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​ 

August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
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
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More