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 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