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​ 

July 20, 2022
What does “digital health” include within each jurisdiction? Thailand: For the most part, the idea of “digital health” or “telemedicine” has generally fallen within the area of medical device regulation in Thailand. The normal sort of digital health components you would think of—like software and device accessories for diagnosis, monitoring, prevention, or treatment of illnesses—would fall into medical device classification, so long as they do not achieve their intended function by immunological, metabolic, or pharmacological means. The “digital health” devices you commonly think of, like mobile medical apps, wearable technologies and software, fall mainly within this definition. After the last update to the Medical Device Act in 2008, Thailand next looked at digital health in 2019, with the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA)—which is largely aligned with GDPR principles—and the Cybersecurity Act. These deal with important issues arising from “digital health” and “telemedicine” like personal data protection, consent to use and consent to transfer data, and privacy. Vietnam: Similarly, in Vietnam, while there’s not a clear definition of “digital health” in the law, it is understood to include various types of medical devices, software, and online services used for healthcare purposes—including diagnosis and treatment as well as medical records and telemedicine. There’s no law on digital health, per se, but many of these areas are covered by separate circulars issued by the Ministry of Health. There’s a circular (referred to as “Circular 49”) from late 2017 on telemedicine, for example, that actually uses the term “telemedicine” to identify the industry and sets out licensing and technical requirements. Indicators such as this show that Vietnam is definitely embracing the concept. Indonesia: In Indonesia, there is also no precise definition of “digital health.” Digital health is regulated under several laws and regulations, such as provisions concerning medical devices under the health
Read More
July 6, 2022
Patent is an essential piece of the amended Law on Intellectual Property (“Amended IP Law”), which was passed by the National Assembly of Vietnam on June 16, 2022, and will take effect on January 1, 2023 (except for the regulation on protection of experimental data for agrochemical products, which will take delayed effect on January 14, 2024). Among the amended and supplemented contents of the Amended IP Law, there are notable patent-related amendments to Article 60 on assessing the novelty of inventions and Article 96 on grounds for invalidating patent protection titles. We discuss these changes below. Secret Prior Art Under Article 60.1 A significant amendment to Clause 1, Article 60 of the Amended IP Law on the novelty of inventions is to broaden the scope under which an invention can be considered to have lost its novelty. For the first time in Vietnam, “secret prior art” –a patent application with an earlier filing date or priority date but published on or after the filing date or priority date of an examined patent application – is introduced as a prior art document. In the diagram above, at the time of filing of the A2 application, secret prior art A1 has been filed but not yet published, making it inaccessible to the public. At this point, only the A1 applicant and the IP Office are aware of the A1 application. Under the current provisions of the 2005 IP Law, as amended in 2009 and 2019, the A1 patent application is not eligible to be a prior art document when assessing the novelty of A2. However, based on the “first-to-file principle” and the principle of priority, the IP Office has still had other approaches to bar the patentability of an A2 patent application if there is such an A1 application. By
Read More
June 13, 2022
Thailand’s cannabis cultivation licensing scheme for the country’s transition toward legalization of the plant has now come to an end. The Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) announced in the Government Gazette that from June 9, 2022, “only cannabis extract with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of more than 0.2% by weight will be considered a narcotic.” This means that now anyone can grow, sell, or purchase cannabis seeds, plants, and inflorescence freely in Thailand, and licenses for the cultivation, possession, and distribution of cannabis are no longer required. Neither the number of cannabis plants nor the place of cultivation is restricted. It is thus the beginning of a new chapter for cannabis cultivation in Thailand, with many opining that now is a good time to enter this exciting and growing industry. The journey to this point began in 2019, when Thailand amended its laws on cannabis to allow for treatment for medical purposes, with one of the prerequisite conditions being that the cannabis must be grown in Thailand. The law was further amended to promote commercialization of the cannabis industry, allowing for cannabis to be added to food and beverages, cosmetics, and herbal products. In addition, three traditional cannabis-based formulas were listed in the universal healthcare coverage scheme, which means that almost all Thais have access to traditional cannabis recipes without cost. The successful launch of medical cannabis and its applications, and its viability as an economic industry, have become a national agenda and priority policy of the MOPH. In order to achieve the above outcomes, several legal frameworks and guidelines throughout the product’s lifecycle have been developed. For example, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has so far granted licenses to cultivate cannabis (also known as a license to manufacture a narcotic) on more than 1,977 acres (around 800 hectares).
Read More
April 19, 2022
New technologies and production processes in the food industry have led to novel foods becoming increasingly important to both food manufacturers and the consuming public worldwide. This is very much the case across a number of jurisdictions in Southeast Asia. “Novel foods” refer to new food production processes, foods, and ingredients that have not yet been commonly used for human consumption, so these innovative foods require safety assessments before companies can produce and market them. While rules for these safety assessments are already part of novel food regulations in several other jurisdictions—such as the novel food regulations in the United Kingdom and European Union adopted in 2003, and the major reform of food safety laws in the United States passed in 2011 under the Food Modernization Act—similar rules governing the assessment of novel foods are relatively new or yet to be introduced in many parts of Asia. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the laws and practices that apply to safety assessments and the process of bringing novel foods to market in jurisdictions in the region. This article provides some clarity in this regard by summarizing important practical information on novel foods and the relevant required safety assessments in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam.   Indonesia Regulator National Agency for Drug and Food Control (NADFC); frequently referred to as BPOM (Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan). Relevant Measures BPOM Regulation No. 27 Year 2018 concerning Public Service Standards in BPOM; Decision of the Director of Processed Food Standardization No. HK.02.02.51.511.06.21.21 Year 2021 concerning Public Service Standard Directorate Processed Food Standardization Definitions General “food ingredients” are basic fresh or processed ingredients that can be used to produce food; novel food is any food ingredient not listed in BPOM’s positive list of ingredients. Official Fees None   Process and Timeline Before submitting an
Read More