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

December 16, 2011

How to Prove Damages in Trade Secret Infringement Disputes

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Calculating damages is difficult in any type of litigation, but attempting to assess the damages in cases involving trade secrets can be far more complex than in cases relating to other forms of intellectual property rights.

For plaintiffs, recovery of damages is a key factor in trade secrets litigation. Like other forms of intellectual property litigation, the plaintiff’s lost profits form a central component of any damages award. But unlike trademark or patent litigation, Thailand’s Trade Secrets Act empowers the court to move beyond lost profits and award other types of damages as well.

Causes of Action

Protection for trade secrets is usually provided in the form of non-disclosure of trade information, which must be kept confidential by the owner through the use of appropriate means. Trade secrets are only valuable as long as they remain a secret.

Any act of disclosure, deprivation, or usage of a trade secret without the consent of the owner in a manner contrary to fair commercial practice constitutes an infringement of trade secret rights, provided that the infringer knows or should have known that his or her action is contrary to fair commercial practice.

The causes of action which are available in trade secret cases include: (1) breach of an employment agreement by an employee; (2) misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information; and (3) tortious interference with business relations with the ex-employee and/or between the former employer and its customers or suppliers.

Calculating Lost Profits

Where a cause of action exists, the plaintiff will likely seek damages that are sufficient to compensate for the economic and financial loss caused by the defendant’s infringement.

In trade secrets litigation cases where both the plaintiff and the defendant have already developed and sold the products, a historical baseline for profitability can be been established. If such actual damages can be proved, then the lost profits may be recoverable.

Lost profits are typically calculated as net profits (i.e. gross revenue minus overheads and expenses). Most courts prefer to use the plaintiff’s lost profits, or the defendant’s profit gains, as the preferred measure for assessing damages.

However, if neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has any sales history on which to base such a calculation, most courts would find the measure of lost profits to be too speculative for the purpose of recovering damages.

The court calculates the lost profits which are attributable to the plaintiff through a range of methods, which vary from relatively straightforward to extremely complex. The court will consider the following factors:

  • The nature of the misappropriated trade secret
  • Research and development costs
  • Competition between the businesses of the plaintiff and the defendant
  • The size of the markets and other factors which are difficult to quantify

Therefore, during the trial, the plaintiff should show the court that the plaintiff has invested significantly, over the course of many years, in technology, time, money, intellectual property, security measures, and so forth, in relation to the trade secrets. The plaintiff may present evidence to prove these factors to the court, so that the court can use the information to determine the amount of damages to award.

The Thai Trade Secrets Act does not specify the amount of expenses that can be claimed in relation to the enforcement of rights, in the same manner as the Thai Patent Act. A plaintiff can claim its lawyers’ fees and travel expenses in the lost-profit calculations, but it is important to bear in mind that there is no precedent judgment in relation to such claims.

Additional Damages

Beyond just recovery of lost profits, the Thai Trade Secrets Act empowers the court to apply several additional measures for calculating damages:

  1. In addition to the damages for the actual damage suffered, the court may include in the damages for the plaintiff profits accrued from, or connected with, the infringement by the infringer.
  2. If the court is unable to measure the damages under (1), it may order that an amount of damages be paid to the controller of the trade secrets.
  3. Where there is clear evidence that the infringement of trade secrets has been conducted wilfully or maliciously, the court is empowered to order the infringer to pay punitive damages, in addition to the amount of damages granted under (1) or (2). However, the punitive damages are limited to no more than double the damages payable under (1) or (2).

These additional forms of damages provide new avenues for trade secret owners to seek redress when their valuable information has been misappropriated. Thai legal practitioners will be closely monitoring the practical application of these damages awards as more trade secrets disputes are heard by Thailand’s Intellectual Property and International Trade Court.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
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
Read More