Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs.

Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder.

This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder.

This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers.

The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products in mind. However, they provide limited guidance where access to proprietary software, digital diagnostics, and manufacturer-controlled repair systems is necessary to fully enjoy the benefits of ownership.

Practical Considerations and Outlook

Thailand is currently considering a new Patent Act, but the process has remained pending since 2020. A draft version released for public consultation generally preserves the principle of patent exhaustion, retaining similar wording on the exemptions from infringement. Notably, the draft extends the exhaustion principle to design patents—a significant reform, as the Patent Act currently in effect explicitly applies exhaustion only to invention patents and petty patents, not to design patents. However, like the current act, the draft does not expressly define the boundary between permissible repair and unauthorized manufacture.

Third parties considering offering repair services in Thailand should be aware that certain equipment may be subject to patent protection, and the exhaustion defense may not be available in all circumstances. In particular, if the parts or products used in repair were not authorized by the patent holder, the exhaustion doctrine may not apply, potentially exposing the repair provider to infringement liability.

As agricultural machinery becomes increasingly software-dependent, repair disputes are likely to involve overlapping patent, copyright, trade secret, contractual, and competition-law issues reflecting the multilayered nature of technology IP. The Deere settlement demonstrates that ownership of equipment no longer necessarily guarantees the practical ability to repair it. As digital technologies become further integrated into agricultural machinery and other connected devices, balancing intellectual property protection with effective repair access is likely to become an increasingly important challenge for regulators and courts.

Broader Message

The questions surrounding agricultural machines are part of a broader trend occurring across numerous industries. From autonomous vehicles to medical devices embedded with AI diagnostics to consumer electronics and industrial machinery, physical products are increasingly becoming inseparable from software, data, networked services, and digital technology. Yet intellectual property laws were largely developed in an era when ownership of a product generally implied the practical ability to use, maintain, and repair it.

Now that more physical products have software components, the line between ownership and control becomes even harder to draw, which makes the current debate regarding repair rights a matter that goes well beyond the agricultural sector and challenges the nature of intellectual property law as it currently stands. In an environment where access to software and digital systems effectively determines whether a product can be maintained, repaired, or continue to function, how should intellectual property laws work?

Whether through legislative reform, industry standards, or evolving business practices, the challenge for policymakers in Thailand and throughout the region will be to ensure that intellectual property rights continue to encourage innovation without unnecessarily restricting the practical use of technology-embedded products after they have been lawfully sold.

This article was written with the assistance of Tilleke & Gibbins intern Yasmeen Jojo-Cunningham.