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

April 8, 2016

Protection of 3D Printing in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology, also known as “additive manufacturing,” is the process by which a physical object is produced from a 3D digital model, often by being built up with many successive layers of material. In recent years, the technology has become much more accessible to businesses and individual consumers, and it will likely have a significant impact on several major industries, including healthcare, automotive, and aerospace, among others.

3D printing allows goods to be produced more economically, in less time, on smaller scales, and in more efficient and versatile ways. The technology has, however, raised a number of serious questions about whether patent, design, and copyright law can protect the technologies that are used to create the 3D objects as well as the objects themselves. This article discusses 3D printing under Thailand’s legal framework.

Patents

In contrast to producing an object out of a mold or cast, 3D printing produces a physical object from a digital file. A digital image is created through a computer program that creates two- or three-dimensional graphical representations of objects. The object is built up layer by layer using mixtures of inks, additives, plastics, titanium, silver, steel, wax, photopolymers, and polycarbonate metals, depending on the nature of the end product.

Under Thai law, one distinct type of patent is the invention patent, which includes standard patents and petty patents.

Standard patents.  The Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), as amended in 1992 and 1999, provides standard patent protection over an invention for up to 20 years from the date of filing the application.

While Thai law excludes certain subject matters from patentability, such as certain living organisms, scientific or mathematical rules and theories, computer programs, methods for medical treatment, and so on, 3D printing technology does not seem to fall into an excluded category. The additive manufacturing process and its end products are patentable so long as they meet the criteria for patentability, including novelty, an inventive step, and industrial applicability.

Petty patents.  A petty patent provides an alternative form of protection for the 3D printing process and its end products. In order to be patentable as a petty patent, an invention must be new and capable of industrial application, and there is no requirement to have an inventive step. The duration of protection for a petty patent is six years, and the term may be renewed twice for periods of two years per term.

Both standard and petty patents provide adequate protection for inventions involving 3D printing. Complex products with a number of constituent parts may be protected by a standard patent. The inventive step requirement, however, is a major obstacle to applicants who want to obtain a standard patent for their 3D printing technology. Simple products can be protected by petty patents so long as those products are new.

As standard patents and petty patents provide different means of protection, applicants may seek protection of complex 3D printed parts under standard patents, and at the same time, obtain protection for simple 3D printed parts that will be assembled into a larger patented product under petty patents.

Patent infringement can include the unauthorized production of patented products, including producing goods by 3D printing. In addition, selling, stocking for sale, offering for sale, and importing patented products can also amount to infringement. A patent holder may file a criminal or civil lawsuit, or both, against an infringer or an alleged infringer. An infringer who intentionally commits an infringement may be subjected to penalties including imprisonment of up to two years and a fine up to THB 400,000, or both.

Although Thai patent law has provisions that provide for limitation of rights, use for private and non-commercial purposes is not included in the statutory limitations. As a result, it is not possible to raise a defense against a patent infringement claim that a patented article was 3D printed at home for personal use.

As patent protection in Thailand is still in the early stages of development, legal literature, legal doctrines, and judicial interpretations of the law are limited. The existing law seems inadequate in dealing with issues of infringement raised by 3D printing. For example, the rule on contributory infringement under Thai patent law is not clear, particularly when it applies to 3D printing technology.

Since there are no explicit provisions on contributory infringement, it is still unclear whether manufacturing of spare parts for incorporation into patented products constitutes an infringing act. It is equally unclear as to whether the replacement of a part which forms part of a product protected by a patent will constitute a noninfringing repair or is considered an infringing making of the patented article.

Designs

Another type of patent is the design patent. Thai law defines a design as “any configuration of a product or composition of lines or colors which gives a special appearance to a product and can serve as a pattern for a product of industry or handicraft.” Legal protection is available for both two- and three-dimensional designs. The only requirement for design patents is that an industrial or a handicraft design must be new. Design rights must be patented, and once they are patented, the patent will protect the external features of a product but not the technical function of the product.

Design protection will be used more than other forms of protection for 3D printing technology, as a design is most readily found to subsist in articles produced by 3D printing. A design patent provides a ten-year term of protection from the date of filing an application. The rights under a design patent for a 3D printed object will be infringed if a party makes the object without permission of the rights owner. Offering, importing, disposing, or using a product produced by 3D printing in which the patented design is incorporated will be an infringing act, and the wrongdoer may be subjected to penalties including two years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to THB 400,000, or both.

The exclusive rights available under a design patent are very favorable to patent holders. The only defense which is available against a design infringement action is use for research or educational purposes. Noncommercial uses cannot be made of a patented design. If 3D printing is done privately and for non-commercial purposes by an individual in his or her home or for personal use, this constitutes infringement.

Unlike the laws of certain other jurisdictions, Thai patent law does not provide a spare-part exception as a defense against infringement of design patents. Therefore, it would be considered an infringing act if a party uses a 3D printer to produce spare parts embodying a patented design to be used for genuine repair purposes for articles—for example, a particular bumper bar to be fitted with a car.

Copyright

In Thailand, copyrighted works include creative works in the literary, dramatic, artistic, musical, audiovisual, cinematographic, sound-recording, broadcasting, or any other work in the literary, scientific, or artistic sector of the author—irrespective of the method or form of its expression.

An object made by 3D printing can be protected as an artistic copyrighted work. However, the functional aspects of a product are excluded from copyright protection. Copyright can be raised against a party who attempts to use 3D printing methods to print images or graphic designs onto the surface of an article. It would also constitute copyright infringement if a copyrighted 3D-article is produced, such as the shape of a vase, sculpture, mobile phone case, etc.

Thai law protects computer programs as literary works. The term “computer program” is defined as “an instruction, a set of instructions, or any other material employed to enable the functioning of the computer or to obtain a certain result, irrespective of the form of the language of the computer program.” The computer programs used to create a computer-aided design and to operate 3D printers would enjoy copyright protection.

A bundle of rights introduced under Thailand’s recently updated copyright law now includes the right to make material available online or to electronically transmit material. Where a party makes computer-aided design files available via the Internet for file sharing, this would constitute copyright infringement. The term of copyright under Thai law is 50 years after the death of the author, with the exception of the work of applied art of which the term of protection lasts for 25 years.

From the above, the development of Thailand’s IP laws is still in its infancy. The rapid development of 3D printing technology seems to be beyond the reach of the country’s intellectual property infrastructure. Several complex issues remain unclear and will be left to judicial interpretation. Social and economic impacts stemming from this technology have to be clearly understood. Thailand may soon need to introduce 3D printing legislation in order to cope with the challenges brought about by this emerging technology.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More