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

July 12, 2013

Patents as a Tool for Business and Innovation

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Almost everyone nowadays is familiar with the words “intellectual property” and “patents.” This is largely because intellectual property (IP) is a vitally important part of developing and maintaining a profitable business.

Having recognized the importance of IP protection, you also need to understand the types of protection you can obtain and the benefits of each. There are several types of IP—including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets—each of which offers different legal rights and protections.

For instance, copyright protection and patent protection are very different. If you are thinking about “filing” or “registering” your IP, you are probably thinking about obtaining a patent as opposed to a copyright. Why? Because registration is required only for patent and trademark protection, not for copyright and trade secret protection.

Another key point is that patents only give you legal protection in the country where they are registered. There is no such thing as an “international patent” that will give you protection in every country in the world. This means a patent must be applied for in each country where you aim to obtain legal protection.

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system, which Thailand recently joined, allows you to apply for a patent in several PCT member countries by submitting a single application via the PCT system. Although this is certainly helpful for businesses, it does not actually give you an “international patent,” as you still need to pursue patent registration in each country separately.

Once the patent is granted (the process usually takes a few years), the patent owner will enjoy the exclusive right (i.e., monopoly) to exploit the patented invention in the country in which the patent has been granted for a specified period of time. In Thailand, the total protection period is 20 years from the filing date for an invention patent and 10 years from the filing date for a petty patent or design patent.

From a business perspective, patent protection should be viewed as a tool for achieving specific business goals. The question is how to apply this potentially available tool productively and efficiently. Remember, filing and maintaining patents costs money, so the proper management of patents is crucial. The questions that business owners need to ask themselves include:

  • How can a company generate and identify new ideas and innovation that would be worth patenting?
  • How is patent ownership determined?
  • How do employee-inventor(s) get rewarded?
  • How can the company profit from the patent to protect and grow the business?

The main benefit of having a patent is to give your company limited-time exclusive rights to the patented invention and, in turn, prevent your competitors from copying the invention, entering the market, or otherwise competing with your company. This benefit can only be fully realized, however, if your company has a strong patent (patents are best drafted by professionals) and has an effective patent enforcement plan in place so that the company can quickly detect and take legal actions against an infringer.

In any event, it is important to keep in mind that without being able to reap the benefits a patent can offer, an issued patent is merely a piece of paper that costs money to maintain year after year.

Patent ownership and employee remuneration is another big issue. Section 11 of the Thai Patent Act clearly stipulates: “The right to apply for a patent for an invention made in the execution of an employment contract or a contract for performing a certain work shall belong to the employer or the person having commissioned the work unless otherwise provided in the contract.”

This means the patent rights to an invention created within the course of employment belong to the company unless the company and the employee-inventor(s) have agreed otherwise. This point must be clearly communicated to all employees to prevent any misunderstanding. In some cases, employees may think they own the invention.

But companies also need to be aware of Section 12 of the Thai Patent Act, which stipulates: “In order to promote inventive activities and give a fair share to the employee, the employee-inventor shall have the right to remuneration other than his regular salary if the employer benefits from the invention.”

Therefore, even though the company owns the patent rights, the employee-inventor is entitled to extra remuneration, provided that the company benefits from the patented invention created by the employee. In light of this legal obligation, companies may consider putting in place a well-designed reward system to create incentives for employees to come up with innovative ideas and inventions that would benefit the company’s business growth and development.

Undoubtedly, with careful planning and effective management, patents will be a very useful tool to drive business and foster innovation.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More