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 17, 2012

Patentability of “New Use” Patents in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Among international IP practitioners, there has long been a controversial issue regarding whether the new use of a known product can satisfy the novelty requirement to be patentable. So-called “new use” patents frequently concern subject matter such as chemical substances or medical use of known products.

In Thailand, this question has never been put to the test in the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court recently rendered a decision on an attempt to invalidate an invention patent, which concerned a new discovery of the use of a known, non-chemical product claiming to be novel and inventive. The Thai Supreme Court’s elucidation, in response to the “new use” patent in Thailand, is described below.

Thai Patent Law

Thai patent law generally provides protection for three different types of patents—invention patents, design patents, and petty patents. An invention patent protects innovations that result in a new product or process, or any improvement of a known product or process. Similar to most jurisdictions, in order to be patentable, an invention must be new, non-obviously inventive, and industrially applicable.

But if an applicant discovers a new way to use an existing product that provides an unexpected result, can this new use be patented under Thai patent law?

Thai Court Perspective

A Thai individual patented a new use for reed mats, to absorb humidity and thus protect cargo stored on ships, and enforced this patent against competitors. Among the competitors was Chidlom Marine Services & Supplies Ltd., which is a market leader in shipping-related and logistics services in Thailand.

Chidlom Marine thus filed a civil action against this Thai individual to invalidate his Patent No. 8871, arguing that the issuance of this patent was unlawful.

Thailand’s Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court rendered its decision in favor of Chidlom Marine, as the plaintiff, and invalidated Patent No. 8871. Despite an appeal from the defendant, the Thai Supreme Court affirmed the IP&IT Court’s decision, by reasoning that the Thai Patent Act does not provide protection for “new use” patents.

New Use as Mere Discovery or New Process Patent

The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant’s patent lacked novelty as it only represented the mere use of a known product, by utilizing the reed (also known as narrow-leaved cattail) for mat weaving, which is actually a known process. In addition, the subject matter of this patent did not involve any new invention or any improvement of the traditional knowledge or new method for mat weaving.

Thus, the use of the reed mat to absorb humidity and protect cargo stored on ships could not be considered a process patent. Moreover, the patent’s claims did not involve a new process for making the reed mat, nor did they entail a new process for protecting and absorbing humidity. In summary, the invention was not new and there were no modifications or developments involved in respect of the mat-making process.

Reed mats are also a traditional local product that have been manufactured for an extensive period of time. The defendant’s patent primarily involved the mere discovery of a new use, by applying the reed mat with cargo on board ships. The Thai Supreme Court therefore decided that the subject matter of this invention lacked novelty. The qualification of the reed mat to absorb humidity and protection of cargo is an inherently natural qualification which was a mere discovery, not a new invention [Supreme Court Case No. 7119/2552].

Patentability of New Discoveries

The case described above clearly involves the mere discovery of a new method for using a known product (using a local reed mat to protect cargo), which has been long disclosed as traditional knowledge.

At this stage, it can be concluded that the new (non-medical) use of a known product is not novel, even though such use has never been known to the public at the time of the invention. However, the discovery of a new method of utilizing an existing product (or chemical substance) is still open to be patentable in Thailand.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More