The landscape of medical marijuana in Thailand is becoming increasingly complex, especially with the scrutiny surrounding a controversial patent application lodged by British firm GW Pharmaceuticals in collaboration with Japan’s Otsuka Pharmaceutical. This application has incited concern among Thai authorities and civil society alike, as it challenges the very fabric of Thailand’s newly legalized medical marijuana industry.
At the center of the controversy is an inspection conducted by the Thai Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). Official communications revealed they “rushed” the evaluation of this patent application, which the Government Pharmaceutical Organization (GPO) contends violates Thai law. Specifically, critics argue that the patent seeks to lay claim to a raw extract of cannabis, essentially trying to patent something that should be viewed as a natural product rather than a novel invention.
This situation is particularly alarming given that Thailand only recently legalized medical marijuana in December. Many fear that foreign entities could monopolize this burgeoning market, potentially undermining local businesses and the emerging industry in Thailand.
During a meeting on May 28, 2022, pharmacist Lucksamephen Sarnchawanakit, representing the GPO, articulated the legal challenges posed by the patent application. He cited Article 9(1) of the Thai Intellectual Property Act, which clearly states that inventions not eligible for patent protection include “microorganisms and/or any part of the microorganisms found in nature.” Simply put, the method to extract phytocannabinoid, an active compound in cannabis, should not be patentable because it exists naturally.
Minutes from the meeting highlight a crucial admission from a DIP representative, stating that because of a lack of trained inspectors, the evaluations had been conducted hastily. This may have led to misjudgments in the assessment of the patent application, raising questions about the integrity of the inspection process. They promised to consider all suggestions and consult with a legal team regarding the rejection of the applications already listed in the official registry.
Concerns deepened in a follow-up meeting in June when GPO chairman Dr. Sopon Mekthon indicated that multiple patents filed by GW and Otsuka might violate Thai law. The DIP director-general, Thosapone Dansuputra, reassured attendees that these patents would be rejected, though lengthy procedural delays meant they wouldn’t be able to act immediately.
Dr. Mekthon’s ongoing opposition to the patent application underscores his commitment to protecting Thailand’s intellectual property rights. “According to Article 9(1), it is not possible to patent plant extracts. You can’t claim that,” he insisted. However, he expressed frustration over the delay in officially declining the application, suggesting a lack of transparency from the DIP regarding their criteria for evaluation.
The controversy has attracted the attention of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, who hinted at possibly invoking Article 44 of the military-drafted constitution, granting him sweeping powers to annul the patents. This potential intervention reflects the serious concerns raised by activists and public health advocates regarding foreign corporate control over this newly legalized sector.
GW Pharmaceuticals has defended its position, stating they are not yet granted the patents and feel it is inappropriate to comment extensively. They argue that their applications stem from over two decades of research and innovation, which has resulted in effective medications benefiting patients worldwide. The company is known for producing Sativex, a cannabis-derived drug that addresses multiple sclerosis symptoms, as well as developing treatments for epilepsy, cancer, psychosis, and chemotherapy side effects.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Thailand has distanced itself from allegations that it attempted to “buy off” Thai officials, emphasizing that patent management lies with their parent company in Japan.
On the grassroots level, advocates for medical marijuana in Thailand have raised questions about the legitimacy and fairness of the patent applications. Many argue that patents dating back to before legalization should be automatically invalidated, as the legal landscape has dramatically shifted since the establishment of a regulated medical marijuana framework. Activist Dr. Somyot Kittimunkong noted that numerous local applicants have faced rejection for their patents, prompting the question: why are foreign companies succeeding where locals have failed?
An activist with Highland Network, Chokwan Kitty Chopaka, pointed out that various applications goal to patent the basic substances derived from cannabis, such as THC and CBD. This poses a significant problem, as it contradicts Thai patent policy and raises ethical concerns regarding biopiracy and corporate overreach into indigenous resources.
Niyada Kiatying-Angsulee, a manager at the Drug System Monitoring and Development Center, reported a surge in medical marijuana patent applications. Out of the 13 currently listed, all appear to violate the prohibition against patenting microorganisms and plant extracts, emphasizing the urgent need for a coherent policy and regulatory framework in Thailand’s evolving medical marijuana landscape.