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​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
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