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

September 3, 2019

IP&IT Court Awards Historic Patent Damages as Thailand Strengthens IP Protection

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

A steady increase in the number of companies transferring their IP assets to Thailand has seen an increase in the need for these companies to rely on the courts to protect their complex scientific and technological advancements. Recent developments have seen Thailand’s court system rising to the challenge, using international standards of protection including:

  1. robust injunctive relief to stop infringement of their IP; and
  2. substantial increases in compensation to cover damages sustained and legal fees, including a record high award for patent infringement in 2019.

By ensuring proportional responses, these developments in the court are encouraging for the promotion of fair competition in business and R&D investment.

Advancement in IP Protection by the IP&IT Court   

The Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) has jurisdiction over IP disputes in Thailand. As Southeast Asia’s first dedicated IP-specialized court, established in December 1997, the IP&IT Court drives development of the Thai IP regime by serving both domestic and foreign IP owners from all industries, including those handling complex technologies. Some of its key attributes are detailed below.

  • Specialized judges: In recent years, the IP cases handled by the IP&IT Court have become more complex due to the steady pace of technological developments in Thailand and increased foreign investment. Judges of the IP&IT Court specialize in IP and are well versed in this body of law. They are well positioned to analyze the ramifications of new technologies and grant fair judgments on the cases brought before them. A heavier IP caseload led to enhancement of the appeal system in October 2016, when a Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases was established, further shortening the time needed to attain final judgments in IP cases.   
  • Associate (expert) judges:  The professional judges on the IP&IT Court are advised on technological issues by “associate judges.” These judicial officers, appointed by the Judicial Commission, are experts in many technological and business fields, including engineering, science, pharmacy, and more.
  • Expert witnesses: Foreign and local experts in academia or business can provide expert testimony on the relevant technological issues.
  • Mediation: After a complaint is submitted, parties have the option of pursuing mediation at the IP&IT Court rather than traditional court proceedings. Mediation is one effective means of resolving a case involving complex technologies. The process is convenient and uncomplicated, and is handled by experienced mediators—often senior personnel from government offices, academia, or other trustworthy organizations.
  • Closed hearings: Where necessary, parties may apply for closed court proceedings to protect the confidentiality of sensitive information.

Effective Civil Procedures

Since the establishment of the IP&IT Court in December 1997, the majority of its cases have been criminal cases.        In recent years, however, the number of civil cases has increased significantly. Several IP owners have successfully protected their valuable IP rights through effective civil procedures at the IP&IT Court, and this route has therefore become quite popular among IP owners.

Some of the highly effective orders available under civil procedural rules include:

  • Preliminary injunctions: A preliminary injunction requires an infringer to immediately stop their infringement of an IP owner’s rights. An application for a preliminary injunction can be filed either prior to or during the court proceedings. Preliminary injunctions are available under each of the major IP laws in Thailand: the Copyright Act, the Patent Act, the Trademark Act, and the Trade Secrets Act. 
  • Anton Piller orders: An Anton Piller order is an ex parte order for the search and seizure of evidence prior to the filing of a complaint. This mechanism allows for the immediate seizure of evidence of IP infringement from an infringer. Similar to a civil search warrant, an Anton Piller order requires the alleged infringer to allow the IP owners and their lawyers to inspect the evidence in the alleged infringer’s possession at the infringer’s premises.
  • Damages: The IP owner, as the plaintiff, is entitled to demonstrate all the potential causes of losses suffered by the infringed party in order to recover monetary damages. However, Thai law does not provide fixed criteria for the court’s consideration with regard to methods for assessing and calculating damages. Therefore, any assessment of damages typically relies on the sole discretion of the court. The court must evaluate the “circumstances and the gravity of the wrongful act” and determine the damages accordingly.

Highest Damages Awards at the IP&IT Court

The impact of IP&IT Court decisions continues to grow with the award of landmark damages to aggrieved IP owners. The most recent landmark award was made to INVE Technologies N.V., a world-leading pioneer in the aquaculture industry with a focus on innovative hatchery products and processes for producing quality live food sources for seafood production.

INVE found that a number of competitors were infringing its patented process for increasing the hatching percentage of free-swimming artemia nauplii (brine shrimp, which can be used to feed fish or shrimp), and competing unfairly, in several countries including Thailand. They instructed Tilleke & Gibbins to bring invention patent litigation at the IP&IT Court. In November 2018, INVE received a very favorable outcome against the infringer, with the IP&IT Court granting a permanent injunction and Thailand’s highest-ever award for damages in an IP case—over THB 106 million (approximately USD 3.5 million), plus interest from the date the complaint was filed.

This is the latest in a line of cases in which the IP&IT Court has awarded record-high damages to our clients, showing the steady increase in the scale of IP protection available in Thailand. Other recent examples include the following:

  • In 2015, a leading U.S. manufacturer of magnetic powders, and client of Tilleke & Gibbins, obtained a damages award of over THB 20 million (approximately USD 670,000) which was, at the time, the largest handed down by the IP&IT Court. It was also the first case in which a trade secret owner successfully enforced its rights against trade secret misappropriation in Thailand.
  • In 2019, a leading Japanese manufacturer and designer of automotive and motorcycle parts and accessories obtained the highest damages award in a design patent case in Thailand, also under Tilleke & Gibbins’ representation, at over THB 20 million (approximately USD 670,000).
  • Most recently, in 2019, another client—a leading Japanese manufacturer in the food industry—obtained a landmark compensation award in a copyright and trade dress protection case for more than THB 20 million (approximately USD 670,000).

Capitalizing on the Strengthened IP Enforcement Environment in Thailand

The results of these cases are encouraging for IP owners who wish to enforce their IP rights, and the damages awarded by the court can be effectively enforced—including by seizing the infringers’ assets—through further coordination with the Legal Execution Department in the Ministry of Justice. The IP&IT Court has also proved to be a fair venue in patent invalidation litigation, offering much-needed protection to patent owners whose innovations are challenged by opposing parties or competitors.

Thai IP laws and practices are developing rapidly, as exemplified by Thailand’s removal from the Priority Watch List by the Office of the United States Trade Representative in December 2017. All these strides forward depend on the proactive steps being taken by leading IP owners, who have invested heavily in their businesses and technologies in Thailand and who continue to trust that the strong protection of their valuable IP will be enforced. With more IP owners handling complex technologies placing their trust in IP protection in Thailand, the developments are likely to continue apace.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More