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

April 14, 2017

IP Linkage: The Thai Government’s Efforts to Connect Agencies

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

On February 24, 2017, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha spoke to the nation and discussed the 12,000+ patent applications before the Thai Patent Office that are currently being processed and awaiting final decision on whether they will be granted. With Thailand having one of the world’s longest patent pendency periods, the Prime Minister noted that this matter must be addressed urgently.

Currently, local Thai and foreign patent applicants are awaiting the announcement of a government order that is expected to introduce a modified examination process for qualifying applications. This is not the first time the Prime Minister has affirmed the government’s policy to strengthen intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement in Thailand. 

Just last year, the Suppression of Intellectual Property Infringement Subcommittee was set up 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 nine 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 whose work touches 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.

Intellectual property 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.

On March 8, the Government held a meeting to discuss its plan to clear the longstanding patent backlog. The inclusion of various government agencies and private associations including the FDA, the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA), the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PReMA), the Intellectual Property Association of Thailand (IPAT), Fair Trade Area Watch (FTA Watch), and the Thai Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (TPMA) is a clear sign of the government’s intention to connect various interested parties together in order to address Thailand’s patent pendency problem.        

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. A similar body has been created in the Philippines.

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 U.S. 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.

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.

Thailand has begun to provide linkage between the DIP 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.

The Thai government’s recent efforts to connect the various ministries and agencies whose work touches on IP is an important step in addressing many of the issues long identified as obstacles to further encouragement of Thai innovation and value creation.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 15, 2025
On July 1, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Health issued Circular No. 30/2025/TT-BYT providing updated guidance on the application of drug quality standards, testing of drugs and pharmaceutical ingredients, and procedures for the recall and handling of noncompliant drugs (Circular 30). Circular 30 officially came into effect on the same day and replaces Circular No. 11/2018/TT-BYT and its amendments. Key highlights of Circular 30 are presented below. Drug and Pharmaceutical Ingredient Quality Standards Circular 30 maintains consistency with previous regulations regarding the selection of an applicable quality specification. Pharmaceutical businesses and drug preparation establishments may still choose to apply standards from the Vietnamese Pharmacopoeia, reference pharmacopoeias (including the United States Pharmacopoeia, the European Pharmacopoeia, the British Pharmacopoeia, the Japanese Pharmacopoeia, and the International Pharmacopoeia), or an in-house specification. Priority is given to the Vietnamese Pharmacopoeia and reference pharmacopoeias, encompassing quality indicators, quality levels, and testing methods. If alternative pharmacopoeias or in-house specifications are used, they must meet the requirements outlined in the corresponding monographs of the Vietnamese or reference pharmacopoeias. At the time of registration, the quality standards of drugs and pharmaceutical ingredients must comply with either the current version of the pharmacopoeia or a previous version of the pharmacopoeia that is no more than two years older than the current version. The requirement for updating quality specifications in line with the quality under the corresponding pharmacopoeia also applies to products that have already been granted marketing authorization. Testing Drugs and Pharmaceutical Ingredients in Quality Management Similar to the regulations under the previous circular, if pharmaceutical businesses disagree with the sample testing results, they may, within five working days of receiving the test report, request that the state quality inspection authority designate an alternative testing facility. The testing period for establishments listed as foreign drug manufacturers with quality violations remains
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
July 8, 2025
On July 3, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH) issued Circular No. 34/2025/TT-BYT amending some articles of Circular No. 06/2011/TT-BYT on the management of cosmetics products (Circular 34), which provides the current regulations on the product notification process for cosmetics (cosmetic notification). Circular 34 will come into effect on August 18, 2025. Changes to Cosmetic Notification Some of the key stipulations of Circular 34 are outlined below. Addition of submission route for notification Circular 34 officially adds online submission via the National Public Service Portal as an accepted type of cosmetic notification, in addition to direct submission and submission via post. Clearer regulations on preparing cosmetic notification form Circular 34 provides clarification on the signing requirements for cosmetic notification forms. For online submissions, both e-signatures and digital signatures are accepted. For offline submissions, the circular explicitly states that stamped/generated signatures are not acceptable. There are no substantive changes to existing requirements regarding grouping of products in a single declaration, ingredient listing, or language used in the notification form. Circular 34 only introduces formatting adjustments to these provisions. Updated administrative procedures Circular 34 updates requirements on digital procedures and authentication for online submission with references to new government decrees. In addition, processing timelines for cosmetic notification are further clarified, in particular, five working days for feedback on incomplete dossiers and five working days for approval after receiving complete supplemental dossiers. Revised requirements for import of samples for testing and research An updated Appendix 14-MP form is introduced with Circular 34, in which the receiving authority is updated from the Drug Administration of Vietnam to the specialized health agency under the provincial People’s Committee. Both online and direct submission of the request are allowed. The approval timeline is three working days from the date of reviewing the request. Transition clause Notifications
July 8, 2025
On June 29, 2025, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 163/2025/ND-CP providing detailed guidance on the implementation of the amended Law on Pharmacy (Decree 163). Decree 163, like the amended Law on Pharmacy, took effect on July 1, 2025, officially replacing Decree No. 54/2017/ND-CP (Decree 54). The new decree introduces comprehensive regulations across key areas of pharmaceutical management such as pharmacy practice certificates, certificates of eligibility for pharmaceutical business, import and export of drugs and drug materials, GMP inspection of foreign manufacturers, drug and drug material recall, certificates of drug advertising content, and drug price management. Key Changes in Decree 163 Some outstanding changes and additions in Decree 163 are presented below. Destruction of Specially Controlled Drugs It is no longer required to obtain approval from the competent authority before the destruction of narcotic, psychotropic, and precursor drugs, and pharmaceutical ingredients that are narcotic or psychotropic substances, or precursors used in drugs. Instead, notification must be provided at least seven working days in advance, including the proposed destruction date and a detailed list of items to be destroyed. E-commerce in Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceutical businesses operating via e-commerce platforms must publicly disclose the following information to ensure transparency and consumer safety: (i) certificate of eligibility for pharmaceutical business, (ii) pharmacy practice certificate of the person responsible for pharmaceutical expertise, and (iii) drug information. Shelf-Life Requirements for Imported Products For drugs and ingredients with a total shelf life of nine months or less, at least one-third of the shelf life must remain at the time of customs clearance. Drugs with a shelf life of 30 days or less must still be within their shelf life at the time of clearance. Control of Imported Products Drugs subject to import control include all drugs with marketing authorization (MA), except for (i) drugs that