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 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
August 13, 2026
On August 6, 2026, the National Bank of Cambodia (NBC) issued a notice calling on business owners that issue electronic money, such as e-wallet accounts and stored-value membership cards, to notify the central bank within 90 days. The notice targets businesses that are not licensed banking or financial institutions or payment service providers, but have been issuing e-money to facilitate payments within their own networks. Failure to notify the NBC may result in legal action. Background and Regulatory Basis The NBC has observed that certain businesses, including cafes, restaurants, transportation companies, entertainment centers, and gas stations, have been issuing e-money through e-wallet accounts in mobile apps or membership cards to facilitate customer payments for products or services within their own networks. Customers create e-wallet accounts and load balances to pay for goods or services at the issuing business. The NBC describes this as “single-purpose e-money.” Under the 1999 Law on Banking and Financial Institutions, providing payment facilities to customers forms part of the operations of banking and financial institutions and requires an NBC license. In addition, article 20 of the 2017 Prakas on the Management of Payment Service Institutions further prohibits legal entities other than banking and financial institutions and payment service institutions from issuing e-money. However, article 20 also provides that issuing e-money in certain limited cases does not require a license, but the NBC must be notified in advance in writing. A business may issue single-purpose e-money without a payment service institution license provided it meets all the following conditions and submits written notice to the NBC: The maximum balance per account is KHR 200,000 (approximately USD 50) or equivalent. The total aggregate balance across all accounts does not exceed KHR 800 million (approximately USD 200,000) or equivalent. The e-money is used to pay for products or
August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered