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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 31, 2026
Vietnam’s most recent amendment of the Law on Intellectual Property (amended IP Law), passed by the National Assembly on December 10, 2025, and effective from April 1, 2026, represents one of the most significant updates to the IP Law in recent years. This amendment modernizes the IP framework, moving a step closer to international standards, while addressing the realities of Vietnam’s booming digital economy, e-commerce growth, and increasing foreign investment, which is crucial for Vietnam’s objective of complete economic transformation. For trademark practitioners, brand owners, and businesses, the changes are largely positive, as they promise faster processes, stronger enforcement tools—especially for online actions—and better commercialization options. However, they also introduce stricter requirements and a need for proactive preparation. Below are some of the most noteworthy changes in the amended IP Law related to trademarks. Significantly Shortened Timelines and Introduction of Fast-Track Examination The statutory timelines under the amended IP Law have been notably reduced: Substantive examination for trademarks is shortened from 9 months to 5 months (from the publication date). The publication period is shortened from 2 months to 1 month. A new fast-track mechanism allows substantive examination in as little as 3 months for qualifying applications (e.g., marks in actual use, facing infringement threats, or meeting government-specified criteria; details to be clarified in implementing regulations). The opposition period is shortened from 5 months to 3 months from publication. This is arguably the most welcome change. Vietnam’s IP Office has long faced criticism for lengthy backlogs, often stretching the trademark registration process to 18–24 months or more. The new timelines bring Vietnam closer to efficient systems. The fast-track option is particularly smart for high-value or urgent cases such as counterfeit threats on e-commerce platforms. However, careful preparation is mandatory for flawless applications from the start to maximize fast-track eligibility.
March 16, 2026
Indonesia’s Ministry of Law has introduced a new framework for patent applications that tightens filing requirements and introduces formal mechanisms for accelerated examination. Minister of Law Regulation No. 6 of 2026 on Patent Applications, which was issued on January 13, 2026, and took effect on February 23, 2026, serves as the implementing regulation for Law No. 65 of 2024 on Patents. It replaces the previous patent application framework (under Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 38 of 2018, as amended by Regulation No. 13 of 2021), which was considered no longer aligned with current legal, institutional, and technological developments. The regulation also reflects the institutional restructuring of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights into the Ministry of Law. Patent applications filed on or after February 23, 2026, must fully comply with the new regulation. Applications that were filed before this date will continue to be examined and processed under the previous regulation, pursuant to transitional provisions. Substantive Changes Definition of Invention The definition of “Invention” now explicitly includes systems, methods, and uses, in addition to products and processes. This expansion creates broader protection opportunities, particularly for software-enabled, digital, and method-based technologies, although it may also result in closer scrutiny during substantive examination. Excess Claims Fee Excess claims fees must now be paid at the time of filing. Failure to pay excess claims fees at filing results in the application being deemed withdrawn. There is no longer an option to defer payment to the substantive examination stage. This amendment forces applicants to face higher upfront costs. Patent claim strategy must be finalized prior to filing, reducing flexibility at later stages. Procedural and System Changes Fully Electronic Filing Patent applications must be filed electronically via the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) online filing system. Assisted filings to
March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve