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​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More