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

May 29, 2017

New Options to Accelerate Patent Registration in Cambodia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Cambodia’s patent system is still relatively young, with the Law on Patents, Utility Model Certificates, and Industrial Designs (Law on Patents) enacted in 2003. But over the past two years, the Ministry of Industry and Handicrafts (MIH) has taken important steps to expedite patent protection.

Cambodia has granted 17 patents, according to the Patent Office. While that number may seem small by international standards, it is important to understand that 10 of those patents were granted in 2016 and 6 were granted to date in 2017, so there is a real trend toward facilitating patent protection.

Although Cambodia lacks the infrastructure to examine patent applications, the MIH has made it possible to obtain granted patents in Cambodia through a number of agreements with other governments, with accelerated processes that can be completed in months, not years. These agreements are discussed in further detail below. 

Re-registration of Singapore Patents and Designs

On January 20, 2015, the MIH entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on the Cooperation in Industrial Property with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) to make it possible for holders of Singapore-granted patents to obtain protection in Cambodia under a streamlined re-registration process. To implement this process, the Prakas on Re-registration of Singapore Patents in Cambodia was adopted and became effective in July 2016.

There is no deadline to re-register a Singapore-granted patent in Cambodia, but the Singapore patent must:

  • Be in force at the time that the re-registration request was filed;
  • Have a filing date on or after February 11, 2003; and,
  • Be patentable in Cambodia as indicated under Articles 4 and 9 of the Law on Patents.

It is notable that Cambodia granted its first patent after the MIH entered into this memorandum of understanding with IPOS.

Facilitating Grant of Japanese Patents and Designs

The Cooperation for Facilitating Patent Grant (CPG) program between the MIH and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) will allow applicants to request accelerated decisions on patent applications filed in Cambodia if their patent has previously been examined and granted in Japan.

In order to participate in the CPG program, the following requirements must be met:

  • There must be a Japanese patent application which has the same earliest date (whether a priority date or a filing date) as the MIH patent application;
  • The corresponding Japanese patent application has been granted by the JPO; and
  • The claims in the MIH patent application have been amended to be the same as one or more claims in the corresponding Japanese patent application granted.

After verifying that all requirements have been met, it takes approximately two to three months for an MIH patent application to be granted.

Patent Cooperation Treaty

Cambodia became the 151st contracting state of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) on September 8, 2016, with the treaty entering into force in the country on December 8, 2016. Thus, any international patent application filed on or after December 8, 2016, will automatically include the designation of Cambodia and will automatically elect any demand filed in Cambodia.

Furthermore, nationals and residents of Cambodia are entitled, as of December 8, 2016, onward, to file international applications under the PCT. A local applicant in Cambodia can select to conduct patent searches with the IPOS, JPO, or the European Patent Office (EPO) when filing an international application.

Under the PCT, a current holder of an international application filed in a member country has 30 months from the initial priority date of their application to decide which other member countries they would like to seek patent protection in.

Validation of European Patents

Cambodia signed an Agreement on Validation of European Patents with the EPO on January 23, 2017, and the agreement will enter into force on July 1, 2017. Cambodia will be the first Asian country to validate/recognize European patents in its territory, placing it among 43 countries worldwide to allow protection with a single European patent application.

European patent applicants who wish to validate their patents in Cambodia on or after July 1, 2017, will be able to benefit from the new procedures, which involve filing a request for validation with the EPO and paying a validation fee within six months of the date of publication of the European search report in the European Patent Bulletin or within the required period for gaining entry into the European national phase of the qualified PCT international application.

Exceptions for Pharmaceutical Patents

Pharmaceutical patents are subject to a notable exception under all of the patent-granting methods described above. Article 4 of the Law on Patents excludes pharmaceutical products from patent protection in Cambodia until January 2016. However, since Cambodia is a least-developed country, the World Trade Organization’s Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Council for TRIPS) has decided that Cambodia is not obligated to provide protection to pharmaceutical-related patents until 2033.

Although Cambodia has not amended its Law on Patents to reflect the extension granted by the Council for TRIPS, the MIH anticipates that changes to the law may occur soon. The MIH is therefore reluctant to accept applications for pharmaceutical-related patents, and is likely to reject such applications altogether.

Despite a few limitations, accelerated patent registration via the IPOS, JPO, PCT, and EPO channels has great potential to facilitate increased intellectual property protection in Cambodia.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More