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

June 10, 2019

Taking Care of Intellectual Property Generated by Employees

Bangkok Post: Human Resources Watch

Intellectual property (IP), such as trademarks, copyrighted works, designs, inventions and trade secrets, is a valuable asset for many companies. It brings with it market advantages and distinguishes one company’s business from another’s. Hence, it is important for company management to recognize and manage their IP portfolios properly.

As a company’s IP is generally created or invented by its employees, prudent employers should arrange for the necessary agreements to ensure that any such IP belongs to them. Overlooking this can lead to significant problems. For example, companies may not be able to enforce their IP rights against a third party, or may even have a problem with an employee who created or invented the IP while working there—particularly if the employee left on bad terms. 

In Thailand, ownership of IP created or invented by employees is addressed differently from one piece of IP legislation to the next. Managers need to understand these differences to see that the agreement properly addresses all related issues and complies with all relevant laws.

Ownership of copyrighted works

For copyrighted work, such as drawings, photographs or computer software, the Copyright Act assigns ownership of copyright to the employee who creates the work, unless the employer and employee have agreed otherwise in writing. If the copyright belongs to the employee, the employer will be allowed only to disseminate such work as intended under the employment agreement. If, on the other hand, a company hires a third party to create a copyrighted work, the copyright for that work belongs to the employer, again unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

Ownership of trade secrets

With regard to trade secrets, such as a company’s commercially valuable and secret know-how or product formulas, the Trade Secret Act prescribes that a person who discovers, invents, compiles or creates trade information that is eligible for protection as a trade secret is considered the owner of the secret. However, the creation of a trade secret in the context of an employment relationship is not specifically addressed. Therefore, unless both parties agree otherwise, it is arguable that the employee could be regarded as the owner.

Ownership of trademarks

Similarly, the creation of a trademark or brand name by an employee is not specifically addressed by the Trademark Act. Therefore, it could likewise be argued that the employee who create a trademark or brand name could be regarded as the owner if there is no agreement between the employer and the employee stating otherwise.

Ownership of patents

For inventions, such as a new type of computer or a new process of food preservation, and designs, such as the shape of a product, the Patent Act gives the employer the right to patent an invention or design developed by an employee within the scope of his employment, unless the employment agreement says otherwise. This rule applies even if the employment agreement does not cover issues of invention or design, provided that the employee created the invention or design using means or information that was made available through his or her employment. If a company hires someone to invent or design something, the right to apply for a patent is the company’s, unless the hiring agreement stipulates otherwise.

Even though an employee does not have the right to apply for a patent in these cases, he or she has the right to be named in the patent as the inventor or creator. The employee also has the right to special remuneration (in addition to normal earnings) if the employer benefits from the invention or design. This right to special remuneration cannot be removed by the employment agreement.

IP ownership agreement

To summarize, copyright, trade secrets and trademarks created by employees belong to the employees automatically if there is no written agreement providing otherwise. It is thus very important for managers to make sure there is an agreement between the company and each employee on ownership of IP created by the employees.

Some people rightly wonder whether IP ownership should be addressed in the employment agreement or in a separate agreement. The Patent Act specifically addresses this, stating that the right to apply for a patent for an employee’s invention belongs to employer unless it is stated otherwise in the “employment agreement.” However, other IP legislation on this issue refers only to an “agreement”—so other types of IP that are created by employees can be addressed in separate agreements. Nonetheless, employers may want to consider placing the IP ownership provisions for all types of IP created by employees in the employment agreement for uniformity.

Additionally, in the case of work for hire, the Trademark Act and the Trade Secret Act do not specifically prescribe that ownership of works created or invented by a third party belong automatically to the company. Therefore, it is recommended that similar IP ownership provisions be addressed clearly in the hiring contracts.

Growing and protecting IP

Even though the Patent Act is the only IP legislation that bestows special remuneration on the employees behind a design or invention, companies are free to offer similar remuneration to employees who create copyrighted works, trademarks and trade secrets. This would certainly help encourage employees to come up with designs, inventions and other IP, which would in turn benefit the company in the long run. Company management should also see to it that employees are well informed of their rights and obligations concerning the work they create or invent during the course of employment.

For companies that have never had IP ownership agreements with employees, the time to tackle these issues is now. Besides assigning ownership of IP created from now on, agreements made after employees have already started working should also cover ownership of all copyrights, trade secrets and trademarks they have already created. This assignment of ownership must be signed by both parties.

Companies making new hires should review their employment agreements to confirm that they cover everything needed to protect their interests long-term. With a bit of careful management and foresight, employers can secure their valuable IP while being clear and fair with their employees.

 

This story was originally published in the Bangkok Post and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. The original story can be viewed here on the Bangkok Post website.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
August 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
August 14, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) has issued guidelines clarifying the boundaries between permissible and prohibited activities for unlicensed individuals—including influencers, bloggers, and content creators—when communicating about insurance products on social media. The Good Practice Guidelines for Persons Not Licensed as Insurance Agents or Brokers Regarding the Dissemination of Insurance Content Through Digital Media B.E. 2569 (2026) took effect on July 24, 2026. Activities Requiring a License The guidelines reserve the following activities for licensed agents and brokers: Soliciting or facilitating insurance contracts. Providing personalized advice on product suitability. Recommending policy cancellation to purchase promoted products. Creating links that facilitate contract formation. Receiving performance-based compensation tied to policies or premiums generated. Importantly, boilerplate disclaimers such as “this is not a recommendation to buy insurance” will not shield individuals from liability if the OIC views the content as personalized advice or solicitation. Permitted Activities Unlicensed persons may present general educational content about insurance—such as explaining terminology, sharing industry statistics, reporting news, or sharing personal experiences—provided the content does not target specific individuals to purchase from specific companies. The guidelines also set out best practices for communication, including presenting information in a fair and balanced manner that covers both benefits and limitations, encouraging consumers to read policy terms and consult licensed professionals, verifying information from credible sources before dissemination, and exercising special care when the audience may include vulnerable groups such as persons aged 60 and older. Prohibited Practices Prohibited practices include fear-based marketing, creating artificial urgency, omitting material limitations, making exaggerated claims, falsely claiming professional credentials, using fake engagement mechanisms, and sharing false or misleading content. The guidelines also reinforce the prohibitions under section 83 of the Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 and section 78 of the Non-Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 against soliciting insurance contracts with foreign operators