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​ 

August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 30, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved a draft ministerial regulation introducing significant changes to the calculation of old-age pension and old-age gratuity benefits under the Social Security Fund. The reform would replace the current pension calculation method with a career average revalued earnings (CARE) model designed to better reflect an individual’s lifetime contributions while supporting the long-term financial sustainability of the Social Security Fund. The changes are also intended to improve fairness and align Thailand’s pension framework with international practices. Key proposed changes under the draft ministerial regulation are outlined below. CARE-Based Formula for Old-Age Pension Calculations Currently, old-age pensions are calculated based on the insured person’s average salary over the preceding 60 months. The proposed regulation would replace this approach with the CARE model, under which pension benefits will be calculated based on earnings throughout an individual’s entire working life. Historical earnings will be revalued to reflect their present value before the pension benefit is calculated. According to the Ministry of Labor, this change is intended to better align pension benefits with an individual’s lifetime contribution history and provide a fairer basis for calculating benefits. Pension Accrual Rate for Contributions Exceeding 180 Months Under the current rules, insured persons who contribute for more than 180 months receive an additional pension accrual of 1.5% for each completed 12-month contribution period, with any remaining months disregarded. The proposed regulation would instead calculate the additional accrual on a monthly basis at a rate of 0.125% of actual monthly contributions; this aims to make pension benefits more accurately reflect the actual duration of each individual’s contribution history. Transitional Protections for Insured Persons The draft regulation includes transitional protections for both existing pension recipients and those who will become eligible within five years of the CARE model taking effect. For existing recipients, the following protections
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More