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​ 

September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More
August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More