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

August 31, 2011

Thailand PCT National Phase

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

After coming into force in Thailand on December 24, 2009, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) gave patent owners additional time to enter their patents in Thailand. This resulted in a sharp reduction in applications, as some applicants took a brief hiatus, before returning in strength after the 18-month extension period ended in June 2011.

Filing Trends

Using the PCT essentially allowed patent owners to have an additional 18 months—from the non-PCT allotted period of 12 months from the first filing date, to 30 months from the first filing date under the PCT system—to decide whether, and in which countries, to file their patents.

The period from the introduction of the PCT to the first 18-month extension period (i.e., from December 24, 2009, to June 24, 2011) effectively saw a 67 percent and 68 percent reduction in the number of patent applications filed in 2010 and the first half of 2011, compared to the total number of new patent applications filed in 2009.

To illustrate this trend, the table below shows the number of new patent applications that were filed in 2009, 2010, and the first six months of 2011.

Year Invention Patent Applications
2009 5858
2010 1925
2011 (Jan-Jul) 1010

However, the ending of the 18-month extension period in June 2011 has led to a sharp recovery in the number of patent applications being filed under the PCT National Phase in Thailand. In July 2011, a total of 344 new patent applications were filed, which represents only a 30 percent reduction from the average monthly filings in 2009.

Filing Requirements

Patent owners who have filed an international PCT application, and who wish to obtain patent protection in Thailand via the PCT route, must file a national phase entry application in Thailand within 30 months from the first filing date of the basic application.

The following documents are required for submission with the PCT National Phase application:

  1. Application Form Sor Por/Or Sor Por/001-Kor (PCT)—prepared by local patent agents.
  2. Thai translation of the patent specification.
  3. A copy of the PCT Request Form (PCT/RO/101) and its Thai translation.
  4. Applicable fees.
  5. A copy of the deed of assignment.

Thai Translation of the Patent Specification

The time stipulated for the Thai translation of the patent specification has now become an issue for both the patent owners and the patent practitioners. According to the Ministerial Regulations concerning the Request for Protection of Inventions under the PCT, Clause 22 specifies that the Thai translation of a foreign-language specification must be submitted within the 30th month after the filing date of the basic application.

In this regard, it is typically recommended that the patent owner send instructions to their patent lawyer, requesting them to file the PCT National Phase and patent specification as early as possible. Many patent practitioners, including those employed within our firm, have been working with the Patent Office to seek the possibility of an extension of time for filing the Thai translation.

In response to these requests for time extensions, the Patent Office will review each case and discuss the matter internally. However, for the time being, the Patent Office has requested that if the translation cannot be completed by the deadline, then at least the title, claims, and abstract should be submitted ahead of the deadline.

It should be noted, however, that this suggestion from the Patent Office is not supported by any legislation or regulation. Therefore, if the complete translation of the description is not available for submission, it is highly likely that it will be regarded as invalid.

As a result, patent applicants would subsequently be required to file an application for restoration to revalidate the patent application, together with supporting reasons, within the stipulated time. This, in turn, will increase costs and extend the timelines for patent owners.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
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
Read More