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​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More