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​ 

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
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