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​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the