1、 Institutional Foundation: Legal Framework for Exclusive Judicial Jurisdiction

The patent invalidation system in Cambodia is based on the 2003 Patent, Utility Model, and Industrial Design Law and its 2017 amendment. The new rules for annual fee penalties, which will take effect in October 2024, have added new variables to the system. Unlike Laos, which is led by administrative agencies for invalid review, Cambodia adopts a "judicial exclusive jurisdiction" model, forming a unique institutional system:

The exclusive jurisdiction of the court is the most prominent feature. According to Article 65 of the law, patent invalidation requests must be directly submitted to the competent court in Cambodia. The Industrial Property Department (DIP) under the Ministry of Industry and Handicraft (after 2024, relevant functions will be transferred to the Ministry of Industry, Science, Technology and Innovation MISTI) has no authority to hear invalidation cases. This institutional design makes Cambodia one of the few ASEAN countries where patent invalidity is entirely ruled by judicial authorities, in stark contrast to Laos' administrative led model. The court will review whether the patentability determination is established, including whether the invention lacks core elements such as novelty, creativity, or industrial applicability.

The statutory list of invalid reasons covers six major situations:

Not meeting the requirements of novelty, creativity, and industrial applicability

There are substantive defects in the patent application documents (such as unclear claims)

Belonging to non patentable topics (such as scientific theories, surgical methods, etc.)

Failure to pay annual fees as required results in termination of patent rights

The applicant submits false information or conceals key facts

There is a dispute over the ownership of patent rights and it has been confirmed through judicial procedures

Among them, the issue of annual fee payment has become particularly critical due to the new regulations in 2024. According to an unofficial announcement from MISTI, from October 15, 2024, overdue payment of annual fees will face penalties. Failure to pay annual fees not only leads to patent invalidation, but may also become decisive evidence in invalidation lawsuits. Unlike Laos, Cambodia does not have a clause stating that "patents must be commercially used or invalidated", which reduces the implementation pressure on enterprises, but also means that patent stability depends more on procedural compliance.

The retroactive rule has a profound impact on enterprises. Article 67 of the law clearly stipulates that a patent or claim that has been declared invalid shall be deemed invalid from the date of authorization. This means that once a patent is deemed invalid, any licenses, infringement lawsuits, etc. based on that patent will lose their legal basis and may trigger a chain of legal risks.

2、 Litigation Process: Analysis of the Full Cycle from Filing to Execution

The invalidation litigation of patents in Cambodia presents the characteristics of "flexible procedures but vague time limits", and the entire process lacks rigid time nodes similar to administrative procedures, which brings uncertainty to the response of enterprises. Based on judicial practice, it can be divided into four key stages:

The openness of the initiation stage of prosecution is worthy of vigilance.Unlike Laos' 5-year time limit, Cambodia has no time limit for invalid requests, and patent holders may face challenges at any time after patent authorization. The plaintiff shall submit a written request to the court, stating the reasons for invalidity and attaching relevant evidence, including existing technical literature, patent document defect analysis, etc. It is worth noting that Cambodian law does not require the plaintiff to prove their interest in the patent, and any third party can file an invalidation lawsuit, which significantly increases the possibility of the patent being challenged.

The offense and defense during the evidence disclosure stage are particularly crucial.After the court accepts the case, it will notify the patentee to defend, and the defense period is usually determined by the court based on the complexity of the case, usually 30-60 days. Unlike the "silent consent" rule in Laos, Cambodian courts will not directly render invalid judgments due to the patent owner's failure to respond, but a passive response may lead the court to accept the plaintiff's claims. The core of this stage is to provide evidence around the patentability requirements, especially:

The plaintiff needs to prove that the invention was made public before the application date (such as through publication, use, etc.)

The defendant may submit defense evidence such as proof of priority and prior art search reports

When it comes to annual fees, payment vouchers or valid reasons must be provided

The court ruling stage relies on the judge's discretion.Cambodia does not have a dedicated intellectual property court, and patent invalidation cases are heard by ordinary courts. Judges may need to rely on expert opinions to determine technical issues. The trial will debate whether the grounds for invalidity are valid, with a focus on examining whether the definition of the claims is clear, whether the technical solution is fully disclosed, and whether there are situations that prohibit authorization. Whether an invalid judgment made by a court is final in the first instance or subject to appeal is not clearly stipulated by law. In practice, appeals can usually be made to the appellate court.

