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

June 2, 2021

Employee-Inventor Remuneration Requirements in Thailand and Vietnam

In view of today’s knowledge-based economies and accelerating technological developments, intellectual property (“IP”) is increasingly often the most valuable asset of a company. Accordingly, most savvy companies pay particular attention to their IP assets and ensure that their rights are properly protected under local laws. Among commonly available IP protections, patent protection most often provides the strongest protection for a company’s innovations. In fact, patent protection may be viewed as an important tool for achieving specific business goals, especially for tech-based companies.

However, sometimes questions arise over the ownership of patents for inventions created by employees and whether the company needs to share the profits from an invention with the employee-inventor. In addition, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many companies began to allow employees to work remotely, while some companies found it necessary to lay off some if their workforce. From the company’s perspective, it is important not only to motivate and support employees to be innovative, whether they are working on the premises or remotely, but to also ensure the company’s proper ownership of the employee’s invention and provide appropriate remuneration for legal compliance purposes. Furthermore, in view of remote working and employee layoffs, companies need to be remain vigilant in securing legal assignment and confidentiality obligations from employees with regard to their inventions.

In this article, we examine how the relevant laws and regulations in Thailand and Vietnam treat an employee’s invention and remuneration, and analyze what prudent employers should do to be mindful of the local laws with regard to patent ownership and employee remuneration.

Thailand

Thai patent law clearly states that the right to apply for a patent for an invention made under an employment contract or a contract for performing certain work shall belong to the employer or the person who commissioned the work, unless otherwise provided in the contract. This means that the patent rights to an invention created during the course of employment belong to the company, unless the company and the employee-inventor have agreed otherwise in a contract. Thus, companies operating in Thailand should make sure that this point is clearly communicated to all employees to prevent any misunderstanding, as employees sometimes think that they own the invention they created.

Even so, companies need to be aware that Thai patent law also stipulates that, in order to promote innovation and invention and to give a fair share to employees who create patentable inventions, employee-inventors must be given the right to remuneration other than their regular salary if the employer benefits from their invention. This right to extra remuneration applies to inventions protected by patents, petty patents, and design patents, and notably cannot be prevented by any contractual provision. Consequently, even though a company owns an invention’s patent rights, the employee-inventor is entitled to receive extra remuneration, provided that the company benefits from the patented invention created by the employee.

The law does not expressly specify the amount or value of “extra remuneration” that the employee-inventor is entitled to receive. When considering whether remuneration should be paid, and the amount thereof, the following factors should be taken into account:

  • The responsibilities of the employee;
  • The industriousness and experience that the employee and other persons have used in the creation of the invention or in the design of a particular product, including any advice or assistance given by other individuals who are not considered the inventors;
  • Any assistance given by the employer to facilitate the invention or design of a product, for example, the provision of finance, advice, recommendations, facilities and the preparation or procurement of factors or services for the testing, development or making of the invention or design to make it usable;
  • The benefit that the employer has received or will receive from permitting the use of the invention/design (including benefits derived from the disposal of the patent);
  • The number of employees who participated in the creation of the invention or design of the product.

In light of the foregoing legal obligations under Thai patent law, companies operating in Thailand may consider putting a well-designed reward system in place, which not only serves legal compliance purposes, but also creates appropriate incentives for employees to develop innovative ideas and inventions that would benefit the company’s business growth and development.

Additionally, if key employees have been or will likely be working remotely going forward, or if some employees leave the company, it is always advisable for the company to obtain written assignment of their inventions and ensure ongoing confidentiality obligations from employees during their employment and after they leave the company.

