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 15, 2023

Patenting AI Technology and Software in Southeast Asia

Subscribe to Updates

Southeast Asia’s remarkable growth as a destination for foreign investment—including a 42 percent increase in 2021, according to a joint ASEAN-UNCTAD report—has brought with it innovation as well as the desire to protect that innovation. Investors are increasingly seeking to patent the proprietary technology that is a crucial component of so many businesses today, and a burning question for patent applicants is whether artificial intelligence (AI) technology and software are patentable in Southeast Asia. The short answer is that it depends, as the patent laws in Southeast Asia are not uniform.

Is it Patentable?

While AI tools tend to be newer, the older and more familiar question is whether computer software is patentable, and many jurisdictions do have specific rules on this issue. Pure software, or software characterized only by source code, may not be patentable, but it can be protected under copyright laws.

AI-related software may involve complex algorithms, datasets, and training methodologies that can be challenging to disclose in a manner that satisfies the enablement requirement in practice. Algorithms, mathematical methods, and abstract ideas are often considered non-patentable subject matter in many jurisdictions. While software implementing AI may involve innovative algorithms, securing patents for algorithms alone can be challenging in some jurisdictions.

Also, the patent laws of Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam specifically list computer programs as unpatentable subject matter. However, a possible workaround would be to describe the software as connected to a tangible medium. This method could overcome an unpatentable subject matter rejection during substantive examination. Furthermore, in Indonesia, a computer program can be patentable if its characteristics (i.e., instructions) have a technical effect and function to solve a tangible or intangible problem.

The most liberal of Southeast Asia’s patent regimes—Singapore’s—even addresses AI innovations. The country has a special fast-track scheme for examining AI patent applications called Accelerated Initiative for Artificial Intelligence. Under this scheme, a patent application can be granted six months from the filing date.

Patent Drafting

Drafters of patent applications in Southeast Asia need to be aware of the patentability requirements specific to AI technology and software inventions in each Southeast Asian country. When drafting AI technology and software patent applications, one option for the drafter to keep in mind is that the description should mention the connection between the software and the tangible medium. If the software can be linked to a tangible medium, the invention could be patentable.

Even if the claims of the patent application in other regions (such as the United States) do not have to show a connection with a tangible medium, when the application enters Southeast Asia, the claims can be amended to include this connection without expanding the scope of the application if the information already exists in the description.

This means that AI technology and software could be patentable as a part of a wider patentable invention.

Prosecution Strategy

In looking to patent AI innovations—or any other tools—applicants should explore possibilities for speeding up the prosecution process. For instance, ASEAN member countries have agreed to accept one another’s examination results in a scheme called the ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation, and many Southeast Asian countries have an agreement to accept patent examination results from another country, through arrangements referred to as “patent prosecution highways” (PPHs). Cambodia has a special agreement to validate European patents without further examination. Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam have a PPH with Japan. Under this PPH, patent applicants can use the examination result of a corresponding patent application in Japan that has already been granted to speed up the examination process in Indonesia, Thailand, or Vietnam. Although the examiner in the other country will still examine the application to make sure it does not violate that country’s patent laws, the examination result from Japan should help speed up the examination process.

Outlook

Patenting AI technology and software in Southeast Asia requires a nuanced approach that takes into account both existing laws and procedures, as well as new considerations that arise with the advent of cutting-edge technology. As businesses continue to innovate and create proprietary technology, it is critical to develop a comprehensive strategy for protecting these valuable assets through patents. By staying up to date with the latest developments in the field and working closely with experienced legal professionals, businesses in Southeast Asia can navigate the complex patenting process and secure the protection they need in order to maintain a competitive edge in the rapidly evolving global marketplace.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More