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

March 2, 2021

Laos Provides Much-Needed Clarity on Patents

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

A new regulation in Laos provides significant practical clarity on procedures and contingencies related to patents and petty patents. Published in the Official Gazette on December 23, the Decision on Patents and Petty Patents no.1714/MOST, dated December 15, 2020, is the latest step in Laos’ ongoing efforts to improve the utility of its system for patents and petty patents.

Laos has steadily built up its patent regime since the early 2000s by issuing laws and regulations defining the key elements. These continued to be updated after Laos joined the Patent Cooperation Treaty in 2006, and in recent years, various regional and bilateral cooperation has helped accelerate some patent applications. However, even after the amended Law on Intellectual Property took effect in June 2018, the process could still be prohibitively time-consuming.

The new decision, which replaces a 2012 decision on the same topic, addresses this by clarifying and simplifying many key points, the most significant of which are detailed below.

  • Priority date. Applications filed under the PCT have a 31-month time limit for entering the national phase, counting from the priority date. This is a small change from the 2012 decision, which set the time limit at 30 months.
  • Submission of original documents. If the pre-filled, unsigned form for the power of attorney (POA) and deed of assignment (DOA) is submitted, scanned copies of the notarized POA and DOA must be submitted within 15 days (down from 60 days under the 2012 decision). However, the original documents must still be submitted within 60 days.
  • International classification. Applicants can ask the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) to indicate the international class of patent and petty patent applications. If there are amendments to the class, applicants can file an amendment form with the DIP free of charge. International classification was not mentioned in the 2012 decision.
  • Publication timeline. Applications for patents or petty patents will be published in the 19th month after the application filing or priority date. The 2012 decision, in contrast, did not mention the publication timeline.
  • Opposition. The procedures, timeframe, and required documents for an opposition to a patent or petty patent application are clearly and concisely indicated in the new decision, whereas opposition was not mentioned in the 2012 decision.
  • Examination. While the 2012 decision gave only a broad description of examination, the new decision provides clear guidelines on the procedures, requirements, and timeline of this phase. The applicant must request substantive examination within 24 months after the filing date for patent and six months for petty patent. International substantive examination results can be filed within three months of their receipt.
  • Claims. Each independent claim in excess of three and dependent claim in excess of fifteen will be subject to an excess claims fee.
  • Cancellation and withdrawal. Third parties can file cancellation applications with the DIP within five years after the relevant publication date in the official gazette. If more than five years has elapsed since the relevant patent’s publication date, the application should be filed with the court. The 2012 decision had only addressed this issue broadly.
  • Annuity payments. There is a six-month grace period for renewal and annuity payments.

While securing patents in Laos has tended not to be an area of emphasis for many companies operating in the jurisdiction, some of the ambiguity that surrounded the practice has been cleared up by this decision. Consequently, participation in the Lao patent protection regime is becoming a more viable and worthwhile option for companies looking to protect their proprietary technology and intellectual assets.

 

Note: This article has been amended since first publication to more precisely reflect the nature of the new provisions on excess claims.
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More