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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More