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

February 26, 2016

Thailand’s DIP Revives Proposed Amendments to the Patent Act

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Five years ago, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) was in the process of considering proposed amendments to the Patent Act. These discussions were then put on hold, and the process has remained suspended until now.

On January 27, 2016, the DIP announced that it will be revisiting the proposed amendments with a focus on the following objectives:

  • Reduce the long periods of pendency for patent registration and improve the patentability and enforceability of petty patents.
  • Accept the Protocol Amending the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) regarding Thailand’s public health.
  • Facilitate Thailand’s accession to the Hague Agreement regarding design protection.

This article will discuss these amendments.

Patents

The patent amendments aim to address the long periods of pendency for patent registration, and to ensure that the time to grant a patent complies with the time frame set by the Licensing Facilitation Act, which is 55 months. The following amendments have been proposed.

Reduction of time to request substantive examination.  The time period to request substantive examination will be reduced from five years to three years from the publication date.

Post-grant opposition and specialized Board of Revocation/Invalidation.  Patent applications will be published twice. The first publication will be made after the formality examination is completed, following usual practice. The second publication will be made after the substantive examination is completed and the patent has been granted, and it will be open to patent invalidation. Therefore, the opposition period after the first publication will be eliminated and replaced by the invalidation action, which must be filed within a stipulated period of time (to be determined) from the granting date.

In addition, a specialized Board of Revocation/Invalidation will be established to consider patent invalidation. This board will be composed of at least three members but not more than five members. It must consist of the Examiner and a person qualified in law, and the other persons must be qualified persons in other fields. This should improve the examination process and hasten the granting of patents.

Petty Patents

In order to qualify as a petty patent, an additional criterion of patentability must be fulfilled. An applicant must demonstrate that the applied-for petty patent provides a solution to a technical problem.  

Other proposed amendments include the application of post-grant opposition and invalidation to petty patents, and substantive examination will be conducted for petty patents before the petty patent holder  exercises its patent right against a third party, including taking legal action against an infringer.

Acceptance of the Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement

The TRIPS Agreement established minimum standards for many IP regulations. The Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement allows WTO member states to use compulsory licenses to export patented medicines to countries which do not have manufacturing capacity in pharmaceuticals, in the interest of public health. Thailand’s Cabinet recently approved certain aspects of the Protocol based on proposals made by Ministry of Commerce. In particular, Thailand’s Patent Act would be amended to:

  • Accept the Protocol amending the Agreement on TRIPS with regard to Thailand’s public health, and submit this decision to the National Legislative Assembly for approval; and
  • Authorize the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue an Instrument of Acceptance after approval is obtained from the Cabinet and the National Legislative Assembly. The Ministry of Commerce will notify the World Trade Organization (WTO) of the acceptance.

Thus far, four categories of compulsory licenses have been proposed in Thailand, as follows:

  • License to a third party to import pharmaceutical products under drug patents into Thailand;
  • License to a third party to manufacture and export pharmaceutical products under drug patents to foreign countries;
  • License to government ministries, bureaus, and departments to import pharmaceutical products under drug patents into Thailand; and
  • License to government ministries, bureaus, and departments to manufacture and export pharmaceutical products to foreign countries.

More categories of compulsory licenses for drug patents and drug process patents will be proposed and discussed. In addition, Thailand’s Patent Office recently stated that the Patent Act should be amended to accommodate the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which reaffirms the flexibility of TRIPS member states to provide more access to essential medicines by circumventing patent rights.

Thailand’s Accession to the Hague Agreement

As part of Thailand’s accession to the Hague Agreement, the DIP commissioned an independent study on managing design applications under the Hague Agreement. The DIP identified a number of challenges in Thailand’s current design system, and it continues to make improvements. For example, an e-filing system has been implemented and will be refined in the near future, and there are plans to increase the number of examiners this year.

As the amendments progress, we will update readers on important developments in future issues of Informed Counsel.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More