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 6, 2011

Search Warrants in IP Criminal Actions

Tilleke & Gibbins

On September 8, 2010, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) held a meeting to discuss and gather comments and recommendations on the procedure for issuing search warrants in relation to IP criminal actions. Various concerned parties attended the meeting, such as police officers, public prosecutors, and IP practitioners. This meeting was significant because many IP owners have expressed concerns about the need for standardized procedures in determining whether a search warrant will be granted.

Issuance of Search Warrants 2008 2009 2010 (Jan-Aug) Total
Total petitions for search warrants 852 1,000 578 2,430
Search warrants issued 502 (59%) 605 (60%) 431
(75%)
1,538 (63%)
Petitions dismissed/ withdrawn 350 395 147 892

During the meeting, the IP&IT Court revealed some interesting new statistics about the issuance of search warrants, as shown in the table above. From 2008 through August 31, 2010, the Court granted 63% of search warrants sought by petitioners. Although this overall percentage is reasonably high, the Court admitted that search warrants for patent litigation are rarely issued because the Court holds the opinion that civil actions, not criminal actions, should be taken.

In order to successfully obtain a search warrant, we recommend that at least the following evidence be submitted to the Court:

  • Power of Attorney and Sub-Power of Attorney to show that the petitioner has valid authority to request the search warrant from the Court;
  • Evidence showing that the petitioner has the right to obtain the search warrant, such as the Certificate of Registration in trademark infringement cases, Recordal of Copyright or original work in copyright infringement cases, or Certificate of Granted Patent in patent infringement cases;
  • Pictures clearly showing the types of places where the infringing products are sold and distributed (factory, apartment, condominium, house, etc.);
  • Video or other media showing that the infringing products are being sold and distributed at the targeted location;
  • Advertising documents or materials showing the actual use of the registered trademark;
  • Sample of products bearing the infringing mark and the registered trademark.

Among the many issues discussed at the meeting, one of the key topics was the amount of time allotted to execute search warrants. A common concern among petitioners is that the Court often does not grant sufficient time to conduct the search. During the discussion, IP practitioners made the Court aware of these concerns and requested longer periods of time for conducting searches.

If you have any questions about the process for obtaining and executing search warrants in IP criminal actions, please contact us at [email protected].

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 5, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins is pleased to announce the promotion of Chitchai Punsan and Suruswadee Jaimsuwan to partner in the firm’s Bangkok office, reinforcing the strength of the firm’s dispute resolution practice. Chitchai has over 15 years of experience representing multinational corporations in complex disputes throughout Thailand and Southeast Asia. With a broad-ranging practice of contentious matters, he brings particular depth in customs violations, economic crime and regulatory investigations, product liability disputes, and civil and criminal litigation. Beyond his client work, Chitchai is recognized as a thought leader on customs and trade disputes, regularly sharing his insights as clients look to navigate a complex, geopolitical environment.  He has also provided his expertise to a wide range of research projects for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank, playing an active role in shaping policy discussions on legal and regulatory issues impacting the region. Chitchai holds an LLB from Ramkhamhaeng University and a bachelor’s degree in business administration from Kasetsart University, and is a member of the Lawyers Council of Thailand and the Thai Bar Association. Suruswadee has been serving clients with Tilleke & Gibbins since 2020. A former judge of the Thai Courts of Justice, she has extensive legal experience on and off the bench, bolstered by a deep knowledge of Thai law and court procedure. She uses her expertise to help clients develop strong and practical legal strategies, as well as to provide flawless advocacy in the courtroom. She is recognized by Benchmark Litigation as a commercial and transactions Litigation Star in Thailand and by Asialaw as a dispute resolution Distinguished Practitioner in Thailand. Suruswadee holds an LLM from Monash University, an LLM from King’s College London, and an LLB from Thammasat University. She is a barrister-at-law qualified by the Thai Bar Association, a
December 9, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins is proud to announce that four litigation cases handled by the firm have been selected among the nine Distinguished Judgment Awards granted by Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) for the period from October 1, 2024, to August 31, 2025. This recognition highlights the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of these cases, which were chosen based on stringent criteria including new legal issues, high evidentiary volume, and intricate legal arguments. Among these four cases, one was singled out as the “Most Distinguished Judgment” – the landmark trademark squatting case involving the trademark rights of our client, Thailand’s largest state-owned energy conglomerate, and its subsidiary. In this case, the defendants had filed 52 trademark applications mimicking our client’s marks, making it the largest trademark squatting dispute in Thai history. On April 30, 2025, the IP&IT Court ordered the cancellation of multiple infringing trademarks, setting a benchmark for IP enforcement against trademark squatters in Thailand. The other three recognized cases demonstrate Tilleke & Gibbins’ breadth of expertise in IP litigation: Patent infringement and invalidation involving trade secrets misappropriation. Trade dress infringement of a unique packaging. Landmark Luckin Coffee case involving trademark infringement and invalidation. The IP&IT Court handles approximately 200 IP civil litigation cases each year, and our IP litigation team has typically been involved in 25–30% of them, reflecting our dominant role in shaping IP jurisprudence in Thailand.
August 21, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins is pleased to announce that the firm has adopted Harvey, a leading enterprise-grade AI platform for the global legal industry. The firm is proceeding with a rollout of Harvey’s legal AI solutions, which are supported by robust security and confidentiality protections, across the firm’s full-service regional practice in Southeast Asia. This initiative builds on the firm’s recent deployment of Microsoft Copilot and represents another advancement in Tilleke & Gibbins’ commitment to leveraging technology for enhanced legal service delivery. Under the program, legal professionals across the firm’s offices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam will have access to the full Harvey platform, equipping them to deliver practical, impactful, and results-driven legal services for clients throughout the region. The firm will also develop bespoke agentic workflows within Harvey tailored to the firm’s core practices and the unique requirements of Southeast Asian legal markets. Commenting on the initiative, Managing Partner Tiziana Sucharitkul stated, “At Tilleke & Gibbins, we have consistently invested in developing and adopting technology to improve the speed, precision, and overall excellence of our legal services. The firm’s decision to invest in Harvey exemplifies our commitment to innovation, further differentiating Tilleke & Gibbins within Southeast Asia’s legal landscape.” Managing Partner Darani Vachanavuttivong remarked, “By combining the deep regional expertise of our lawyers with Harvey’s market-leading domain-specific AI, we are empowering our regional team to streamline drafting, research, and review processes for complex legal matters, all while maintaining the high standards of quality and security our clients expect from us.” Harvey’s Chief Business Officer John Haddock added, “It’s clear Tilleke & Gibbins is investing heavily in innovation, and it’s clear their global clients will benefit significantly from their focus and investment. The Harvey team is thrilled to support the firm’s journey with our platform.”