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​ 

December 21, 2020
As we continue to await the Thai Food and Drug Administration (TFDA)’s promulgation of its medical cannabis application guidelines, the Thai Ministry of Public Health (TMoPH) has helpfully issued several notifications to further clarify the 2019 amendment to the Narcotics Act that initially paved the way for cannabis liberalization in the kingdom. Cannabis (both marijuana and hemp) has been classified as a Category 5 Narcotic since the enactment of the Narcotics Act in 1979. All activities related to the plants and their derivatives had been strictly restricted until the recent rise of the cannabis legalization movement, which began in Thailand with an amendment to the Narcotics Act in February 2019 to legalize medical marijuana. The Thai government has since been working to reclassify cannabis products and lay out the regulatory pathways to accommodate these new “economic plants.” A notification in August 2019 further carved modern drugs, cosmeceuticals, nutraceuticals, cosmetics, and food containing hemp or a certain amount of CBD out of the scope of Narcotics Act. The most recent TMoPH Notification was published in the Government Gazette on December 14, 2020, and has expanded the delisting of cannabis from the Narcotics Act to include nearly all parts of the cannabis plant, as set out below. Type of Plant Detailed Components Marijuana (plants in the cannabis family) Stalks, stems, fibers, branches, roots, leaves without the tip and inflorescence, extracts comprising CBD with less than 0.2% THC by weight. Hemp Stalks, stems, fibers, branches, roots, seeds, seed oils, seed extracts, leaves without the tip and inflorescence, extracts comprising CBD with less than 0.2% THC by weight, and residues from extraction with less than 0.2% THC by weight. The Narcotics Act and its notifications must be reviewed carefully by anyone seeking to take part in his industry, and items that are conspicuous
Read More
December 7, 2020
It is strongly recommended that entities which are considering entering the Thai cannabis market file applications to protect their marks and patents in Thailand as soon as possible. Cannabis Trademarks Thailand operates under a first-to-file trademark system. The Thai Trademark Office has verbally confirmed that trademark applications which include goods or services relating to medical cannabis are registrable. That being said, recent developments indicate that the Trademark Office will require applicants who file specifically for medical cannabis goods or services to submit proof that the applicant has permission to produce drugs containing cannabis from the Thai Food and Drug Administration. In addition, the Trademark Office is taking a conservative approach when it comes to the words and images that are registrable as trademarks. The Trademark Office has advised that words or images relating to cannabis will be refused based on Section 8(9) of the Thai Trademark Act, which states that a trademark that is contrary to public order, morality, or public policy shall not be registered. Given the above, applicants should carefully consider the trademarks that they would like to protect in Thailand to avoid unnecessary refusals. If the applicant does not yet have such permission from the Thai Food and Drug Administration, it is recommended that the applicant’s mark make no reference to cannabis, either visually or verbally, and that the list of goods and/or services does not specifically refer to cannabis or related terminology. In short, we urge applicants to enter into the Thai market early, with carefully-chosen marks and deliberately-worded descriptions of goods and/or services. Cannabis Patents Cannabis-related products and processes are now eligible for patent protection in Thailand, with some restrictions. A cannabis plant, including its parts and crude extract, are considered mere products of nature and thus not patentable. Another important restriction applies to
Read More
December 7, 2020
Vietnam’s efforts against the outbreak of COVID-19 in the country have been largely successful, and despite two distinct spikes of local transmission, in both cases the spread was halted relatively quickly. As these complications from the COVID-19 pandemic have been playing out in Vietnam throughout 2020, it became clear that effective and strong enforcement of healthcare regulations, especially those related to disease control, was crucial. On September 28, 2020, the government of Vietnam took action on this by issuing Decree No. 117/2020/ND-CP (“Decree 117”), which provides penalties for administrative violations in the healthcare sector. Some provisions of Decree 117—mostly those related to disease control and epidemic situations—took effect immediately, with the remainder taking effect on November 15, 2020. The decree, which was based on a draft proposed by the Ministry of Health, replaced Decree No. 176/2013/ND-CP on the same matter. The main administrative penalties under Decree 117 are reprimands and fines. Depending on the severity of the violation, violators may also be subject to additional penalties such as suspension of a certificate of eligibility for pharmaceutical business (CEPB), a license for healthcare operation, or other licenses and practicing certificates for up to 24 months; confiscation of illegal items; suspension of operations for up to 24 months; or deportation. Furthermore, remedial measures such as forced return of illegal earnings, compulsory quarantine and medical examination, public correction, or compulsory payment of treatment fees may also be applied. Some key highlights of Decree 117 are discussed below. In relation to disease control, the maximum fine for failure to comply with quarantine is doubled to VND 20 million (USD 855) for infected people of type-A contagious diseases, and VND 10 million (USD 427) for those who are not infected but are asked to quarantine. Failure to declare one’s contagious disease to a doctor
Read More
November 30, 2020
Vietnamese cuisine has a growing reputation internationally, and a visit to Vietnam will quickly reveal that food plays a very important role in the country’s identity and culture, as well as its economy. More than 80% of the population makes a living through some form of agriculture, and approximately 35% of household income in Vietnam is spent on food and beverages. As food is the most essential of necessities, and thus the first priority in household spending, this percentage tends to be high in developing countries, declining as incomes rise.
Read More