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​ 

September 23, 2026
Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More