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 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
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More