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

June 5, 2019

Regulatory Reform Makes Headway in Clearing Thailand’s Patent Backlog

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

By and large, government regulations are adopted to achieve certain economic, social, and cultural objectives. However, excessive regulation can impose high burdens on society that outweigh these benefits. The current government of Thailand has undertaken regulatory reforms to address the problems posed by poorly designed regulations. The regulatory reforms adopted by the Thai government are based on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) guidelines for promoting public consultation in policy-making and strengthening regulatory impact assessment.   

As part of its regulatory reform policy, Thailand adopted the Licensing Facilitation Act B.E. 2558 (2015), implemented on July 21, 2015, to boost regulatory quality and streamline implementation. The Act expedites registration procedures with Thai government authorities. Details were provided in public manuals setting out rules, procedures, requirements, costs, and timeframes relating to the granting of licenses to fill in regulatory gaps left by existing laws. The Act inevitably affects patent-granting procedures. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) is one such government body that must abide by the rules under the Act, which stipulates that the registration of an invention patent be completed within 55 months, a design registration within 15 months, and a petty patent registration within 3 months.    .

Thailand’s Patent Office, a subdivision of the DIP, has been going through major changes to fulfill the publicly announced vision of handling issues in a manner that is “accurate, timely and meets international standards.” The Patent Office’s priority is clearing its infamous backlog, which has been addressed mainly by improving its processes and equipment, and by staffing and training more patent examiners. Further, the Patent Office has introduced standard reporting forms for patent examination to improve the clarity and quality of the reports.

Statistics available to us show that the number of office actions issued by the Thai Patent Office has increased over the past few years. Since May 2017, there has been a significant increase in all types of office actions that were issued to our firm (i.e., amendment instructions for both the preliminary examination and substantive examination stages for substantive and non-substantive issues, publication fee payment instructions, and registration fee payment instructions). Over the past two years, the average timeframe for granting a patent, from substantive examination through to grant, was 689 days (23 months), which is a significant improvement on the past.   

Further improvements are on the agenda. Reportedly, the Patent Office is now working on a proposal to set up a supervisory working group to review all office actions before they are sent to the applicants, and to provide internal feedback to prioritize and resolve any errors. Such errors often lead to unnecessary requests for clarifications, which delay the procedures. The Patent Office is also pushing for the enactment of a draft amendment to the Patents Act, which contains provisions that would help speed up the application process. For example, the current Patents Act requires the applicant to formally request a substantive examination within five years after the first publication. The proposed amendment substantially accelerates this timeframe, requiring substantive examination requests to be made no more than three years after the filing date. Moreover, the DIP’s official Manual on the Examination of Patent and Petty Patent Applications is now being substantially revised for the first time since the most recent edition, which was published in 2012. It is expected that the new edition of the manual will clarify and harmonize the Patent Office’s practices in many areas.   

Overall, it appears that the Patent Office has been serious with these initiatives, as well as being inclusive, careful, and transparent. The drafts of the abovementioned standard reporting form, new Examination Manual, and the draft amendment to the Patents Act were distributed to interested parties (including law firms) for feedback and comments. There have been public consultations and discussions, at which progress has been positively reported from attendees, government officials have reported their own ongoing successes in internal streamlining, and a great deal of constructive dialogue has been had. These promising developments show no sign of slowing.   

Increasing the number of Patent Examiners, and continuing the ongoing regulatory reforms, should have a positive impact on the patent system in Thailand, and in particular should make the process of patent examination faster and more efficient. We believe that the Thai government is doing its best to resolve the backlog issue, and the improvements seen in the past few years, and the ongoing progress that is being made, are clear evidence of how their intentions are being put into action.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 17, 2025
Vietnam’s National Assembly approved wide-ranging amendments to the Intellectual Property (IP) Law on December 10, 2025, marking one of the most significant overhauls of the country’s IP regime in recent years. The changes, which supplement and refine existing provisions, are designed to align Vietnam’s framework more closely with international standards while addressing practical challenges faced by rights holders and practitioners. The amendments will come into force on April 1, 2026. The most notable changes are detailed below. Recognition of partial and nonphysical industrial designs: Industrial design protection has been broadened to cover partial designs and nonphysical forms (class 32), explicitly extending rights to parts of products that are not independently circulated as well as digital and intangible product appearances. The law clarifies that the external appearances of nonphysical products are protected industrial designs, and circulation of digital copies of any part of that appearance will be treated as an act of using the industrial design. The provision on the industrial applicability of industrial designs has also been amended accordingly to include the uniform reproduction of nonphysical products in cyberspace. Resolving conflicts between overlapping rights: The IP Law provides a safeguard against conflicts when a single subject matter is protected by multiple IP rights. Where overlapping rights exist, the later-arising right will be terminated if its exercise interferes with the normal exploitation of an earlier right. The decision to terminate such a later right rests with the court. Use of published data for AI training: Organizations and individuals may use lawfully published and publicly accessible documents and data for scientific research, testing, and AI system training. Such use must not unreasonably prejudice the rights or legitimate interests of authors or IP rights holders. Where the documents and data fall under copyright or related rights protection, their use must also comply
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
November 26, 2025
On November 21, 2025, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Notification No. 103/2025 promulgating the Geographical Indication Rules (GI Rules), establishing a comprehensive framework for the registration and administration of geographical indications (GI), which are primarily governed by the Trademark Law of 2019. On the same day, the MOC released Notification No. 104/2025 specifying the required forms for GI-related matters. The GI Rules establish a comprehensive set of procedures for the entire GI application process, including filing applications, oppositions, cancellations, and invalidations, and appointing a local representative for GI-related matters. Under the Trademark Law and the GI Rules, domestic and foreign legal entities (organizations) that formally represent a defined group of stakeholders (such as producers or manufacturers of natural products or resources, agricultural products, handicrafts, or industrial products) and other competent authorities from government departments are eligible to apply for GI registration with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) in Myanmar. Application A GI application can be submitted in either English or Myanmar language electronically, in person, or via post. Foreign applicants seeking to register a GI in Myanmar are required to submit a copy of the registration certificate from their country of origin with the GI application. This certificate must explicitly state the GI name of the protected product. Notably, foreign applicants are mandated to appoint a local representative in Myanmar to act on their behalf for GI-related matters with the IPD and appeal-related matters with the IP Agency. The form for appointing the local representative must be duly notarized in the applicant’s home country to ensure its legal validity and acceptance in accordance with the GI Rules. Application for Use of GI Logo Pursuant to the GI Rules, any interested individual, local or foreign, may submit an application to the IPD for authorization to use the GI logo,
Read More
November 21, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Asia IP’s ASEAN Guide to IP Protection 2025, an annual reference covering key developments and practical considerations for intellectual property systems across Southeast Asia. The chapter offers an overview of Thailand’s current legal framework for the protection of trademarks, patents, industrial designs, and copyrights. It summarizes registration requirements, recent regulatory updates, and procedural considerations relevant to rights holders and practitioners. The chapter offers actionable insights for rights holders at every stage of the IP lifecycle and addresses practical strategies for managing portfolios, anticipating enforcement challenges, and maximizing the value of IP assets. The authors also highlight recent trends and developments in Thai IP law, ensuring that readers are equipped with the latest knowledge to inform their decisions. The complete Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, and the chapter is also available on the Asia IP website.
Read More