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 19, 2023

Patent Acceleration Programs in SEA Countries

Subscribe to Updates

Patent prosecution can be a lengthy process, especially in jurisdictions where patent office backlogs impede the timely examination and grant of patents. Acknowledging the imperative for expeditious patent prosecution, numerous patent holders in Southeast Asian (SEA) nations have expressed their eagerness to expedite the process.

Consequently, governments in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam have instituted diverse programs to facilitate swifter patent examination and grant. These programs are implemented either within their own intellectual property systems or through collaboration with other intellectual property offices. Notably, many accelerated examination programs are also available for inventions pertaining to green technologies or matters of public interest. In this article, we will explore a selection of these options, shedding light on the programs that facilitate faster patent examination and grant. While the following sections highlight specific initiatives, it is important to note that there may be other programs and opportunities beyond those mentioned here.

 

ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation (ASPEC) Program

One of the most notable programs in the region, the ASPEC program offers a mechanism for patent applicants to accelerate the examination of their patent applications in a participating IP office of an ASEAN member state (the second IP office) by leveraging the search and examination reports issued by the participating IP office of another ASEAN member state (the first IP office) on the corresponding application. Patent applications filed in any of the participating ASEAN member states, including Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, are eligible to benefit from the ASPEC program.

An ASPEC request can be filed at any time before the final decision of grant or refusal; however, to maximize the effectiveness of the program, it is advisable to file the ASPEC request concurrently with the substantive examination request—by doing so, the substantive examination process can be initiated promptly, potentially resulting in the issuance of a first office action within a span of six months. Additionally, it is worth noting that no government fees are incurred for requesting participation in the ASPEC program, further incentivizing patent applicants to avail themselves of this acceleration opportunity.

Starting on August 27, 2019, two new features under ASPEC were introduced:

  • The ASPEC Acceleration for Industry 4.0 Infrastructure and Manufacturing Pilot (ASPEC AIM) Program to accelerate Industry 4.0 patent applications with a committed turnaround time of six months to receive the first office action. The program was extended for two years until August 26, 2023, with a cap of 50 applications per year.
  • The Patent Cooperation Treaty-ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation (PCT-ASPEC) to allow patent applicants to use a PCT report established by an ASEAN International Searching Authority or Preliminary Examining Authority (ISA/IPEA) to accelerate patent protection in nine participating AMS IP Offices. The program was extended for three years until August 26, 2025, with a cap of 100 applications per year.

The ASPEC program, while intended to expedite patent examination, presents certain limitations based on our practice experience:

  • The Indonesian IP Office (DGIP) generally treats an ASPEC request as a supporting document rather than a request for acceleration. Consequently, the examination time does not significantly decrease.
  • In Thailand, although the Thai Patent Office gives priority to ASPEC-enrolled applications, the search and examination documents from corresponding applications are only considered as guides or references. This can lead to requests for submission of foreign patents from other jurisdictions, potentially prolonging the examination process and undermining the expected acceleration.
  • The actual lead time between ASPEC enrollment and the issuance of the first action often exceeds six months.
  • Participating in the ASPEC program can also result in additional costs, particularly in terms of counsel fees. Furthermore, if the IP office insists on relying on foreign patents from non-ASPEC countries, especially IP5 countries, prosecution costs may further increase.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the ASPEC program remains an attractive option for expediting patent examination within the ASEAN region. As Tilleke & Gibbins continue to navigate the complexities of the patent prosecution process, our team remains committed to assisting clients in leveraging programs like ASPEC to expedite the examination of their patent applications while considering the specific nuances and limitations associated with each jurisdiction.

 

Patent Prosecution Highway

The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) is another mechanism that enables accelerated patent examination. The PPH allows applicants to request accelerated examination in a target country based on the examination results from a corresponding application in a partner country. Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam have established PPH programs with various partner countries. Through these programs, applicants can take advantage of the work already done by partner patent offices to expedite examination and grant in the target country.

