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

September 3, 2019

Purification and Programming: Thailand’s New Patent Examination Guidelines

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On June 13, 2019, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) published a new edition of the Guidelines for Examining Patent and Petty Patent Applications, with the aim of harmonizing and updating the examination of patent and petty patent applications in Thailand. The new edition of the Guidelines will replace the previous version published in 2012. To enhance communications between applicants and examiners, the new edition of the Guidelines introduces new standard reporting forms for patent examination, such as forms for office actions, search reports, and written opinions, in order to improve the clarity and quality of the reports transmitted to applicants.    

Furthermore, the new edition of the Guidelines provides additional clarification of Sections 9(1) and 9(3) of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), with regard to non-patentable subject matters in Thailand, which this article will explore.

Natural Products and Purified Natural Products   

Pursuant to Section 9(1) of the Thai Patent Act, naturally occurring microorganisms and their components, animals, plants, and extracts from animals or plants, are non-patentable subject matters in Thailand. Products of nature, or discoveries thereof, are not eligible for patent.    

Nevertheless, last year, there was an issue about whether or not “purified natural products,” such as extracts from animals or plants, are regarded as non-patentable products of nature under this section. The previous edition of the Guidelines was not clear on this issue. However, the new edition tackles the issue by asserting that “purified natural products” that have the same characteristics as natural ones are non-patentable subject matter under Section 9(1) of the Thai Patent Act.

The approach adopted by the DIP seems to be in contrast with the practice of the Trilateral Patent Offices, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office, and the Japan Patent Office, which do not consider purified products as naturally occurring. The natural products in a purified or isolated form are therefore eligible for patent protection in those countries. However, while the DIP Guidelines make purified natural products ineligible for patenting in Thailand, methods for purifying a natural product (not the product itself) are still regarded as patentable subject matter and do not fall within the scope of Section 9(1).

Computer Programs   

Pursuant to Section 9(3) of the Thai Patent Act, computer programs are non-patentable subject matter in Thailand. The excluded subject matter in this provision includes computer programs per se, computer-readable storage mediums containing recorded programs, and business methods. However, inventions relating to computers or computer programs, which provide technical functions and effects to overcome technical problems, may be considered patentable subject matter under the Thai Patent Act and would not fall within the scope of Section 9(3).   

To clarify this distinction, the new edition of the Guidelines provides standard terms and definitions used in computer-related industries and provides additional illustrative examples for patent examiners to use in determining which inventions are patentable and which are not under Section 9(3). A brief summary of the additional examples and their claims is outlined below.

  • Inventions relating to computers or computer programs and business methods considered non-patentable subject matter

The example provided is a patent application for a “System for Processing In/Out Transactions.” The independent claims of this application are directed to a transaction processing system performed in such a way that transaction data is searched for and compared to the data in an existing database.

This invention has no technical characteristics. It merely utilizes a pathway to search and compare transaction data with data in an existing database, and that action is performed by a computer program per se. In addition, the invention is an independent computer program and neither resides in any device or hardware equipment, nor is it independently supported by any device. The subject invention of this application is considered non-patentable subject matter pursuant to Section 9(3) of the Thai Patent Act.

  • Inventions relating to computers or computer programs and business methods considered patentable subject matter

The example provided is a patent application for a “Dynamic Currency Conversion for Card Payment System.” The independent claim of this application is directed to a data processing method, performed within a data processing system, for determining a selected currency, which is applied to a debit or credit card transaction between a merchant and the debit or credit card holder. In addition, it includes a step to identify the code of the identifier from a debit or credit card number.

The dynamic currency conversion system is considered a computer-related invention, not a computer program, because the computer program involved does not perform independently. The operation of the system also involves other factors, including a step/system for identifying the code of the identifier, connecting to currency data from a server/host, and determining the currency used in the operation for the code of the identifier. Therefore, the subject invention has technical characteristics that can solve technical problems, allowing the debit or credit card holder to consider or determine whether to use the currency in the operation according to the code of the identifier, or whether to select another listed currency. Hence, the subject invention of this application is considered patentable subject matter and does not fall within the scope of Section 9(3) of the Thai Patent Act.

Conclusion   

The new edition of the Guidelines takes a step forward in addressing the issue of the patentability of natural products and computer programs in Thailand. It will encourage better understanding among applicants, practitioners, and examiners in the context of patent and petty patent examination and will result in speeding up the patent or petty patent examination process in Thailand.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
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