News & InsightsInsightsSoutheast Asia snapshot – Changes in patent practice since 2025

Southeast Asia snapshot – Changes in patent practice since 2025

Published

01 May 2026

Authors

Karen Bentley

Principal, Melbourne, Singapore | BAppSc (Hons), PhD, MIP Law

Patent practice around the world constantly evolves due to legislative changes, policy changes and/or developments in case law. Keeping a keen interest on significant developments in patent practice in Southeast Asia is critical to providing better strategic guidance in relation to our practice. We provide you with a snapshot of the key changes that have occurred in the last 18 months together with some proposed legislative updates.

Country	Key Changes
Singapore	Procedure and/or Practice On 20 May 2025, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) announced a new acceleration programme, SG Patents Fast, to help applicants receive faster office actions for their patent filings. This programme replaces a prior SG IP FAST initiative. The program can be broadly explained as offering two acceleration tracks – SG Patents Fast 4 and SG Patents Fast 8. However, IPOS announced a suspension of this programme from 4 January 2026 till further notice. IPOS announced increases to some of its official fees from 1 September 2025 onwards, with other increases and process changes coming into force on 1 April 2026. The headline changes relate to: Increase in renewal fees; excess claim fees increasing to SGD 80 (approx. USD 65); the number of claims that are not subject to the excess claim fees decreasing from 20 to 15; a revision of junctures when excess claim fees are payable, which included an interim process where fees were payable when requesting examination, and at grant if claims were added during prosecution; and the new process effective from 1 April 2026, wherein excess claim fees will be payable when requesting examination, and, upon responding to each Written Opinion issued if the number of claims is increased with the response. Excess claim fees will no longer be payable at the time of grant; and a two step increase of the fee to request examination review from SGD 1,420 to SGD 2,150, and then as of 1 April 2026, SGD 3,200 (about USD 2,500). On 12 September 2025, IPOS announced fee reductions for applicants who use available patent prosecution highway (PPH) options. Applicants are able to obtain a refund of 30% of official fees paid for requesting examination after the applicants’ PPH request, made from 15 September 2025 to 31 December 2027 (both dates inclusive), upon acceptance by IPOS. The PPH request can be made at the time of requesting examination or thereafter as long as IPOS has not yet commenced examination.
Indonesia	Procedure and/or Practice While announced in 2024, 2025 was the first year requiring the submission of an annual statement of working the invention of granted patents. However the regulations confirming the deadline are yet to be released. Effective February 23, 2026, Indonesia introduced Minister of Law Regulation No. 6 of 2026, implementing Law No. 65 of 2024. Key changes include: Submitting English & Indonesian Specifications For applications not originally filed in English, the English and Indonesian translations may now be submitted within 30 days from the Indonesian filing date. Expanded definition of invention “Invention” now explicitly includes systems, methods, and uses, in addition to products and processes. While many examiners were already allowing claims to systems, methods, and uses, the update serves to formalise their allowability and validity. Excess claims fee at filing Applicants must pay excess claims fees at the time of submission whereas previously this could be deferred until the examination stage. Fully electronic filing All patent applications must now be submitted via the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) online system. Sequence listings Must now be ST.26 and submitted as a PDF. Accelerated examination and publication Accelerated publication is available and early pre-publication substantive examination can now be requested, both subject to official fees. For PCT applications, the accelerated examination request must be accompanied by the search or examination results from a foreign patent office Re-examination Applicants may formally request repeat examination in cases of refusal, grant decisions, post-grant corrections, withdrawn applications, or applications deemed withdrawn. Requests must be filed within 9 months in most instances, but within 2 months of a voluntary withdrawal request. Reinstatement of application Where a patent application is deemed withdrawn, the applicant may request reinstatement within six months from the date of the notification letter, and with payment of the requisite fees. Statement of ownership no longer required A statement of ownership which was previously mandatory no longer needs to be submitted. Case Law Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH Vs PT Pratapa Nirmala (2025) In 2025, The Indonesian Supreme Court upheld the Commercial Court’s decision from 2024 rejecting Bayer’s infringement claim against PT Pratapa Nirmala’s use of the products Nostrok 10 and Nostrok 20. Although the basis for doing so is a conclusion from the court that Bayer’s infringement claims are premature, rather than being unfounded, as two of the patents in question are still the subject of invalidity proceedings. Bayer alleged infringement of 3 Indonesian patents all related to producing pharmaceutical products containing the compound rivaroxaban. But two of those patents are subject to separate invalidity proceedings that have not yet been resolved.
Malaysia	Procedure and/or Practice MYIPO has added the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) as a PPH option. New patent regulations came into force on 31 December 2025 that introduced the following changes: A right to oppose a patent within 6 months of patent grant. This procedure involves inter partes proceedings at the patent office. It is no longer permissible to amend the Malaysian national phase of a PCT at filing which is particularly relevant for applicants who used to do so to reduce the claim fees payable at the same time. Sequence listings must be submitted in PDF format and in the PCT-adopted ST.26 standard. Once a patent application is published, the online file wrapper will now include additional documents including search and examination reports, amendments, and responses. Retrospective foreign filing licence applications will not be accepted. Case Law 1. Kingtime International Ltd & Anor v Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd, September 2025 A decade of convoluted contentious proceedings appears to have concluded with the Court of Appeal unanimously overturning a 2023 High Court decision that had previously dismissed Kingtime’s infringement claims and allowed Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd’s (“PCSB”) invalidation claim. Kingtime International Ltd (“Kingtime”), is the patentee of two Malaysian patents - Patent No. MY-144898-A and Patent No. MY-145004-A - for the construction, installation, and use of a mobile offshore production unit (“MOPU”). Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd (“PCSB”), engaged Petrofac E&C Sdn Bhd (“Petrofac”) to design, construct, install and commission a MOPU known as the MOPU Sepat. Kingtime first launched proceedings against Petrofac. The Kingtime/Petrofac dispute played out between 2015 and 2022, with a final finding that the claims were valid and infringed by Petrofac. During that time, Kingtime filed an infringement suit against PCSB. At a high level the favourable outcome for Kingtime turned on the following: Whereas The High Court concluded that the Petrofac decision was not binding on PCSB, the Court of Appeal held that there was privity of interest between the two parties, and the Petrofac Judgment was binding on PCSB and they were estopped from challenging the validity of the Kingtime patents. In contrast, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Kingtime was estopped from bringing an infringement claim against PCSB and Kingtime’s infringement suit against PCSB did not involve re-litigating issues already determined in the Petrofac Judgment. Where the High Court found the Kingtime patents lacked industrial applicability, in part due to due to a strict literal interpretation of the claims and an apparent drafting error, and lacked inventive step, The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had not undertaken the correct evidential assessment and reversed the invalidation decision. 2. Salutica Allied Solutions Sdn Bhd v Apple Malaysia Sdn Bhd, January 2025 In January 2025, the High Court dismissed an allegation by Salutica Allied Solutions Sdn Bhd (Salutica) of patent infringement by Apple Malaysia Sdn Bhd (Apple). Salutica’s nature of business includes developing and manufacturing various consumer electronics and technologies. The patent in question relates to their CrossPair Technology, a Bluetooth innovation that allows Bluetooth accessories to share pairing information across multiple devices or transfer it to a new device without needing to re-pair. The Defendant is a subsidiary of Apple Inc and sells products and devices which contain pairing technology referred to as “Magic Pairing”. The High Court found the Salutica patent lacked novelty and inventiveness, applying the following principles: The Windsurfer test was adhered to and mosaicking of multiple prior art documents to obviate a patent was also adhered to. The Actavis test was also adhered to when determining infringement of the patent in question. Salutica appealed the decision which has now been set at the Court of Appeal for 26 June 2026.
Philippines	Procedure and/or Practice IPOPHL has mandated that all correspondence issued by the Bureau of Patents (BOP) shall no longer be printed or sent via courier or registered mail. Instead, these documents will be transmitted exclusively through the IPOPHL e-Correspondence portal and the “date of mailing” shall be deemed the date the document is sent out through the e-Correspondence system. Pending legislation aims to expand the IPOPHL's enforcement powers, introduce a provisional patent application system to secure earlier filing dates, and create a framework for website blocking with stricter penalties to combat digital piracy. Case Law Philippine Nuclear Research Institute vs. Director of Bureau of Patents, 3 July 2025 The Philippine Nuclear Research Institute filed on 27 September 2016 a patent application titled “Homeostatic Dressing”. A Notice of Withdrawn Application was issued on 18 November 2018 due to the applicant’s failure to file the request for substantive examination, which was due on 11 October 2018. The Director General denied a petition for revival of a patent application due to lack of evidence that irregular postal services led to non-receipt of relevant notices, and further investigations that led to proof that the applicant had received the notices.
Thailand	Procedure and/or Practice The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) of Thailand released a draft of the new Thai Patents Act for public hearing and feedback. The results of the public hearing were published in April 2025, and in May 2025, the Director General of the Department of Intellectual Property of the Ministry of Commerce, reported that the Draft of the New Patent Act had been finalized and would be returned to Parliament for further legislative proceedings. The most substantive proposed changes include: Increases in filing fees to THB 3,500 (approx. USD 100) and the introduction of excess page fees beyond 30 pages Increase in examination fees to THB 10,000 (approx. USD 300) and excess claim fees of approx. USD 60/claim beyond 10 claims Voluntary divisional applications Examination requests can be filed within 3 years of filing; compared to the existing process of within 5 years of publication (where publication took 3-5 years) The opposition period changing to be a post-examination procedure/pre-grant, rather than the current provisions which permit an opposition to be filed as soon as the application is published and before it commences examination Introduction of special compulsory license for pharmaceuticals
Vietnam	Procedure and/or Practice On 10 December 2025, Vietnam's National Assembly passed significant amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property ("2025 Amended IP Law"), with effect from 1 April 2026. These include: Substantive Examination: the timeframe to conduct substantive examination of patent applications is shortened from 18 to 12 months from the date of the examination request. Request Deadline: Deadline to request substantive examination reduced from 42 to 36 months Opposition: Period shortened from 9 to 6 months, or to 3 months if the application underwent accelerated examination. Expedited Route: A new fast-track option can reduce substantive examination to 3 months. Human Inventorship: Only humans can be listed as inventors. AI systems cannot be listed, though AI-assisted inventions may be protected. And incorrect inventorship is now a ground of opposition. Foreign Results: The Patent Office is formally allowed to use substantive examination results from foreign patent offices. Foreign filing license: The amended law relaxes the requirements that inventions created in Vietnam must be filed domestically before filing abroad. This requirement remains for inventions classified as state secrets.