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 14, 2019

Myanmar Passes Patent Law

Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Law No. 7/2019—Myanmar’s Patent Law—was enacted on March 11, 2019, providing a framework for the protection of inventions related to products and processes. This is the first legislation specifically addressing the protection of patents in the history of Myanmar.

The law will be administered by the Directorate of Patents of the Intellectual Property Office, to be established under the Ministry of Commerce, and implementing regulations will be issued in due course.

Overview

Under the Patent Law, an invention is patentable if it is novel, involves an inventive step, and is industrially applicable. Non-patentable inventions include discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; schemes, rules and methods for doing business, performing purely mental acts or playing games; computer programs; essentially biological processes for production of plants and animals other than man-made living micro-organisms and processes; plant or animal varieties; methods for the treatment of human and animal body and such diagnostic techniques; inventions related to known matters including naturally-existing objects or their new usage and features; and inventions which negatively affect the morals, peace, and tranquility of Myanmar.

Importantly, in accordance with the extended transition period for meeting obligations under the TRIPS Agreement for Least-Developed Country Members, the Patent Law contains special provisions exempting the protection of pharmaceutical patents until January 1, 2033, and the protection of chemical products used in agriculture, food products, and microbiological products until July 1, 2021, unless the Myanmar government specifies otherwise. 

Priority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty or the Paris Convention can be claimed in Myanmar within one year from the date of the initial application. Unless a request for early publication is submitted, applications are published 18 months after the date of application, whereas requests for substantive examination must be submitted within 36 months from the date of application. If official actions are issued by the Directorate of Patents, responses must be filed within 60 days.

The law contains provisions addressing compulsory licenses to be issued by the Directorate of Patents, and also makes the recordation of patent licenses mandatory. Further, the new law stipulates a national security clearance procedure, requiring applicants and inventors residing in Myanmar to obtain written authorization from the Directorate of Patents before applying for patents outside of Myanmar.

Granted patents are valid for a term of 20 years from the filing date, or 10 years for petty patents. Annuities are payable.

Patent infringement claims can be filed at the specialized Intellectual Property Court (which will be established by the Supreme Court of the Union via powers conferred under the law). Criminal penalties include imprisonment of up to a year, a fine not exceeding MMK 2,000,000 (approx. USD 1,300), or both.

Applications under the New Law

Patent applications can be filed in English or Myanmar language, but the registrar may request the submission of a certified translation in either language. Applications should contain:

  1. The request for grant of patent;
  2. The applicants’ names, nationalities or countries of incorporation, and addresses;
  3. The inventors’ names, nationalities, and addresses;
  4. The representative or agent’s name, national registration card number, and address;
  5. Patent specifications and drawings;
  6. One or more patent claims;
  7. Priority documents, if applicable; and
  8. The request for early publication, if applicable.

If an application made by joint applicants is executed by only one of the applicants, a written agreement evidencing the approval of all applicants must also be submitted. A disclosure statement on the origin of genetic resources and prior informed consent of the use of traditional knowledge in the claimed inventions must also be submitted if appropriate.

The Directorate of Patents and the Intellectual Property Office may stipulate additional required documents and information from time to time.

Next Steps

As with the recently enacted Trademark Law and Industrial Design Law, new applications under the Patent Law are not yet accepted. The effective date of the Patent Law will be announced via a Presidential Notification at a later stage. At present, no timeline has been set out for the issuance of implementing regulations or the establishment of the Intellectual Property Office. We will provide details as they become available.

For more information on this development, or to enquire about any of the steps above, please contact our Myanmar office at [email protected] or on +95 1 255 208.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction