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

August 25, 2016

Commercializing Intellectual Property Through Securitization

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The conventional practice to commercialize intellectual property (IP) is to directly exploit or license IP assets. A trend is emerging, however, to commercialize IP through securitization. This trend coincides with the advent of the Secured Transaction Act B.E. 2558 (2015), which allows IP assets to be used as collateral.

Thailand’s Department of Business Development has been tasked with implementing the Act. As part of its duties under the Act, the  Department of Business Development has enacted a number of secondary laws, and it has established the Secured Transaction Registry Division which oversees an online registration system for security agreements.

The registration system is already in use, and it is now legally possible to use IP assets as collateral. Many lenders, however, are reluctant to accept IP assets as collateral. They prefer to accept tangible assets from borrowers, such as real estate, as opposed to intangible assets like IP.

A main concern of lenders is how to value IP assets. IP valuation requires not only gathering substantial information about an IP asset, but it also requires an in-depth understanding of the economies, industries, and specific businesses that directly impact the value of the IP.  IP owners should therefore be prepared to provide this information to persuade lenders of the creditworthiness of their IP assets.

Although IP owners generally know the economic benefit of their IP assets, such as their level of competitiveness in the marketplace, they are often unaware of the strength of their IP assets from a legal perspective. IP owners should seek the assistance of IP lawyers to analyze the factors that affect the value of an IP asset. These factors include, for instance, qualitative characteristics or standards, such as the nature, scope, and validity of protection of an IP asset.

Other factors, such as the duration of validity of an IP asset, the risk of infringement claims, and the strength of possible defenses, are determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all of the relevant facts. For example, in the context of trademarks, an IP lawyer can help an IP owner determine the legal strength and status of a trademark registration to identify the risk of a third party claiming ownership over a similar trademark.

Taking another example, in the context of patents, an IP lawyer can assist an IP owner to properly draft a patent claim because the value of a patent mainly depends on the scope of its claims (i.e., whether the claims are valid and enforceable). An IP lawyer can also help determine whether existing IP assets owned by third parties could block the development or effective use of a borrower’s IP assets.

In terms of trade secrets, an IP lawyer could help an IP owner determine the measures necessary to protect confidential information and reduce the risk of unauthorized disclosure.

Many organizations, including Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property, are studying how to effectively value IP. Once IP valuation is effectively standardized, lenders will associate less risk with using IP assets as collateral, and the practice should become more common.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

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.
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More