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

April 30, 2021

Updated Regulations on Filing Patents and Petty Patents in Laos

Subscribe to Updates

Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) published its Decision on Patents and Petty Patents No. 1714/MOST, dated December 15, 2020, in the Official Gazette on December 23, 2020. The decision is a replacement for and comprehensive revision of a similarly named 2012 decision, and it is the latest step in the country’s steady efforts to strengthen its patent regime. The new decision clarifies and simplifies many key points, the most significant of which are detailed below.

  • Priority date. Applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty have a 31-month time limit for entering the national phase, counting from the priority date. This improves on the 2012 decision, which set the time limit at 30 months.
  • Submission of original documents. If the pre-filled, unsigned form for the power of attorney and deed of assignment is submitted, scanned copies of the notarized power of attorney and deed of assignment must be submitted within 15 days (down from 60 days under the 2012 decision). However, the original documents still must be submitted within 60 days.
  • International classification. Applicants can ask the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) to indicate the international class of patent and petty patent applications. If there are amendments to the class, applicants can file an amendment form with the DIP free of charge. International classification was not mentioned in the 2012 decision.
  • Publication timeline. Applications for patents or petty patents will be published in the 19th month after the application filing or priority date. The 2012 decision, in contrast, did not mention the publication timeline.
  • Opposition. The procedures for an opposition to a patent or petty patent application are clear and concise under the new decision, whereas opposition was not mentioned in the 2012 decision.
  • Examination request period. While the 2012 decision gave only a broad description of examination, the new decision provides clear guidelines on procedures, requirements, and timeline of this phase. The applicant must request substantive examination within 24 months after the filing date for patents and six months for petty patents. International substantive examination results can be filed within three months of their receipt.
  • Claims. An excess fee will apply to each independent claim in excess of 3 and each dependent claim in excess of 15.
  • Error correction. The decision permits the correction of errors found in the publication of a patent after it has been granted. Correction requests must be made within 60 days of the date of publication.
  • Cancellation and withdrawal. Third parties can file cancellation applications with the DIP within five years after the relevant publication date in the Official Gazette. If more than five years has elapsed since the relevant patent’s publication date, the application should be filed with the People’s The 2012 decision had only addressed this issue in broad terms.
  • Annuity payments. There is a six-month grace period for renewal and annuity payments.

While securing patents in Laos has not been a priority for many companies operating in the jurisdiction, some of the ambiguity that surrounded the practice has been cleared up by this decision. Consequently, it is more worthwhile then ever for intellectual asset owners to incorporate a patent filing strategy into their business plans in Laos.

Filing Process for Patents and Petty Patents

This new decision on patents and petty patents was the main topic for a roundtable discussion between Tilleke & Gibbins and the Lao DIP on March 31, 2021. In preparation for the meeting, IP specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins developed a flowchart of the patent-filing process in Laos, emphasizing the key points of the new decision and providing a touchstone for the dialogue, allowing for practical and fruitful discussions of each step of the process. It also acts as a helpful guide to the process for those unfamiliar with it, and we are pleased to provide it below for reference.

The DIP representatives found the flowchart to be a useful and practice overview, and provided helpful insights on best practices for obtaining a patent in Laos. They also expressed their optimism that the issues of prolonged pendency for patent registration in Laos may finally be improved, with the DIP aiming to decrease the backlog of pending patent applications in the coming few years. The successful realization of this improvement would be positive news for Laos, as it would allow the registration of these crucial rights to be completed in a timely manner, thereby attracting more incoming investment in technology from companies that would be able to rely on legal protections for their patented inventions.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More