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​ 

August 23, 2022
On July 13, 2022, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 46/2022/ND-CP amending and supplementing some articles of Decree No. 13/2020/ND-CP providing detailed guidance on the Law on Animal Husbandry (“Decree 46”). The new decree took effect on the issuance date. Among the changes introduced by Decree 46 are a number related to animal feed. Recognition of Testing Methods of Exporting Countries Decree 46 clarifies the steps to recognize animal feed testing methods of laboratories in exporting countries. Under the amended regulations, the Department of Livestock Production (DLP) will organize an assessment team to appraise each dossier for recognition of animal feed testing methods within 30 days of receipt of a complete dossier. If the dossier lacks required information or authenticity, the DLP will organize a practical assessment team at the exporting country’s testing laboratory. If the dossier passes the assessment, within five working days from the completion of the assessment, the DLP will issue a decision on recognition of the testing method. The validity of this decision has been lengthened from three years to five years. State Inspection of Animal Feed Quality Process of State Inspection Decree 46 specifies the process to conduct state inspection of the quality of imported animal feed by unifying the regulations stipulated in the related legal documents listed in Decree 13. The process includes the submission of a state inspection dossier, timelines to receive feedback from the inspection authority, and further steps that can be taken upon receiving acceptance or refusal decisions from the authority. For traditional animal feed and complete compound animal feed, imported shipments are customs-cleared as soon as the importer completes the customs procedures. Within 15 days from the customs clearance date, the importer must submit the conformity assessment results. The importer has complete responsibility for the conformity assessment results, and
August 18, 2022
Practical Law has published an updated online version of Agricultural Law in Thailand, a Q&A-style guide that provides detailed overviews of Thailand’s agriculture laws and regulations. The Thailand overview is one of approximately twenty such guides to jurisdictions worldwide, covering key practical issues related to the legal environment for agricultural operations. The Thailand section, which was written by lawyers at Tilleke & Gibbins, covers the following topics: Agricultural policy Acquisition of agricultural companies Acquisition of agricultural land Crop seed business Plant variety rights Genetically modified crops Animal and animal welfare issues Agricultural safety and product liability Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is a comprehensive global legal resource for business lawyers. The platform features a wide range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The full Agricultural Law in Thailand chapter can be accessed on the Practical Law website.
August 9, 2022
In late 2021, the government of Vietnam issued Decree 98 on the management of medical devices (Decree No. 98/2021/ND-CP dated November 8, 2021), which came into force on January 1, 2022. This is the primary legislation on medical devices in Vietnam. To provide necessary guidance and elaboration on the implementation of Decree 98, the Ministry of Health recently issued Circular No. 05/2022/TT/BYT dated August 1, 2022 (“Circular 05”), which took effect on the same day. The most notable aspect of Circular 05 is that it unifies, in a single legislative document, previous regulations on medical devices that were scattered in multiple circulars issued by the Ministry of Health (Circular No. 39/2016/TT-BYT dated October 28, 2106; Circular No. 46/2017/TT-BYT dated December 15, 2017, as amended by Circular No. 23/2021/TT-BYT dated December 9, 2021; and Circular No. 33/2020/TT-BYT dated December 31, 2020). The effectiveness of these circulars was terminated when Circular 05 took effect. Circular 05 sets out regulations and principles for the classification of medical devices, and adds or supplements the following lists: List of in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD) not subject to quality assessment by Vietnamese competent authorities when registering under the quick registration procedure. List of class B, C and D medical devices allowed to be traded as normal goods. List of medical devices required to be accredited for safety and technical functions before use. List of medical devices requiring import permit licenses. While Circular 05 does not introduce major changes to the previous regulations, the consolidation and up-to-date guidance on Decree 98 will simplify the task of registration and circulation for medical device companies doing business in Vietnam.
August 4, 2022
Cosmetics have become an essential feature of the modern lifestyle led by many consumers in Cambodia. Every day, a wide range of new cosmetic brands, variants, and formats enter the Cambodian market, catering to a growing consumer base. The market generally relies on the import of foreign cosmetic brands, making Cambodia an attractive market for overseas cosmetics companies, but local brands are on the rise as well. Alongside the significant growth of the cosmetics market in Cambodia, and the Royal Government’s continuing push to increase consumer protection in Cambodia, in 2022, the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Prakas No. 0064 on the Requirements for Cosmetic Distribution (the Prakas). The Prakas applies to both locally manufactured and imported cosmetics, and both individual and businesses that trade in cosmetics. The Prakas aims to regulate cosmetics and cosmetic business activities, to ensure that cosmetics distributed in Cambodia are of good quality and safe for use.  The key points contained in the Prakas are summarized below. Legal Obligations for Trading Cosmetics Any person trading in cosmetics, including wholesale or retail, and those that offer cosmetics as gifts or for testing, must ensure that the products are safe and meet the legal labelling requirements. Anyone trading cosmetics must respect the Law on Consumer Protection, with the Prakas highlighting key aspects of that law and referring to the applicable penalties under that law. Online sellers of cosmetics must obtain an additional approval letter (for individuals) or a license (for legal entities) to operate an online business, issued by the MOC. In addition, they require a certificate for providing online services from the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications. Interestingly, the Prakas does not refer to the cosmetic business licensing required under regulations issued by the Ministry of Health. As the Prakas does not outright contradict these