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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
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