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​ 

March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The