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​ 

September 24, 2024
In recent years, Thailand has witnessed significant developments in its personal finance sector, particularly in alternative lending options. This article explores two key concepts in the Thai financial landscape: nano finance and personal loans. These alternative lending models, regulated by the Bank of Thailand (BOT), aim to provide more accessible financial services to individuals and small entrepreneurs who might have limited access to traditional funding sources. Nano Finance: Empowering Small Entrepreneurs The nano finance scheme under the BOT’s supervision is designed to provide funding to small entrepreneurs who might have limited access to traditional financial resources. One of the key features of this scheme is the ability of licensed nano finance providers to use alternative data in assessing loan applicants’ ability to repay (information-based lending). To implement this approach, nano finance providers must have an internal policy on credit approval that supports: Identifying scope and processes for utilizing alternative factors or technologies in determining debt repayment capacity, credit line limits for each loan applicant and total credit limits, and acceptable debt repayment targets; Having resources and personnel with sufficient knowledge, capability, experience, and expertise to operate efficiently and effectively, as well as clear checks and balances; Establishing guidelines for selecting and analyzing factors or financial models to evaluate or predict loan applicants’ ability and willingness to repay; Having an internal sandbox to test key success factors of the selected factors or models; and Having a process for monitoring and reviewing the application of the selected factors or models in assessing debt repayment capability. This approach allows nano finance providers to make more informed lending decisions based on a broader range of data, potentially increasing access to finance for small entrepreneurs who may not have traditional credit histories or collateral. Personal Loans The personal loan scheme under BOT supervision aims
Read More
September 20, 2024
On September 12, 2024, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) Notification Re: Virtual Bank Supervision Criteria took effect. According to this notification, virtual banks must adhere to standards for traditional commercial banks, along with additional requirements tailored to address virtual banks’ digital nature and corporate structure. Specific Requirements The concepts of supervision remain unchanged from the consultation paper titled “Criteria for Supervising Virtual Banks”. Some of the key additional provisions and details on supervision criteria relate to the following: Financial business groups: The notification identifies virtual banks as financial businesses, subject to the BOT’s regulations on financial business group supervision. If a virtual bank is a part of another financial institution’s financial business group, the virtual bank must be under a solo consolidated group. After the “initial phase” (see below), other financial institutions and companies within the financial business group are prohibited from extending credit to or engaging in transactions similar to lending activities with the virtual bank. Capital fund requirements: If other financial institutions’ investment in a virtual bank increases the capital fund in the financial system beyond a safe level and this poses a risk to other financial institutions, the BOT may order the relevant financial institution to maintain capital funds as the BOT deems appropriate. Service channels and outsourcing: Virtual banks must provide services solely through digital channels, except when necessary. For example, with the BOT’s approval, a virtual bank may use other commercial bank electronic branches via an ATM pool system, use a banking agent to serve customer needs for cash, or occasionally provide on-site services. Initial Phase The “initial phase” runs from the date that the virtual bank commences its operations until it receives the BOT’s approval to become fully operational. During this period, certain BOT supervisory requirements are relaxed as follows: Governance: Virtual banks in the initial phase may request
Read More
August 29, 2024
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has revised its regulations on digital asset operators and exchanges to impose stricter governance standards on digital asset business operators and to align digital asset exchange rules with international standards. The new regulations are laid out in SEC Notification No. GorThor. 23/2567 on the Criteria, Conditions, and Procedures for Operating a Digital Asset Business (No. 24) and SEC Notification No. GorLorThor. 24/2567 on Determination of Prohibited Qualifications for Directors and Executives of Digital Asset Business Operators (No. 5). These were published in the Government Gazette on August 16, 2024, with most of the provisions taking effect on the same date. Governance for Digital Asset Businesses The heightened standards for digital asset business operators aim to ensure efficient business supervision and appropriate response to operational risks. The new requirements mainly address: Board of directors composition. Large-sized digital asset business operators (i.e., those with at least 10,000 customers and holding customer assets of at least THB 500 million) who do not provide digital asset custodian services must have at least five directors, at least two of whom must be independent directors. In addition, the business operators must establish an audit committee, with at least two members being independent directors, to create an appropriate “check and balance” mechanism within the organizational structure. Current digital asset business operators must comply with the requirements within 180 days of the notification’s effective date. Qualifications of authorized directors and managers. Authorized directors and managers are now required to (1) either have at least one year of working experience in the digital asset field or have participated in a digital asset course from an SEC-approved list, and (2) participate in a good corporate governance course recognized by the SEC. Current authorized directors and managers who have not previously completed a good
Read More
August 26, 2024
On August 13, 2024, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification on the Criteria for Personal Data Deletion, Destruction, and De-identification in the Government Gazette, taking effect on November 11, 2024. Most of the content remains unchanged from the June 2024 draft of the legislation that was released for public comment. Only minor amendments have been made, as outlined below: Data controllers must respond to data subjects’ requests to delete, destroy, or de-identify personal data, including any copies or backups, without delay and within 90 days of receiving the request. This timeframe has been extended from the previous draft, which allowed only 60 days. In deleting, destroying, or de-identifying personal data, the data controller must ensure that no one is able to recover or reverse personal data to enable the direct or indirect identification of the data subject by any means that could reasonably be expected. If the data controller cannot fulfill the request within the 90-day period, it must take measures to ensure that the personal data is made difficult to collect, use, or disclose until the personal data can be deleted, destroyed, or de-identified according to the notification. In such cases, appropriate organizational, technical, and physical measures must be implemented to protect the data, meeting the criteria set forth by the notification. One newly added provision allows data controllers to delete, destroy, or de-identify a data subject’s personal data using a different method than the one requested by the data subject, provided they inform the data subject of the alternative method. However, this is not allowed when the data subject exercises this right on the grounds that the personal data has been unlawfully collected, used or processed, and there are no grounds to reject the request. In relation to the de-identification or anonymization of personal
Read More