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

August 25, 2017

Thai Patent Law: Special Remuneration Rights for Employee Inventors/Creators

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In Thailand, the right to apply for a patent for an invention, or a design patent for a product design that has been developed by an employee, vests automatically in the employer, provided that there is no written agreement to the contrary, and:

  1. the invention or design is developed during the execution of an employment contract or a contract for a commissioned work; or
  2. if the employment contract does not require an employee to exercise any inventive activity but the employee has made the invention using any means, data, or reports that the employment has put at his or her disposal.

Employees’ Right to Special Remuneration

To promote inventive activity and to give a fair share to employee inventors/creators, the Thai Patent Act entitles the employee inventor or creator to receive remuneration for his or her work. However, there are slight differences in the right to remuneration for the employees in the two scenarios above.

An employee who develops an invention or design during the execution of a contract for a commissioned work will be entitled to remuneration other than his or her regular salary only if the employer benefits from the invention or design.

It should be noted, however, that for an employee who develops an invention or design outside the scope of the employment contact, the Act does not specify that:

  1. the employer must benefit from the invention or design for the employee to claim remuneration.
  2. the remuneration must be in a form other than the employee’s regular salary.

An additional point to consider is that an employee’s right to remuneration may not be precluded by the employment agreement. Therefore, if an employment agreement is structured in a way that attempts to prevent this type of remuneration, the relevant provision in that agreement would be deemed invalid.

Procedure for Employees to Claim Remuneration

The Patent Act is the only intellectual property-related legislation that specifically addresses employees’ rights to special remuneration if they create inventions for their employers. Under the Act and the concerned ministerial regulations, an employee who develops an invention or product design is entitled to apply for special remuneration with the Director General (DG) of the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), regardless of whether the employer has already provided the employee such special remuneration. The DG has the discretion to set a suitable amount of remuneration for each employee, taking into account the following criteria:

  1. employee’s salary;
  2. nature of the employee’s duties;
  3. diligence and skill which the employee has devoted to developing the invention or design;
  4. diligence and skill which any other person has devoted to developing the invention or design jointly with the employee concerned, and any advice or other assistance contributed by any other employee who is not a joint-inventor or joint-creator;
  5. assistance contributed by the company to the development of the invention or design through the provision of property, advice, facilities, preparatory work, or management in acquiring resources or services for the experimentation, development, or implementation of the invention or design;
  6. total number of employees who jointly developed the invention or design;
  7. importance of the invention; and
  8. total benefits derived and expected to be derived from the invention, including any licenses for others to exploit the invention or design and the assignment of the patent to others.

This means that even if an employer has paid an employee special remuneration for an invention, the employee is still entitled to apply for an assessment of his or her entitled special remuneration from the DG of the DIP. Nevertheless, in deciding whether to grant such special remuneration to the employee and the amount of the remuneration, the DG is entitled to (and should) take into consideration any monetary awards that the employer has previously granted the employee before the application for special remuneration was filed.

Best Practices for Employers

As the Patent Act entitles employees to claim special remuneration for their inventions, employers should make sure that they have in place internal procedures setting out how to compensate employees for such special remuneration—not only to comply with the law, but also to promote creativity and innovation among their workforce. At a minimum, a company’s internal procedures on special remuneration for employees should address the following issues:

  • employees’ right to special remuneration;
  • employees’ duties,
  • calculation of special remuneration in different circumstances; and
  • time frame and method for payment of special remuneration. 

After internal regulations have been drafted, employers should also consider how to properly implement them. This is because implementation of regulations on employees’ right to special remuneration may be deemed as a change to the conditions of employment. The provisions of both Thai labor laws and employee agreements should thus be taken into consideration throughout the process.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Employment

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 25, 2026, Thailand’s cabinet approved in principle a draft amendment that would extend mandatory social security coverage to three categories of workers currently excluded from Thailand’s compulsory social security system. The amendment, proposed by the Ministry of Labour, would modify the Royal Decree Prescribing Businesses and Employees Excluded from the Social Security Act B.E. 2560 (2017). Newly Covered Workers The cabinet-approved proposal would remove the exclusions for the following three categories of employees, bringing them within Thailand’s mandatory social security system: Workers in seasonal cultivation (pho pluk), forestry (pa mai), and livestock (liang sat) businesses that do not employ workers year-round and whose operations do not include other types of business activities. Notably, fishery (pramong) workers were excluded from this amendment following objections raised at a Social Security Board meeting on April 30, 2025, because employers and employees in the fishery sector can already agree to opt into social security coverage under fishery labor laws. Domestic workers and other employees of individual employers where the work performed is not part of a business operation (e.g., housekeepers, gardeners, drivers). This group has actively demanded inclusion in the social security system. Workers employed in street-stall businesses operating fixed street stalls (kan kha phaeng loi). The rationale for including street-stall workers is that their employers have fixed, identifiable places of business that can be inspected. Accordingly, workers engaged in itinerant street hawking (kan kha re) remain excluded. The expanded coverage would apply to both Thai and foreign employees who possess valid identity documents and work permits, including migrant workers who have been granted special permission to work in Thailand. The Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990) does not restrict social security registration based on nationality, allowing these workers to register as insured persons under section 33. Employer Obligations and Employee
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More