Vietnam

Like most other jurisdictions, in most circumstances, inventions created by Vietnamese employees may belong to the employer. Although Vietnamese law does not provide a clear wording of the right to apply for a patent for inventions made under an employment contract, the spirit of the law regarding ownership of inventions made during the course of employment seems to be similar to Thailand’s laws. In particular, the IP Law of Vietnam (Article 86.1.b) states that organizations or individuals, who have invested funds and material facilities for authors to create an invention in the form of job assignment or hiring, have the right to register such inventions. This regulation, however, might trigger different interpretations due to its vagueness. On one hand, most practitioners are of the opinion that the language of Article 86.1.b is sufficient for employers to enjoy ownership over inventions made in the course of their employee’s normal duties, provided that an employment contract exists. On the other hand, some may argue that Article 86.1.b requires a specific assignment, which clearly indicates the specific invention(s) covered. In other words, general employment contracts may not be sufficient for the employer to automatically own inventions created by its employees. This latter understanding and interpretation can be quite cumbersome for companies. Although we support the former interpretation, as it is in line with international practice, unfortunately there have been no precedent cases in Vietnam regarding the ownership of inventions made during the course of employment at the time of writing this article. Thus, none of the interpretations have been tested in practice.

Despite the ambiguity of the regulations on the ownership of inventions, Vietnam’s laws clearly provide that authors of employee inventions are entitled to remuneration. Article 132.2(a) of the IP law reiterates this right by requiring the owner of an employee’s invention to pay remuneration to the author or authors of that invention, while Article 135 provides further guidelines on remuneration, stating that the minimum level of remuneration that the owner (employer) must to pay to an author (employee) is calculated based on:

  1. 10 percent of the profits gained by the owner from the use of the invention, industrial design, or layout design; and,
  2. 15 percent of the total amount received by the owner for each royalty payment for licensing the invention, industrial design, or layout design.

It is noteworthy that the above regulations prescribe the remuneration during the use of the invention (when registered) and when licensing the granted patents, but not when filing an application for a patent or upon the successful registration or grant of a patent.

However, unlike Thailand’s laws, it is not mandatory for employers to pay remuneration to inventor-employees, and Vietnam’s laws allow the employer’s obligation to be waived by mutual consent of the employers and the employees.

In light of the foregoing, companies operating in Vietnam should clearly indicate in their employment contracts and company rules and policies:

  • whether inventions made by a company’s employee during the course of their employment will automatically be owned by the company; and
  • the circumstances when remuneration to an employee for their invention is granted or waived.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 22, 2026
A new decree in Vietnam brings significant implementation clarity to the country’s existing extended producer responsibility (EPR) legal framework. An EPR mechanism was first codified in Vietnam in the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection amid ongoing challenges surrounding the collection and treatment of product and packaging waste. The mechanism was progressively detailed through Decree No. 08/2022/ND‑CP and its successive amendments, but the regulatory framework remained insufficiently developed, notably in terms of support mechanisms for waste collection, recycling, and treatment. The newly launched regulations in Decree No. 110/2026/ND-CP (Decree 110), issued on April 1, 2026, and taking effect on May 25, 2026, stipulate fully and clearly the responsibility of manufacturers and importers to recycle products and packaging and to treat waste. Some key provisions of Decree 110 for manufacturers, importers, and related stakeholders are presented below. Subjects of EPR The Law on Environmental Protection assigns responsibility to manufacturers and importers for product and packaging recycling (under Article 54) or waste collection and treatment (under Article 55), depending on the type of products and packaging they produce or import. Decree 110 elaborates on these EPR provisions by specifying the responsible entities and listing out the types of products and packaging subject to recycling and waste treatment responsibilities. Decree 110 clarifies the responsible entities in special cases, such as when products under the same brand are made by multiple manufacturers, when there is a contract manufacturing or entrusted import relationship, and when the manufacturer or importer is part of a corporate group. Notably, exemptions may be applied in some scenarios, such as for manufacturers and importers of products and packaging exclusively for export, temporary import and re-export, or research and testing purposes, as well as for entities with annual revenue from related products not exceeding VND 30 billion. Recycling Responsibilities Decree 110
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
April 10, 2026
Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should
April 10, 2026
As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that