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 10, 2026
The drug registration process in Vietnam will be simplified, particularly for foreign applicants, following the recent issuance by Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH) of a new circular that is expected to reduce administrative hurdles. Circular No. 32/2026/TT-BYT on the registration of drugs and medicinal ingredients (Circular 32) was issued on July 29, 2026, and will take effect on October 1, 2026, replacing Circular No. 12/2025/TT-BYT. Key provisions of the new circular are discussed below. Five-Year Data Exclusivity and Five-Month Public Disclosure Framework Circular 32 updates data protection guidelines by explicitly referencing Article 128 of the amended Intellectual Property Law, which sets out that new drugs supported by clinical trial data submitted for the first time will be granted a five-year data exclusivity period from the date of the initial marketing authorization (MA) approval. Subsequent applications that rely on the originator’s protected data will not be eligible for approval from the date of submission of the originator’s registration dossier until five years after the first MA is granted. Furthermore, in accordance with the new regulations, the regulatory authority must publicly disclose information on subsequent applications five months before the granting of MA, providing originator companies with an opportunity to exercise and enforce their intellectual property rights. Simplified Requirements for Foreign Legal Documents Circular 32 expands the circumstances under which legal documents issued by foreign authorities are exempt from consular legalization and authenticity verification requirements. Specifically, such documents may be exempt if the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) is able to verify their authenticity directly through official electronic means, including written confirmation or email correspondence sent directly to the MOH by the competent foreign authority, or publicly accessible English-language databases maintained by recognized foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, the new circular permits the submission of electronic notarized copies of legal documents
August 7, 2026
On July 31, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) launched a one-month public consultation period on proposed regulatory guidelines for competition in three business segments: (1) digital platforms; (2) modern trade and credit terms; and (3) ride-hailing and on-demand delivery, including food delivery and mart/quick commerce. At the same time, the TCCT released a market report on ride hailing and on-demand delivery that is likely to influence the guidelines and their interpretation and enforcement. The consultation runs until August 31, 2026. Stakeholders have a limited window to submit practical, evidence-based input that may shape the next phase of Thailand’s regulatory framework for competition. Scope of the Consultation The public consultation targets updating existing guidance in three business sectors that have experienced transformative growth and structural change: Digital platforms: The TCCT has actively monitored this sector in recent years and has coordinated with other regulators, primarily the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) and the Ministry of Commerce. In March 2026 the TCCT’s Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses took effect, and in July the TCCT established a digital platform subcommittee to regulate and prevent unfair trade practices in digital platform businesses. This activity followed a TCCT market report on e-marketplace businesses in September 2025. Modern trade and credit terms: This sector was the focus of the TCCT’s 2019 Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices between Wholesale and Retail Operators and Manufacturers or Suppliers (widely known as the “Modern Trade Guidelines”) , as well as its 2021 Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices regarding the Credit Terms under which Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Sell Products or Services to a Purchaser (also known as the “Credit Term Guidelines”), which were amended the following year. Ride-hailing and on-demand delivery (including food delivery and quick commerce): The TCCT published the Guidelines on
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center