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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 23, 2023
The latest update to Practical Law’s Life Sciences Global Guide includes a new “Life Sciences Regulation in Thailand” chapter by attorneys in Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office. The chapter covers a range of regulatory issues related to development, manufacturing, and selling of pharmaceutical products and medical devices in Thailand. The chapter provides important information on the following topics: Pharmaceuticals: Laws and regulatory authorities Clinical trials: Legal, regulatory, and procedural requirements Manufacturing and distribution Marketing: Authorization for marketing medicinal products, monitoring compliance and penalties, pharmacovigilance and other commitments, foreign marketing authorizations Data privacy Packaging, labeling, and tracking Biological medicines Medical devices: Legislation and regulatory authorities, definition and classification Healthcare IT Combination products and borderlines Natural health products Developments, reforms, and proposals Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The full “Life Sciences Regulation in Thailand” chapter can be accessed on the Practical Law website.
May 10, 2023
Cambodia’s Ministry of Health (MOH) has issued a notification reminding advertisers of health products and cosmetics in the country to obtain the required advertising approvals from the MOH. Issued on April 21, 2023, MOH Notification Letter No. 2198 on the Unauthorized Advertising of Modern Medicines, Traditional Medicines, Health Supplements, Medical Devices, and Health Supporting Products confirms that the MOH is aware of unauthorized advertising taking place in Cambodia, and signals its intention to increase enforcement efforts. It is therefore important for advertisers not yet in possession of the necessary approval to obtain the required advertising authorizations before marketing their health products in Cambodia. Advertising Framework for Health Products in Cambodia To legally advertise a health product in Cambodia, it must first be registered with the MOH (except for cosmetics, which only require notification). Only then can advertising approval be sought from the MOH, which will review the content of the proposed advertisement for compliance with Cambodian law. Approval is subject to a time limit, depending on the manner of advertising. All forms of advertising are covered under the MOH’s purview, including online, offline, business-to-consumer (B2C), business-to-business (B2B), promotion to healthcare professionals, and any other form of advertising. Key regulations prescribing general advertising rules are the Law on Consumer Protection, the Law on E-commerce, and the Sub-Decree on the Management of Commercial Advertising of Products and Services. However, product-specific regulations may also apply, depending on the type of product. For example, certain products may be subject to the regulation that sets rules for trading cosmetics in Cambodia, the (amended) Law on the Management of Pharmaceuticals, or others. Usually, product-specific regulations apply first, with the general product advertising rules being applied in addition wherever they do not conflict with the product-specific regulations. A key issue found among both general and product-specific
May 3, 2023
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have contributed the Laos and Thailand chapters to the newly released CMS Expert Guide to Cannabis Law and Legislation. The Thailand chapter was provided by Alan Adcock, partner and head of the firm’s regional life sciences team, while Dino Santaniello, head of Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Laos, produced the Laos chapter. The guide provides an overview of the legal framework regulating cannabis in 33 jurisdictions around the world. It covers topics such as medical, recreational, and industrial use of cannabis, as well as the patentability of cannabis-based products. The guide’s chapters offer high-level information on the legal approach taken in each jurisdiction, as well as guidance for companies and business activities exploring possibilities in relation to cannabis and hemp. The Laos and Thailand chapters—as well as the full guide to cannabis law in 33 jurisdictions—are available on the CMS website.
April 20, 2023
Food safety is one important area of focus as Cambodia continues to improve its regulatory framework surrounding consumer protection. Last year, the new Law on Food Safety set out the main principles to regulate the food sector, providing general rights and obligations of food businesses and requirements for food products traded in Cambodia. Then in the first months of 2023, two implementing regulations were issued to clarify the overarching principles of the Law on Food Safety, as well as its enforcement mechanisms. The adoption of these enforcement-related regulations is once again a clear signal to the market that the Cambodian government is taking the enforcement of consumer protection laws seriously. Food Surveillance, Seizure, and Recalls The first of these implementing regulations was Sub-Decree No. 13 on the Conditions, Formalities and Procedures for Food Surveillance and Seizure, dated January 6, 2023 (SD 13), followed the next month by Prakas No. 080 on the Forms and Procedures to Seize Unsafe Foods or Foods Not Complying with Technical Regulations, dated February 22, 2023 (Prakas 80). These implementing regulations give clarity on how the authorities will monitor and inspect the food sector, and in what cases the authorities may resort to recalls or seizure of foods. Prakas 80 also provides the necessary paperwork for both inspecting officers and companies to use when reporting on unsafe foods to authorities and the public. Lastly, the regulations further clarify the obligations for food businesses and the penalties for noncompliance. The Consumer Protection, Competition, and Fraud Repression Directorate-General (CCF) of the Ministry of Commerce takes a key role as the main enforcement authority under the regulations. The CCF receives reports on unsafe foods, manages voluntary recalls, publishes warnings to the public regarding unsafe foods, seizes unsafe or otherwise noncompliant goods, and applies the administrative fines and penalties