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

May 24, 2018

Updates on Proposed Amendments to the Thai Patent Act

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Thailand’s Patent Act was last amended in 1999. Since then, the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has gone through numerous rounds of review of potential revisions to the law, with the latest draft of proposed amendments to the Patent Act being published on the DIP website on January 31, 2018. The DIP then arranged for public hearings during February 1-28, 2018, to obtain comments and recommendations on the proposed provisions.

Based on the comments obtained from the public hearing, the DIP plans to complete revisions to the draft amendments and submit them for review by the Ministry of Commerce by August 2018. Following that ministerial review, the draft will need to be further reviewed and approved by the Cabinet, the Council of State, and the National Legislative Assembly. If the legislative process unfolds smoothly, an amended Patent Act is expected to enter into force in early 2019.

Based on the latest published draft, some of the major proposed amendments are as follows:

Genetic Resources, Genetic Material, Derivative, and Traditional Knowledge

Definitions of genetic resources (GRs), genetic material, derivative, and traditional knowledge (TK) will be added to Section 3, and disclosure of GRs or TK source, access, and benefit-sharing will be required for relevant inventions in patent applications.

Worldwide Novelty

Section 6 (1) will be revised to consider the state of the art of an invention which was widely known or used by others outside, as well as within, the country before the date of the patent application.

Double Patenting Avoidance

A patent application that has been filed in Thailand will be considered the state of the art even though it may have been published on or after the date of application in Thailand.

Grace Period

Disclosure of the subject matter of an invention within 12 months before the date of patent application will not be deemed to be a valid disclosure in considering the state of the art of the invention in the following circumstances:

  • A disclosure which was made or due to be made in consequence of subject matter that has been obtained unlawfully;
  • A disclosure of the subject matter by the inventor; or
  • The invention has been displayed at an international exhibition in Thailand or in a country which is a contracting state of an international convention or agreement of which Thailand is a member, if the exhibition is organized by the Thai government or the government of the relevant contracting-state country.

A patent applicant can claim the date of the disclosure under these conditions to be the priority date of the patent application in Thailand.

Surgery Method

Items that cannot be protected with a patent will be subject to the surgery method.

Introduction of Two Rounds of Publications

Patent applications will be published twice. The first publication will be made within 18 months from the filing date in Thailand or the first priority date. 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 90 days from the second publication date. There is only one official publication fee—the fee for the second publication.

Divisional Application

An applicant will be able to request the separation of a patent application before the second patent publication date. In the current patent law, this type of request is not allowed, and separating a patent application will be at the discretion and instructions of the patent examiner only.

Substantive Examination

The time to file a request for substantive examination will be reduced from five years from the publication date to three years from the filing date in Thailand.

Trial Committee

A committee of three to five members will be appointed to consider oppositions and counterstatements. This committee will prepare a report of their decision for the consideration of the Director-General of the DIP.

License Agreement

The requirement to register a patent license agreement will be changed to be a recordation of license agreement with the Patent Office.

Increment Deadline for Annuity Payment

The extended deadline to pay annuity will be increased from 120 days with a 30% surcharge to be 180 days with a 30% surcharge. In addition, the deadline to file a revocation petition with the Board of Patents will be increased from 60 days to 180 days. The Board of Patents may grant a further extension of time to pay annuity fees with a 50% surcharge.

Patent Compulsory License Committee

A committee of three to five members will be assigned by the Director-General of the DIP to consider and approve any application for a compulsory license filed by an interested person on the condition that the patent has not been used after three years from its date of grant, or four years from its date of application, whichever is later, under Section 46. The committee will also have the authority to consider and approve a compulsory license for dependent patents. That is, when the working of a patent is likely to constitute infringement of a patent of any other person, then the patentee who wishes to exploit his/her own patent may apply to the Director-General for a license of the other person’s patent under Section 47 and 47 bis.

Grant of Compulsory License

A compulsory license may be granted in the case that the Trade Competition Commission has issued an order that a patentee has violated any clause of the Trade Competition Act, resulting in an obstacle to public access to healthcare services.

New Section 51/1 for Compulsory License

A ministry may use compulsory licenses to produce and export patented medicines to least-developed countries or WTO member countries that do not have pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity or sufficient manufacturing capacity and have submitted a request to import patented medicine to the WTO.

New PCT Chapter

The draft amendments add a new Chapter of International Application under the Patent Corporation Treaty (PCT), including new sections for applicant qualifications, filing procedures, priority claims, restoration of the right of priority, and more.

Conversion of Patent

The draft provides a deadline for the conversion of a patent application (before grant) into a petty patent application to be within three years from the filing date of the application. The same process applies for conversion of a petty patent application into a patent application.

Substantive Examination of a Petty Patent

The period of one year to request that a petty patent be examined substantively will be canceled, and a request for substantive examination can be filed at any time by any person (not only an interested person).

Changing the Party that Bears the Burden of Proof in the Case of Process Patent Infringement

Section 77 is amended, changing the “infringer” who the patentee of a process patent can sue to be the “manufacturer.”

Although likely to be subject to further changes, the draft amendments to the Patent Act pose significant implications for patents in Thailand, including in applications, examinations, publications, oppositions, compulsory licensing, conversions, official fees, and other areas. It is expected that further updates on the subject will be available after August 2018.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More