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 19, 2013

The Proposed Europe-Thailand Free Trade Agreement: IP and Pharmaceuticals

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In the next few months, the European Union (EU) is seeking to open free trade agreement (FTA) talks with Thailand. Thailand exports more goods to Europe than any other region or country in the world, with over 85% being machinery, manufactured goods, and food. In terms of imported goods into Thailand, the EU stands in third behind Japan and China, with these imports focusing heavily on machinery, transport equipment, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment. This existing large volume of trade has the potential to grow exponentially in the future, particularly with the increasingly free movement of goods, services, capital, and people in ASEAN from 2015 onward. Given the timing, this FTA could set Thailand up to be the major import hub for European goods and investment in the ASEAN region.

Intellectual property (IP) will feature prominently in the EU’s agenda. Only with a secure IP system can foreign direct investment reach its full potential. It is no secret that Thailand is one of the nations, along with China, that has not had a perfect track record when it comes to IP protection and enforcement. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has shown a strong commitment to improve the situation—for example, through the forthcoming Madrid Protocol accession enabling use of the international system of trademark registration, ex officio seizure of goods by Customs, the growing number of raids by the DIP and police, and the increase in IP criminal matters being prosecuted at court. However, there remain several shortcomings in the IP system, and the EU may seek some commitments from Thailand to improve them.

Pharmaceutical Patent Registration

The main problem experienced by European pharmaceutical companies is that the patent registration process simply takes far too long. In some cases it can take 12–14 years for applications to be granted. The DIP is well aware of this problem and has prepared draft patent examination guidelines for pharmaceutical and chemical patents, although it is not currently clear when these guidelines will come into effect.

In reviewing the draft guidelines, European industry has expressed concerns that they do not presently provide sufficient clarity or consistency in their wording or implementation. For example, when it comes to inventiveness requirements for different types of pharmaceutical patents, there is an inconsistency of terminology. For formulation patents, increased effectiveness appears to be a requirement, but then for combinations, the effectiveness requirement is dropped in favor of the “surprising effect” requirement. This is seen again when we come to polymorphs, where “obviousness” and “unexpected result” appear to be the key test, but not increased effectiveness. Then, for salts, ethers, or esters, it is not clear whether there is an effectiveness requirement; the guidelines state that if “such monomer does not have an objective to improve therapeutic effect, official(s) may request the claimer to provide related additional pharmaceutical testing results if the consideration cannot be concluded from existing documents.” For isomers, again, it is not clear whether increased effectiveness is a requirement because in some examples “surprising effect” is sufficient, whereas in others “improvement in therapeutic effect” is cited as evidence of inventiveness.

NGOs and Access to Medicine

There have been some statements made by various NGOs that are attempting to alert citizens that an FTA could have a negative effect on access to medicine in Thailand. In evaluating this claim, it is crucial to distinguish between the separate issues of patentability and access to medicine. Thai citizens need to be made aware that the patentability test actually ensures that only drugs that are genuinely new and inventive are awarded a monopoly, in compliance with the TRIPS agreement, as part of a raft of IP treaties which Thailand is signed up to. This process actually improves the standard of healthcare by introducing better medicines. Generic companies, which produce generally cheaper options, are free to compete on products for which the patent has expired.

The issue of pricing of such medicines is a matter of policy that may change according to the government’s position. It should be remembered that Thailand ranks 24th in the world in terms of GDP. It is therefore by no means a poor nation or one that cannot afford to offer the best medicines to its citizens. It is also worth noting that, taking AIDS as an example, incidence is at 1.3% of the population, compared to up to 25% in some African nations. Government policy therefore is the key factor in access to medicines.

The NGOs are also fearful of the introduction of a TRIPS+ regime which they claim the EU will be seeking in this FTA. Specifically they are concerned with long data exclusivity periods and patent term extensions. It will therefore be interesting to see whether the EU does include such provisions in the FTA talks.

FTA Outlook

Overall, FTA negotiations will seek to promote trade for the benefit of both the EU and Thailand. If Thailand can strike a balance that ensures strong IP protection for its European investors, which in turn would encourage improvements in medicines, there should be no reason why Thailand cannot maintain good access to medicines for its citizens.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More
August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More