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 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
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More