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​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More