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​ 

July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
July 14, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has published guidelines establishing a risk-based framework for the responsible use of artificial intelligence by telecom licensees. Released on July 2, 2026, the Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Telecommunications Services address governance structures, ethical principles, lifecycle management, and consumer protection obligations. Scope and Legal Context The nonbinding guidelines apply to holders of telecom business licenses under Thailand’s telecom licensing laws, but only with respect to the use of AI in providing licensed telecom services. Entities without such licenses are not directly subject to the guidelines, though they may be affected as third-party AI solution providers to licensees. The guidelines supplement and should be read alongside existing laws, including the Cybersecurity Act, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), the Computer Crime Act, and the NBTC Notification regarding Measures to Protect Telecommunications Service Users’ Rights Regarding Personal Data, Privacy Rights, and Freedom of Telecommunications, as well as forthcoming AI governance legislation being drafted by the ETDA. AI Governance Structure Licensees are expected to establish committees, working groups, or designated officers at both policy and operational levels to set strategic direction for AI use, formulate governance policies and tools, and oversee risk management. Roles, responsibilities, and accountability should be clearly defined for all personnel across every stage of the AI lifecycle—including for third-party AI solution providers and outsourced service providers, whose obligations should be explicitly documented in service agreements. Core Principles The guidelines identify six core principles that licensees should adhere to when deploying AI: Compliance with laws, ethics, and international standards: AI should respect privacy, dignity, and human rights, and content filtering for inputs and outputs should be considered. For example, the AI should not be designed and developed to be used in generating false information, supporting illegal activities, or causing
July 13, 2026
Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance Agency (BPJPH) has issued new regulations establishing clearer procedures for imposing administrative sanctions on businesses that violate halal product assurance requirements. BPJPH Regulation No. 2 of 2026 on the Imposition of Administrative Sanctions for Violations of Halal Product Assurance Implementation, issued on June 5, 2026, strengthens Indonesia’s halal compliance framework, as mandated under Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Assurance and Government Regulation No. 42 of 2024 on the Implementation of Halal Product Assurance. BPJPH Regulation No. 2/2026 also supports the upcoming mandatory halal compliance deadline of October 17, 2026, which will apply to a broad range of products and services, including imported food and beverages, slaughtering products and services, natural and quasi-drugs, health supplements, cosmetics, chemical and genetically engineered products, clothing and accessories, household goods, prayer equipment, stationery, and class A medical devices. Scope BPJPH is authorized to impose administrative sanctions for violations of halal product assurance requirements committed by businesses, halal inspection agencies (LPH), halal auditors, halal product process companion institutions (lembaga pendamping PPH), and halal product process companions (pendamping PPH). The head of BPJPH has authority to determine, cancel, or amend the imposition of administrative sanctions, including upon receipt of objections. This authority covers revocation of Halal Certificates (including foreign halal certificate registration numbers), withdrawal of goods from circulation, freezing of LPH operations, freezing of halal product process companion institutions, revocation of PPH companion institution registration numbers, revocation of halal auditor registration numbers, and revocation of LPH accreditation status. Administrative Sanctions Businesses may be subject to any of the following administrative sanctions: Written warning; Administrative fine; Revocation of the halal certificate, including revocation of foreign halal certificate registration numbers; and Withdrawal of goods from circulation. The regulation sets out the types of violations that may trigger these sanctions, with each