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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More