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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More