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 28, 2014

Damages in Trade Secret Litigation

Informed Counsel

Calculating damages is a difficult process in all variants of litigation. Assessing damages in cases involving trade secrets is, however, a far more arduous undertaking, riddled with complexities and obscurities that become particularly apparent when compared to assessments in cases relating to other forms of intellectual property rights.

In instances where a historical baseline has already been established—through the plaintiff and defendant developing and selling products to which the trade secret relates—if actual damages can be proven, then a loss of profits may be recoverable. A loss of profits is typically calculated as net profits, which is gross profits minus overhead and expenses. The majority of courts tend toward using the plaintiff’s lost profits or the defendant’s profit gains as the measure for assessing damages in trade secret cases. If neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has a sales history on which to base such a calculation, then the courts will most likely find the measure of lost profits to be too speculative for the purpose of recovering damages.

The court assessing damages calculates the plaintiff’s lost profits through a range of methods, which vary from relatively straightforward to extremely complex. The following factors are taken into consideration by the court when making such an assessment:

  • The nature of the misappropriated trade secret;
  • Research and development costs;
  • Competition between the businesses of the plaintiff and the defendant; and
  • The size of the markets and other factors which are difficult to quantify.

Bearing in mind the above, it is therefore highly advisable for the plaintiff—during the trial—to demonstrate to the court that it has made significant investments in trade secrets related to technology, time, money, intellectual property, security measures, people, etc., over the course of many years. The plaintiff may present evidence to prove such factors to the court, with which the court can make considerations to determine the amount of damages to award.

In our firm’s experience, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) has specified damages for the plaintiff in the following terms:

1. The compensation for benefits conferred on the defendant from, or because of, such infringement is calculated from the sales of the defendant’s goods produced from the machine and procedure of infringement on the plaintiff’s trade secret. It was further held by the IP&IT Court that, in accordance with Section 13(1) of the Trade Secrets Act B.E. 2545 (2002), the Court is empowered to determine only damages for the actual damage suffered.

The plaintiff claimed that it had suffered a loss of revenue from the distribution of products produced by the defendant from the machine and procedure of infringement. The Court, however, determined that the plaintiff was not claiming for actual damage suffered. Further, the plaintiff’s loss of revenue could not be said to have been wholly caused by the defendant’s product distribution, because the customers who bought products from the defendant may not have otherwise purchased them from the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s actual damages were therefore uncertain. Due to the trade secret infringement committed by the defendant against the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff inevitably incurred damages. Therefore, it was deemed expedient on this ground to determine the amount of compensation of damages for the plaintiff.

2. In order to prove damages for the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in this lawsuit against the defendant, to maintain the secrecy of the plaintiff’s trade secrets, and to show legal proceedings costs, detective costs, transportation costs, lawyer fees, and other expenses, the plaintiff must show the Court documentary evidence such as the receipts of transportation costs, lawyer fees, and other expenses.

Despite these supporting documents, the Court may not necessarily determine damages in accordance with the plaintiff’s request.

3. Damages caused to the plaintiff from the day the complaint is filed until the defendant ceases to infringe on the plaintiff’s trade secrets depend on the plaintiff’s evidence. It is at the discretion of the judge. 

Notwithstanding the above, in the last trade secret case handled by our firm, the IP&IT Court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff compensation for damages in the amount of THB 20,000,000 (USD 666,666) plus 7.5% interest per annum, calculated from the filing date of the lawsuit until the payment is made in full. This is the highest-ever amount of compensation ordered by the Court and is indicative of its flexibility when it comes to awarding damages. While this flexibility has its advantages, it further deepens the trench of unpredictability and obscureness that overshadows damages in trade secret litigation. Predictable outcomes are yet to be seen, but are certainly hoped for.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for