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 17, 2013

Employee Inventions and Creativity: Ownership and Compensation

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

With Thailand making the transition to a creative economy, and employers now recognizing the importance of employee creativity, it has become very important for managers to know the principles of intellectual property (IP) compensation and foster an environment of innovation where employees are willing to transfer their IP rights for a company’s benefit.

Under the Thai Patent Act, employers or people commissioning work have the right to apply for patents for inventions made during an employment or work-for-hire contract, unless the contract states otherwise. The same applies to employment contracts which do not require employees to exercise inventive activities, but under which the employee has made an invention using any means, data, or report put at his or her disposal during employment (Section 11 of the Patent Act).

Thai patent law explicitly states that an employer has the right to file for a patent. At the same time, an employee-inventor has the right to receive remuneration in addition to his or her regular salary if the employer gains certain benefits from the use of the invention. This right to receive remuneration cannot be exempted by any provisions in the employment contract (Section 12 of the Patent Act). In other words, the employer has the right to apply for the patent, but the employee who created the work has the right to receive remuneration if the employer benefits from the invention.

An employee-inventor who wishes to receive remuneration must submit a request to the director-general of the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). The director-general has the power to order the amount of remuneration as he or she deems fit, taking into account the employee’s salary, the invention’s importance, the current and future benefits of the invention, and other circumstances, as laid out by Ministerial Regulation Number 24.

The regulation provides a thorough guideline for determining remuneration for an employee-inventor. The director-general of the DIP can consider the following criteria:

  • The employee’s work responsibilities.
  • The industriousness and experience used by the employee in the invention or design of the product.
  • The industriousness and experience used by any other employees jointly involved with the first employee in the invention or design of the product, including the advice or assistance of any other employee who is not the inventor or joint designer.
  • The employer’s assistance in the invention or design of the product by providing financing, advice, recommendations, facilities, preparation, or procurement of factors or services for the testing, development, or usability of the invention or design.
  • The employer’s current or future benefits from permitting others to use the invention or design of the product, including transfer of the patent or subordinate patent to another party.
  • The total number of employees who participated in the invention or design of the product.

With regard to work or creativity that falls under copyright law, a copyright work created by a person in the course of employment belongs to the creator (i.e., the employee), unless otherwise agreed in writing (Section 9 of the Copyright Act). But the law also provides that the employer is entitled to communicate the work to the public in accordance with the purpose of the employment. This means that if the employment agreement does not indicate that newly created copyright works belong to the employer, the commercial rights in reproduction, adaptation, license, and so on will belong to the creator.

The rules of copyright ownership are different if the copyright work is created in the course of commissioned work. In this case, the ownership of the copyright belongs to the employer who commissioned the work. Therefore, the employer does not need to give remuneration to the creator of the work, apart from the agreed wages set by the hire agreement.

In conclusion, businesses involved in creating new products or processes absolutely must be sure that their employment agreements clearly address the issue of intellectual property rights to works created during the course of employment. When a newly created work may qualify as a potential patent application, the employer must have a remuneration scheme in place to encourage staff to create, while ensuring compliance with the law.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Employment

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 23, 2026
Many multinational companies are familiar with the concept of “time off in lieu” (TOIL), under which employees receive compensatory time off instead of overtime pay for additional hours worked. While TOIL is common in many jurisdictions, employers in Thailand should be cautious, as Thai labor law does not expressly recognize TOIL as a substitute for statutory overtime-related compensation. Under the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA), employees who work overtime or perform work on holidays are generally entitled to statutory overtime, holiday, or holiday overtime compensation, including: Overtime Pay: 1.5 times the employee’s normal wage rate for work performed beyond normal working hours on a regular working day. Holiday Pay: 1 or 2 times the employee’s normal wage rate for work performed during normal working hours on a holiday, depending on category of employee. Holiday Overtime Pay: 3 times the employee’s normal wage rate for overtime work performed on a holiday. Importantly, the LPA does not contain any provision expressly permitting employers to substitute overtime-related compensation with compensatory leave, as such compensation is treated as a payment obligation rather than additional time off. Why TOIL Can Be Risky in Thailand Thai labor law is protective in nature, and statutory entitlements to overtime, holiday, and holiday overtime pay are generally regarded as minimum employee rights. As a result, these rights cannot be waived, even with the employee’s consent. Therefore, an employer who grants TOIL instead of paying statutory overtime-related compensation may still be exposed to claims for unpaid amounts, notwithstanding that compensatory leave has already been provided. Thai courts have affirmed this principle, holding that employers remain liable for statutory payments for work performed beyond normal working hours even where substitute time off has been granted. Are There Any Exceptions? Certain categories of employees are exempt from overtime-related compensation,
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More