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​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More