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​ 

September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
On September 4, 2026, Thailand’s prime minister convened the first meeting of the Data Center Business Policy Committee. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework for the data center industry and tasked four subcommittees with developing the standards that would sit beneath it, shifting away from fragmented, agency-by-agency approvals toward a unified national strategy aiming to maximize economic value while managing environmental and infrastructure concerns. Proposed Scope and Pillars of the National Data Center Policy Framework The proposed framework would cover all types of data centers, including internal or captive facilities operated within a company or its affiliates, rather than only commercial third-party providers. If adopted in this form, companies running private data centers purely for internal purposes would also become subject to regulatory oversight. Minimum safety and operational standards would be established, with uniform enforcement across all categories. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework with four key pillars: Industrial classification: Data centers exceeding 2 MW would be classified as industrial operations, which may require factory licenses and environmental impact assessments under the Factory Act. Resource pricing: Utility rates would be structured to reflect both direct and indirect costs, supporting green energy and green data center standards. Centralized screening: A centralized review would evaluate project suitability and resource allocation. Operators may be required to submit proposals through periodic “pitching” rounds, where projects are competitively assessed on their potential economic and strategic benefits to Thailand. Digital ecosystem: The framework would prioritize data sovereignty, tax incentives, and conditions promoting domestic digital businesses, AI, and cloud infrastructure. Multidimensional Evaluation Criteria and Subcommittees Four subcommittees will be established to develop standards responsible for the following dimensions: Economic: Criteria for assessing the economic viability of data center projects, for use in prioritizing data centers based on infrastructure readiness, demand type (including AI factories),
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of