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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More