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

March 6, 2019

Thailand’s Patent Office Granted Power to Strike-Out Cannabinoid Patents

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On January 28, 2019, Thailand’s National Council for Peace and Order issued Order No. 1/2562 (the Order) granting the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) the right to suspend cannabis-related patent applications on legal grounds. This development is in response to the ongoing legalization of medical cannabis in Thailand, and has raised a number of thought-provoking issues.

The NCPO Order    

The Order, issued under the executive powers granted to the military government under Section 44 of Thailand’s interim constitution, includes the right to “refuse the grant of patent” if it appears that the invention under the application has a commercial application and contains:

a)    cannabis or cannabinoids;
b)    substances having similar structural compounds; or
c)    pharmaceutically acceptable salts, esters or ethers of (a) or (b).

This order empowers the DIP Director-General to reject cannabis-related patent applications, or to request the removal of published applications that have not yet entered into substantive examination, on the grounds that cannabis-related applications are not patentable as they are against public order, morality, public health, or welfare (per Section 9(5) of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979).    

Any affected applicants have a right to appeal to the Board of Patents, under Section 72 of the Thai Patent Act, within 60 days of receiving the cancellation order.

Amendments to the Narcotics Act    

To understand the impact of this order, it is useful to understand its place in the broader context—notably the pending amendments to Thailand’s Narcotics Act (the Amendments) that will partially legalize medical cannabis in Thailand. The Amendments passed the final review stage at the National Legislative Assembly on December 25, 2018, and are currently waiting to be signed into law by the monarch. Once signed, the law will be published in the Royal Gazette, and will become effective shortly after. The practical implementation  of the Amendments (including administrative procedures, application processes, required supporting documents, etc.) will depend on Ministerial Regulations to be issued at an as-yet undetermined time after the law becomes effective.

The Amendments are intended to redress the balance between regulatory control and public health needs, by relaxing regulations to allow medical uses of marijuana (both for treatment and research). It should be noted that the present “legalization” does not result in a complete freedom to use, but a new framework for streamlined licensing under set rules and conditions. Even under the amended Narcotics Act, cannabis will still classified as Category 5 Narcotic, and handling cannabis without a license from the Thai FDA will still be generally unlawful.     

Given the diverse array of national objectives, the Amendments will play a role in determining what qualifies as medical cannabis, who can obtain permission to produce or research it, and how such permission can be sought.

Implications on Patenting   

In the meantime, however, holders of patents relating to cannabis derivatives in other countries have sought to protect their intellectual assets in Thailand before the Amendments come into effect, to ensure that they are safeguarded when they do. This raised the difficult decision of whether to patent something that would, under existing law, potentially be unlawful to use and contrary to “public order and morality.” The Order clarifies this difficult decision by effectively providing the answer—those patents can be refused.    

However, this is far from an absolute ban, and in this context the Order has merely served as the gatekeeper—deciding when to “start the game” on determining patent applications during the period before the Amendments take effect. After the Amendments take effect, the Order prescribes that deliberation of decisions to grant patents will return to normal. The consideration of public order and morality when determining patent applications for cannabis-related inventions will be undertaken based on Section 9(5) of the Patent Act and the Narcotics Act as amended. In other words, medicinal applications for cannabis would be patentable, but recreational applications would not.

Difficulties with the Order and the Amendments   

Arguably, this administrative patent procedure may be viewed as a violation of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS). Section 27.1 of TRIPS states that patent rights shall be available in all fields of tech-    nology. As such, in order to assess whether an invention is contrary to public order or morality, the same criteria must  be applied to all inventions uniformly, regardless of the invention’s field.   

In addition, the public order argument is also troubling. Assuming that the public order justification relates to the narcotic effects of some cannabis derivatives, in determining whether a particular commercial exploitation really is considered to disturb public order and morality, it is important to consider that a single invention may have multiple applications. The simulation or extraction of cannabinoids, in this instance, includes, but it is not limited to, recreational effects, and the non-recreational effects should be considered proportionally.    

Cannabis plants contain a number of active compounds such as THC and CBD—the two most well-known cannabinoids. While THC possesses more psychoactive effects, CBD is prone to having substantial medical benefits. The fact that the cannabinoids possess both therapeutic and recreational effects, however, should not render a method of producing the non-psychoactive compound contrary to public order or morality. Regardless of whether the Amendments have currently come into force, it is incorrect to say that a medicinal application that cannot be applied recreationally, such as an application that produces CBD but cannot produce THC, is against public morality and order.    

In addition, the implications of the Amendments may be different for different parties. Under the Amendments, a licensee for the medical use of cannabis must be a Thai national or a company registered in Thailand, among other restrictions.   

While it cannot be denied that medicalizing cannabis in Thailand will encourage medicinal cannabis research and development in the region, it is important that they are done evenly and without such concerns to ensure that Thailand remains an optimal investment environment.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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