The final determination of the impact of the public announcement stage on the effectiveness of the patent.According to Article 68, the final decision of the court shall be notified to the Patent Registration Authority (DIP), who shall record and publish it through official channels. Only after completing the public disclosure procedure, the invalidity of the patent will have an effect against third parties. Enterprises need to pay special attention that the public announcement of invalid judgments may affect ongoing patent licensing or infringement lawsuits.

3、 Differences in ASEAN and Response of Chinese Enterprises: Risk Prevention and Control Strategies

As a member of ASEAN, Cambodia's patent invalidation system differs significantly from other countries in the region. Chinese enterprises need to develop targeted strategies to maintain patent stability

The Cambodian characteristics in the comparison of ASEAN systems are mainly reflected in three aspects: firstly, in terms of procedural initiation, unlike the dual track system of "administrative justice" in Vietnam and Thailand, Cambodia adopts a pure judicial model; Secondly, in terms of time limit, unlike Laos' 5-year window period, Cambodia has no time limit and patents face the risk of permanent invalidity; Thirdly, in terms of annual fee management, the new regulations in 2024 make Cambodia one of the countries in ASEAN with the strictest penalties for overdue annual fees. These differences require companies to adopt more refined management strategies for Cambodia in their regional patent layout.

The compliance points under the new 2024 annual fee regulations need to be given special attention. According to MISTI regulations, late payment of annual fees will result in penalties, and the process of restoring patent rights is more complex. Enterprises should establish a "dual track reminder mechanism": on the one hand, annual fee payment reminders should be set up after patent authorization to ensure payment is completed before the due date; On the other hand, regularly check DIP's patent registration book to confirm that the annual fee payment status has been correctly recorded. Special attention should be paid to the fact that the patent protection period in Cambodia is 20 years from the date of application, and the utility model protection period is 7 years and cannot be renewed. Management plans need to be developed according to different types.

The full lifecycle risk prevention and control strategy includes:

Quality control during the application phase:Strictly conduct existing technology searches to avoid potential risks of invalidity due to novelty defects. Utilizing the priority system of the Paris Convention to indirectly enhance the stability of Cambodian patents through high-quality examination of Chinese patent applications. Pay attention to the clear definition of the claims to avoid becoming a breakthrough point for invalid litigation due to vague protection scope.

Dynamic monitoring during maintenance phase:Establish a patent ledger management system to track annual fee payments, changes in rights holders, and other related matters in real-time. For the new regulations in 2024, it is recommended to prepare annual fee funds three months in advance and choose a local agency to assist in payment to reduce the risk of overdue payments. Regularly search for patent litigation information in Cambodia and monitor the patent dynamics of competitors.

Preparation measures for litigation response:After receiving the court summons, a response team consisting of technical personnel and local lawyers should be formed within 7 days. Key verification: Whether the invalidity reasons claimed by the plaintiff belong to legal circumstances, whether the evidence has been made public before the application date, and whether the annual fee payment records are complete. Special attention should be paid to the fact that the acceptance criteria for electronic evidence in Cambodian courts are not yet clear. It is recommended to notarize and preserve key webpage evidence.

Key evidence for invalid defense:Prepare defense materials for different invalid reasons: when facing novelty challenges, priority documents can be submitted or proof can be provided that the disclosure is the applicant's own behavior and within the grace period; When it comes to annual fees, payment vouchers and bank transfer records need to be provided; For allegations of unclear claims, the examination opinion response document during the application process can be submitted as auxiliary evidence.

Conclusion: Maintenance of Patent Value in Judicial Procedures

The judicial exclusive jurisdiction model of Cambodia's patent invalidation system not only ensures procedural rigor, but also increases the complexity of enterprise response. The implementation of the new annual fee regulations in 2024 highlights the importance of compliance management. For Chinese companies operating in Cambodia, patent stability management requires "prevention first, response second": it is necessary to build the first line of defense through high-quality applications and standardized maintenance, as well as establish a rapid response mechanism to deal with sudden invalid lawsuits.

It is recommended that companies conduct quarterly patent health assessments, with a focus on checking the status of annual fee payments, stability of claims, and potential infringement risks. In the regional layout, we should fully utilize the institutional characteristics of Cambodia's lack of commercial utilization requirements, and develop differentiated patent strategies in combination with the trend of increasing transparency in its judicial procedures. Through professional local legal services and a systematic management system, patents have truly become a powerful weapon for enterprises to compete in the Cambodian market.