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

May 6, 2011

Search Warrants in IP Criminal Actions

Tilleke & Gibbins

On September 8, 2010, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) held a meeting to discuss and gather comments and recommendations on the procedure for issuing search warrants in relation to IP criminal actions. Various concerned parties attended the meeting, such as police officers, public prosecutors, and IP practitioners. This meeting was significant because many IP owners have expressed concerns about the need for standardized procedures in determining whether a search warrant will be granted.

Issuance of Search Warrants 2008 2009 2010 (Jan-Aug) Total
Total petitions for search warrants 852 1,000 578 2,430
Search warrants issued 502 (59%) 605 (60%) 431
(75%)
1,538 (63%)
Petitions dismissed/ withdrawn 350 395 147 892

During the meeting, the IP&IT Court revealed some interesting new statistics about the issuance of search warrants, as shown in the table above. From 2008 through August 31, 2010, the Court granted 63% of search warrants sought by petitioners. Although this overall percentage is reasonably high, the Court admitted that search warrants for patent litigation are rarely issued because the Court holds the opinion that civil actions, not criminal actions, should be taken.

In order to successfully obtain a search warrant, we recommend that at least the following evidence be submitted to the Court:

  • Power of Attorney and Sub-Power of Attorney to show that the petitioner has valid authority to request the search warrant from the Court;
  • Evidence showing that the petitioner has the right to obtain the search warrant, such as the Certificate of Registration in trademark infringement cases, Recordal of Copyright or original work in copyright infringement cases, or Certificate of Granted Patent in patent infringement cases;
  • Pictures clearly showing the types of places where the infringing products are sold and distributed (factory, apartment, condominium, house, etc.);
  • Video or other media showing that the infringing products are being sold and distributed at the targeted location;
  • Advertising documents or materials showing the actual use of the registered trademark;
  • Sample of products bearing the infringing mark and the registered trademark.

Among the many issues discussed at the meeting, one of the key topics was the amount of time allotted to execute search warrants. A common concern among petitioners is that the Court often does not grant sufficient time to conduct the search. During the discussion, IP practitioners made the Court aware of these concerns and requested longer periods of time for conducting searches.

If you have any questions about the process for obtaining and executing search warrants in IP criminal actions, please contact us at [email protected].

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 5, 2023
Thomas J. Treutler, partner and managing director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Vietnam offices, was interviewed for an Asia IP article on the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the realm intellectual property enforcement. The provocatively titled “Will AI bring the death of IP enforcement work?” explores the impact of AI in the IP space, and the delicate balance between helping and replacing IP professionals. In the article, Thomas is quoted as saying that “AI-powered algorithms can be trained to detect and monitor IP infringements more rapidly than a single human can, as they are able to analyze vast amounts of data on online platforms, social media and ecommerce marketplaces. This can preliminarily help rights owners and IP agents in data scraping to identify potential targets.” However, he further explained, “taking legal action requires human actions; for example, filing a complaint with the police or handling litigation proceedings in court. Therefore, it will not replace IP professionals in enforcement actions.” The full article can be read at the Asia IP website. Asia IP  is a publication of the Apex Asia Media Group, an independent publisher based in Hong Kong. The magazine aims to provide informed analysis of IP–related issues for Asian and international law firms.  
June 6, 2023
Tilleke & Gibbins is pleased to announce the addition of Nuttaphol Arammuang as a partner in the firm’s industry-leading intellectual property (IP) practice in Bangkok. In his practice, Nuttaphol focuses on providing strategic counsel and representation to corporate clients seeking to protect their IP rights. He works closely with clients to develop comprehensive strategies tailored to their specific needs, helping them to capitalize on their valuable assets and navigate the complex landscape of IP law. Drawing on his extensive experience in IP litigation, Nuttaphol will play a key role in representing clients in high-stakes disputes and advocating for their rights in the courtroom. Additionally, he will collaborate with the firm’s cross-practice, multijurisdictional teams to offer innovative solutions that address evolving challenges and opportunities in the realm of IP. “Nuttaphol’s expertise in IP litigation will further empower our clients to protect and maximize the value of their intellectual assets in today’s complex IP landscape,” said Darani Vachanavuttivong, managing partner of Tilleke & Gibbins. “We are delighted to have him join us in advocating for our clients’ rights and crafting innovative solutions in the dynamic field of IP.” Prior to joining Tilleke & Gibbins, Nuttaphol led teams of IP practitioners for several years as IP practice head and managing partner of the Thailand offices of two prominent regional law firms. Throughout his career, Nuttaphol has successfully handled a wide range of IP litigation cases, including pharmaceutical patent disputes, patent infringement, design infringement, trademark and trade dress infringement, passing off, trademark invalidation, copyright litigation in the context of new media and technology, and obtaining preliminary injunctions and Anton Piller orders. His in-depth knowledge and strategic approach have earned him a strong reputation in the legal community. As an accomplished IP practitioner, Nuttaphol Arammuang is recognized as a leading lawyer for IP in
April 19, 2023
Wiramrudee “Pink” Mokkhavesa, a partner in Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property department in Bangkok, was recently interviewed about the fight against counterfeit goods on an episode of the Bangkok Podcast. Wiramrudee is highly sought after for her expertise in combating counterfeiters across the region, and is a key resource person in Thailand on anticounterfeiting measures and intellectual property enforcement. In the podcast episode, Wiramrudee spoke about Tilleke & Gibbins’ Museum of Counterfeit Goods, which is located in the firm’s Bangkok office and displays various fake products from the firm’s intellectual property enforcement work over the years. She also laid out the staggering size of the counterfeit goods market both in the region and around the word—which has been estimated to account for between 2 and 3 percent of all global trade. Together, Wiramrudee and the podcast host discussed common questions about the impact of counterfeit goods, such as whether counterfeit goods are always harmful—even when consumers are aware that the products they are buying are fake. Wiramrudee offered reasons why counterfeits are harmful, including decreased durability and the potential for harm, as well as the impact on creators and the economy as a whole. The conversation also considered the role of the Thai government in enforcing laws related to counterfeits and how Tilleke & Gibbins advises clients on protecting and capitalizing on their intellectual property as they conduct business in Thailand. To learn more about the complex issue of counterfeit goods, listen to the full podcast episode below.  
April 17, 2023
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins in Thailand have contributed to Model Clauses for Contracting in Asia, which was released recently by the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) under its Contract Laws in Asia project. The publication provides a neutral framework for parties entering into cross-border contracts, regardless of the governing law or subject matter of the contract. In today’s increasingly globalized economy, parties to commercial contracts are often based in different jurisdictions, with varying contract laws, legal labels, and languages. This often results in one of the parties entering into a contract governed by the laws of an unfamiliar jurisdiction. Similarly, if the parties opt for a neutral governing law, they may both be unfamiliar with the laws that govern their contract. To address these challenges, Model Clauses for Contracting in Asia provides enforceable model clauses that are jurisdiction-neutral and applicable to any contract subject matter. Each model clause is designed to be enforceable irrespective of which jurisdiction is selected as the governing law and irrespective of the subject matter of the contract. Tilleke & Gibbins has also contributed to earlier publications released by ABLI under the project, including insights on contract breaches and administrative and tax requirements. Model Clauses for Contracting in Asia is available for purchase here, or a free preview version can be downloaded here.