Indonesia has a PPH agreement with the Japan Patent Office (JPO). A PPH request can be filed after the six-month publication phase has ended, but before the DGIP has issued a first substantive office action on the application. In practice, the substantive examination process takes 18-30 months to complete. By participating in the PPH program, the substantive examination process can be accelerated.

The PPH Pilot Program between the Thailand Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and the JPO commenced on January 1, 2014. The program has recently been extended until January 1, 2024. A PPH request can be filed either: (i) at the same time as the substantive examination request for the relevant patent application; or (ii) after the substantive examination request, but before the DIP issues a first substantive office action for the application. The first office action is usually issued within six months from the date of the PPH request.

The Vietnam IP Office has signed PPH programs with the JPO and the Korean Patent Office (KIPO) for applications of Japanese or Korean origin, respectively. A PPH request can be filed before the IP Office issues a first substantive office action for the application. These two PPH programs are very effective in accelerating the examination of patent applications; the first office action is normally issued within nine months from the date of the PPH request.

PPH programs have many advantages compared to other acceleration programs, such as:

  • The IP offices collaborating in the PPH programs are large and reputable, with examination results that are often relied on by the examiners in SEA countries. Applications originating from these countries are usually of good quality with clear and coherent specification.
  • Patents in these countries, like Japan, usually have a short examination timeline and are granted very quickly. This facilitates the early submission of PPH requests, particularly before the first office action is issued in the SEA country.
  • The coordination between IP offices collaborating in the PPH programs and the SEA IP offices has been very good. PPH applications are processed in a quick and efficient manner.
  • Japanese applicants and their representatives also often coordinate well with the SEA IP office to rectify formality shortcomings and avoid prolongation of the examination period.

Despite the fact that PPH programs are limited only to applications originating from countries collaborating in the programs, it is indisputable that they are still the most attractive acceleration method in SEA countries, owing to their effectiveness.

 

Other Acceleration Programs

While the ASPEC and PPH programs are prominent options for patent acceleration in the SEA region, there are also other programs available in individual countries. For example, Cambodia has implemented acceleration and re-registration or validation programs for patents granted in Japan, Korea, the U.S., China, Singapore, and Europe, allowing patent holders to extend their protection to Cambodia based on their granted patents in collaborating countries. Similarly, Laos has implemented cooperation programs with Japan, China, and Korea to facilitate patent grant based on examination results from the respective countries, as well as re-registration from a Singaporean patent. In Vietnam, the Collaborative Search and Examination program (CS&E) between the IP offices of Singapore and Vietnam is also available. Although those implemented within their own systems may not be so effective as the other collaboration programs, the internal acceleration programs of the SEA IP offices offer certain benefits to the patent applicants choosing them for their patent prosecution pathway.

Further, as a method of informal acceleration in Vietnam, our team proactively submits favorable examination results on corresponding patent applications filed in Europe, the U.S., Japan, China, and Korea (the five largest IP offices in the world, or “IP5”) to the examiner in charge or contacts clients to conform their Vietnamese applications to granted counterparts by a voluntary amendment. As conforming to a patent granted in an IP5 country will likely be accepted by the IP Office of Vietnam, informal acceleration is useful to shorten the examination process.

 

Conclusion

In summary, patent acceleration programs in SEA countries offer valuable opportunities for patent owners to expedite the examination and grant of their patents. The ASPEC program provides a regional approach, allowing applicants to benefit from examination results across ASEAN member states. The PPH programs and other country-specific initiatives also offer avenues for accelerated examination based on prior examination results. These programs contribute to streamlined processes, reduced costs, and faster patent protection in the SEA region. Patent holders should explore these options to make the most of their patent applications in these countries.

Please note that this article provides a general overview of patent acceleration programs in SEA countries and does not cover all available options or specific details. For comprehensive information and specific requirements, it is advisable to consult with a qualified intellectual property professional or refer to the official guidelines and resources provided by the respective patent offices.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More