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

July 3, 2023

MIP: Securing Patents for AI in Southeast Asia

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Southeast Asia has experienced a significant increase in foreign investment, which has not only brought innovation but also raised questions about protecting such innovation. Investors are increasingly interested in patenting the proprietary technology that plays a vital role in numerous businesses today.

Recently, particular interest has been shown in innovations related to artificial intelligence (AI) technology and software. Are these types of innovations patentable, and if so, how? When it comes to Southeast Asia, the answers to these questions are not straightforward, due to the lack of uniform patent laws across the region.

Issues of Patentability

The patentability of computer software has long been a topic of discussion, predating the emergence of AI tools. Many jurisdictions have specific rules regarding the patentability of software. Pure software, defined solely by source code, may not qualify for patent protection but can be safeguarded under copyright laws. AI-related software often involves intricate algorithms, datasets, and training methodologies that pose challenges when it comes to satisfying the enablement requirement for disclosure. However, algorithms, mathematical methods, and abstract ideas are generally considered non-patentable subject matter in many jurisdictions. Although software implementing AI may incorporate innovative algorithms, obtaining patents solely for algorithms can be difficult in certain countries.

For instance, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam explicitly exclude computer programs from patentable subject matter. However, a potential workaround in these countries is to describe the software as being connected to a tangible medium. This approach could overcome rejections based on subject matter during substantive examination. Moreover, in Indonesia, a computer program can be eligible for patent protection if its characteristics (i.e., instructions) have a technical effect and serve to address a tangible or intangible problem.

Among Southeast Asian countries, Singapore has the most lenient patent regime, even explicitly addressing AI innovations. The country has implemented a special fast-track scheme called the Accelerated Initiative for Artificial Intelligence, enabling patent applications related to AI to be granted within six months from the filing date.

Patent Drafting Considerations

When drafting patent applications for AI technology and software in Southeast Asia, it is crucial for patent drafters to be well-versed in the specific patentability requirements of each country in the region. One approach to consider during drafting is to establish a connection between the software and a tangible medium in the description. If the software can be linked to a tangible medium, it increases the chances of patentability.

Even if patent claims in other regions, such as the U.S., do not require such a connection with a tangible medium, when entering Southeast Asia, the claims can be amended to include this connection without expanding the scope of the application, provided the necessary information already exists in the description. This implies that AI technology and software can be patentable as part of a broader invention that meets patentability criteria.

Potential Strategies for Prosecution

To expedite the prosecution process for patenting AI (or any other) innovations, applicants should explore options for accelerated examination. ASEAN member countries have established a scheme known as the ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation, accepting examination results from one another.

Additionally, many Southeast Asian countries have agreements for accepting patent examination results from other countries, referred to as “patent prosecution highways” (PPHs). For instance, Cambodia has an agreement to validate European patents without further examination. Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam have PPH agreements with Japan, allowing patent applicants to utilize the examination results of corresponding Japanese patents that have already been granted to expedite the examination process in their respective countries. While the examiner in the receiving country will still evaluate the application to ensure compliance with its patent laws, the examination result from Japan should facilitate a faster examination process.

Successfully patenting AI technology and software in Southeast Asia necessitates a nuanced approach that considers existing laws and procedures, as well as new considerations brought about by cutting-edge technology. As businesses continue to innovate and develop proprietary technology, it is crucial to devise a comprehensive strategy for safeguarding these valuable assets through patents. By staying abreast of the latest developments in the field and working closely with experienced legal professionals, businesses in Southeast Asia can navigate the intricate patenting process and secure the necessary protection to maintain a competitive advantage in the rapidly evolving global marketplace.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More