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

October 18, 2013

Thailand Paving the Way Toward an Innovation-Driven Economy

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Industry Minister Prasert Boonchaisuk recently reiterated the government’s determination to continue promoting the Thailand Creative Economy initiative. In an attempt to rally support for Thailand’s transition to an innovation-driven country, he used rousing words such as “creative” and “sustainable” to describe his latest strategy. A three-stage, 20-year plan is now being drawn up, but it is not without its challenges.

The Three Stages

The first stage involves establishing a leading production base within ASEAN. The particular industries to be targeted have yet to be specified, but they are likely to be those related to agricultural products, energy, automotives, and electronics.

In the second stage, Thailand will develop its own intellectual property (IP) and will apply these innovations to improve production capabilities. In this way, it is hoped that Thailand can become a regional trade center from where production can be effectively managed and serviced. Additionally, Thai brands will be promoted on an ASEAN level.

The third stage involves the international development of Thai technology and brands through the support of local and regional production networks.

Potential Hurdles

The major challenge to this strategy is that foreign companies own most of the technology used in many of Thailand’s large-scale production sectors. To develop its own technologies, Thailand needs to partner with foreign companies in joint ventures or independently improve its technologies through incremental innovation.

An opportunity exists for companies in Thailand to obtain beneficial terms in partnerships with European companies through the Thai-EU Free Trade Agreement, which is now under negotiation. European owners of technology are keen to see an improvement in the IP landscape before investing further. For Thai companies, a strong IP system will provide a stable basis for growth for all, regardless of where the owner of the technology is based.

Opportunities

Thailand’s innovation must also come from within. Large enterprises such as PTT and SCG will play a key role in developing “Thai-owned” IP. They could gain an advantage over their ASEAN neighbors in the energy, chemicals and construction industries with a focus on rubber, petrochemicals and plastics, biodiesel, and ethanol.

The food science market is also an area in which Thailand can potentially dominate further. Thailand’s food export market is very strong, and global demand for consistent and reliable food sources is rising. To quote the Thai government’s Competitiveness Report of 2012:

“Research focuses on food processing and bio-based industries such as rubber and oil palm. National research centers concentrate their R&D efforts on seeds, rice, cassava, algae, post-harvest processing, greenhouse farms, longer shelf-life packaging and quality assurance. Higher-quality corn, cucumber, chili and tomato seeds have been developed for export under a Thai brand name. New types of virus-resistant prawn feed and tiger prawn brood stock have also been created.”

Innovations in crop science, food production, and supply could enable Thailand to utilize that IP itself, but also to license it to other countries. Such investments in agriculture will certainly support the “sustainability” element of the project.

Foreign pharmaceutical companies also will want to partner with local companies or the Government Pharmaceutical Organization (GPO) to produce medicines for a rapidly expanding ASEAN medical market. Bangkok is already a hub for medical tourism and improvements in medicine production, and investment in incremental innovation in this field could serve Thailand very well. Such partnerships could ensure high-quality medicines are produced, and could foster greater competition that would reduce prices. The Thai government could then embark on projects beneficial to the community, at a lower cost and with better medicines.

Ideas for the Future

To enable this to happen, the IP landscape and attitudes toward IP need to change. If IP owners cannot reasonably expect to obtain patent protection for their innovations in Thailand, then they will simply invest elsewhere. This includes Thai as well as foreign companies. Therefore, an efficient and internationally compliant patent filing system plays a significant role in moving from an efficiency-driven to an innovation-driven economy.

Incremental innovation is also best achieved by analyzing current patent landscape, followed by improvements made to “prior art” technology. Regulations must also seek to enable fast registration of products that are regulated (e.g., by the Food and Drug Administration) across all product types (and importantly, across ASEAN).

It is imperative that IP enforcement in Thailand improves, as well. We all know counterfeits of every variety are readily available in Thailand, which undeniably harms the country’s image as a destination for FDI.

In addition to legal improvements, if Thailand is to keep hold of its innovations, it must ensure that it offers favorable tax regimes for R&D and also to IP as an asset and the royalties it earns. Singapore offers lower tax rates in this regard, and Thailand may wish to follow suit to prevent businesses shifting IP assets out of the country. Certain tax breaks are already offered at the Thailand Science Park, but this policy should be expanded.

Finally, it is important that all stakeholders, including the policymakers, cooperate. The Commerce Ministry, which oversees the Department of Intellectual Property, must collaborate with the ministries of Finance, Science and Technology, Information & Communication Technology, and Public Health, to name a few. IP is present in every industry and a strong commitment to government agency cooperation improves lines of communication and presents a consistent commitment to an innovation-driven economy.

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