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

February 7, 2014

Patent Litigation in Thailand: Know Your Rights and Duties

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Patent litigation is on the rise in Thailand as patent owners become increasingly vigilant and their competitors strive to take advantage of technical disclosures and publicly available advancements.

With such intense market competition nowadays, it is no surprise that most companies try hard to be more innovative, both in terms of process improvements and new product developments.

As a result, companies may suddenly find themselves in a dispute about whether certain acts of manufacturing, importing, using or selling of a product, or implementation of a process amount to an infringement of a previously registered and validly held patent in Thailand.

From the perspective of an original inventor and a patent owner, it is crucial to ensure that new inventions and improvements receive a careful review for patent registration. If a decision is made to file a patent application for such inventions, the patent application must be drafted to deliver as robust and as broad protection of the invention as possible.

However, while the patent application is pending, the applicant is not yet allowed to bring a lawsuit against an infringer based on the pending application. In other words, a patent must be granted in Thailand before the patent owner can commence a legal action against the infringer in court.

From the standpoint of a potential infringer, it is advisable to carefully search and analyze related patents filed or granted in Thailand prior to engaging in any commercial production, marketing and/or sale of a patented product or implementation of a patented process.

Assuming that there is a valid and enforceable patent in Thailand under which a dispute arises, all patent infringement actions in Thailand fall within the jurisdiction of the Thai Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court). It has the authority not only to hear complaints relating to registered patents in Thailand, but also to grant other interim relief, including a preliminary injunction and an order for search and seizure of evidence of infringement (i.e., an Anton Piller order, so named for a famous 1976 case in England).

For a patent owner facing a potential infringement in Thailand, several enforcement options are available, ranging from informal enforcement measures to formal legal proceedings in court. Both criminal and civil infringement actions are available. Assuming that the infringer can be identified with certainty, the first recommended step is usually to send a formal letter notifying the violator of your patent rights, or a more strongly worded cease-and-desist letter.

Sending letters is a cheaper and less time-consuming avenue compared with launching a complaint with the IP&IT Court or the police authorities right away. It is quite possible that the alleged infringer(s) may not be aware that there is a valid patent in Thailand, and in some cases, they may agree to cooperate in order to avoid a costly and time-consuming litigation. Generally, these types of preliminary letters are sent by a patent attorney or a law firm representing the patent owner, or by the patent owner itself.

If the infringer does not reply or fails to discontinue the alleged infringing activity, more formal enforcement means may be employed, including a court order to seize evidence of infringement, a preliminary injunction, and, ultimately, a complaint to the IP&IT Court.

Once the lawsuit begins, the IP&IT Court will settle the issues in dispute. All parties in the suit will be given an opportunity to present their witnesses and evidence to the court. A patent infringement action generally takes from 18 to 36 months from the submission of the pleadings to the time of the first-instance judgment of the IP&IT Court, but it is possible that the trial may be protracted owing to the complexity of the patent and the amount of evidence to be presented.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More