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Petitions dismissed/ withdrawn 350 395 147 892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​ 

November 28, 2022
Suebsiri Taweepon, a partner in Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property group in Bangkok, was elected president of the Intellectual Property Association of Thailand (IPAT) when the association’s board members convened an online voting session to select new leadership. Suebsiri was the unanimous choice of the 15 board members of IPAT. As president, Suebsiri will guide IPAT in setting its program of seminars and events related to current developments in intellectual property in the country. He will also represent the association and provide oversight in relation to IPAT’s participation in regional and international initiatives. Established in 1972, IPAT is a leading intellectual property association in Thailand, and Tilleke & Gibbins has played an active role in the ongoing development of the group for many years. Darani Vachanavuttivong, managing partner of Tilleke & Gibbins and managing director of the firm’s intellectual property practice, served on IPAT’s board from 2001 to 2019 and was president of the association from 2005 to 2009.
November 18, 2022
On November 17, Tilleke & Gibbins’ employment team in Bangkok continued its outreach to companies at Thai industrial estates by leading an employment law seminar at Hitech Ayutthaya industrial estate. Chusert Supasitthumrong, partner and director of Tilleke and Gibbins’ dispute resolution department in Bangkok commenced the first session by going over the basis of changing employment conditions and agreements according to the Labour Protection Act, conditions and requirements for strikes and lockouts, and illustrating the issues with case studies from his experience. The second presentation was delivered by Piyawat Vitooraporn, an associate from the same department. Piyawat covered termination of employment in Thailand, detailing potential legal consequences of terminating employees, statutory termination payments, and unfair termination. This session at Hitech Ayutthaya industrial estate is part of a series of trainings and seminars that Tilleke & Gibbins’ employment specialists are organizing at industrial estates in Thailand to increase companies’ understanding of Thailand’s employment laws and the benefits of complying with these regulations.
October 20, 2022
On October 19, Chusert Supasitthumrong, partner and director of the firm’s dispute resolution department, and Suruswadee Jaimsuwan, counsel from the same department, offered an in-person seminar on labor law to assist companies in coping with ongoing issues and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the current economic climate. After being welcomed by AMATA Corporation’s corporate communications senior section manager, Chusert began by giving attendees an overview of employment legal issues and concepts, such as employer-employee agreements, principles of labor demands, and strikes and lockouts. In the second part of the session, Suruswadee focused on termination of employment, highlighting notable consequences employers may face when terminating employees, rules for statutory termination payments, and unfair termination. This session at the AMATA City Chonburi Industrial Estate is part of a series of trainings and seminars that Tilleke & Gibbins’ employment specialists are organizing at industrial estates in Thailand to increase companies’ understanding of Thailand’s employment laws and the benefits of complying with these regulations.
October 7, 2022
On October 5, three attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution group in Bangkok—associate Anyamani Yimsaard, counsel Suruswadee Jaimsuwan, and partner Thawat Damsa-ard—met with Judge Paopun Chopnamtaan, the vice secretary of Thailand’s Courts of Justice, to offer their comments on a proposed new system of recording witness testimony in the criminal court in Thailand. The current practice for creating a record of witness testimony in Thai courts is for the judge to speak a summary of the witness’ courtroom statements into an audio recorder for a court clerk to transcribe. The transcription is then read for all parties and the witness to confirm the accuracy of the content. The courts are in the process of replacing this practice with a system of recording witnesses’ courtroom testimony on video. The dispute resolution lawyers’ feedback was sourced mostly from the department’s most recent internal training session. They commented on the pros and cons of the program and shared their experiences with similar systems elsewhere, such as Singapore and the UK. The judge welcomed the input, and looked forward to considering how to apply their suggestions so that the proposed procedural changes can answer various stakeholders’ needs.