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​ 

August 30, 2024
As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from
Read More
August 30, 2024
In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For
Read More
August 30, 2024
With the emergence of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms, consumers have transformed their ways of engaging in transactions, gaining unprecedented convenience and access to a vast array of products. These platforms allow small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to reach a wider audience in an increasingly competitive market. Challenges in Tracing Online Infringers The growth of these online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms has also given rise to challenges, particularly in locating the actual identity of online infringers and combating intellectual property infringement activities. Online infringers often take advantage of anonymity to offer counterfeit products for sale on their platforms. Not only do these online infringing activities violate the rights of IP owners, but they also involve the sale of counterfeit products that are often manufactured with inferior quality and may pose significant risks to consumers’ health and safety. In today’s modern world, tracing the actual identity of online infringers proves challenging, as infringers adopt numerous methods to conceal their identity. The most frequently used method is using a fake name and address when dispatching parcels to consumers, making it difficult to verify the seller’s identity and the location of the sender on the parcel package. Some infringers exploit cash-on-delivery logistics services to prevent the disclosure of their identity, such as bank account numbers and bank account owner names, which would typically be required for direct payments. Instead, the shipping company collects the payment on their behalf, allowing the infringers to remain anonymous and making it more difficult to find their actual identity. Thailand’s New Regulations on Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services Recently, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification regarding Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business B.E. 2567 (2024) under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) in the Thai Royal Gazette dated July
Read More
August 7, 2024
A recent case at the Myanmar Competition Commission has set a significant precedent in the country’s approach to unfair competition practices. The case, involving a Thai manufacturer of cement grout and tile adhesive products and a local Myanmar producer, highlighted the Commission’s willingness to address issues of deceptive marketing and unfair competition. Background The case centered around a Thai manufacturer who has been distributing their cement grout and tile adhesive products in Myanmar for many years through local distribution agents. The company had established a well-known brand and a strong reputation for quality in the Myanmar market. In recent years, the Thai company discovered that a local individual in Myanmar was manufacturing and selling similar products with packaging nearly identical to their own. The local producer was using the same mark device, color, and packaging design themes, and the products contained deceptive information. Legal Proceedings After an initial cease-and-desist letter failed to resolve the issue, a complaint was submitted to the Myanmar Competition Commission. The case was notable because the Commission typically does not address issues of copying designs, marks, colors, or packaging themes. However, the complaint emphasized that the local individual was misleading customers and competing unfairly by using deceptive information and copying distinctive designs and themes. Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins, representing the Thai manufacturer, provided extensive documentation proving their client’s long-standing presence in the Myanmar market and the local individual’s deceptive practices. The Commission’s Investigation Committee conducted a thorough investigation, including market surveys and hearings involving both parties. Commission’s Decision After nearly a year of deliberation, on July 4, 2024, the Decision-Making Committee of the Myanmar Competition Commission ruled in favor of the Thai manufacturer. The decision required the local individual to: Immediately cease the production and distribution of cement grout and tile adhesive products bearing
Read More