the amended Intellectual Property Law, which sets out that new drugs supported by clinical trial data submitted for the first time will be granted a five-year data exclusivity period from the date of the initial marketing authorization (MA) approval. Subsequent applications that rely on the originator’s protected data will not be eligible for approval from the date of submission of the originator’s registration dossier until five years after the first MA is granted. Furthermore, in accordance with the new regulations, the regulatory authority must publicly disclose information on subsequent applications five months before the granting of MA, providing originator companies with an opportunity to exercise and enforce their intellectual property rights. Simplified Requirements for Foreign Legal Documents Circular 32 expands the circumstances under which legal documents issued by foreign authorities are exempt from consular legalization and authenticity verification requirements. Specifically, such documents may be exempt if the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) is able to verify their authenticity directly through official electronic means, including written confirmation or email correspondence sent directly to the MOH by the competent foreign authority, or publicly accessible English-language databases maintained by recognized foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, the new circular permits the submission of electronic notarized copies of legal documents
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
For businesses in Thailand’s regulated industries, the problem of “too many licenses” is one of the most familiar hurdles to getting a product to market. Take a simple example: importing the materials necessary to sell teriyaki chicken skewers. To legally do this, a business may need approvals from several different agencies—separate permits for the chicken (Department of Livestock Development), the dipping sauce (Thai FDA), the wooden skewers (Department of Forestry), and other ingredients, each under a different authority. This kind of overlap is often cited to argue for a “regulatory guillotine”—a systematic review to cut outdated or duplicative rules that slow investment and business activity. The Facilitation of Licensing and Public Service Consideration Act B.E. 2569 (2026) (Licensing Facilitation Act 2026) is Thailand’s most significant response yet to that concern. This article looks at the Facilitation Act 2026 through a life sciences and regulatory affairs lens—what it may mean for the manufacturers, importers, and distributors of food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and similar products who routinely deal with several regulators to bring a single product to market. The Super License: One Approval Standing in for Many The reform with the clearest potential for regulated-product businesses is the law’s “super license” mechanism, referred to as a “main license” in the statute. Once a business obtains the main license for a regulated activity, it is automatically deemed to hold all related sublicenses issued by other agencies for that same activity, provided the activity has been designated as eligible in the Government Gazette. The Licensing Facilitation Act 2026 also creates a central application center, allowing applicants to submit a single application and pay all relevant fees at one point of contact, with the center routing the application to each agency through a shared information system. The potential benefits of this for businesses
Read More