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 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 28, 2026
On July 22, 2026, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 292/2026/ND-CP detailing the implementation of the Law on Foreign Trade Management (Decree 292). Decree 292 came into effect on September 5, 2026, replacing Decree No. 69/2018/NND-CP, and introduces several important changes to Vietnam’s foreign trade regime. Of particular relevance is the addition to the list of goods prohibited from importation of “products and goods extracted, produced, or manufactured wholly or partly through forced labor by enterprises, countries, or territories in accordance with relevant international treaties to which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a party.” This new prohibition introduces forced-labor considerations into Vietnam’s import compliance framework and may have practical implications for how businesses manage related risks across their operations and supply chains. Implementation of the New Prohibition According to Decree 292, the minister or head of the relevant ministerial-level agency is responsible for publishing the detailed list and corresponding harmonized system (HS) codes for each category of goods prohibited from export or import under its purview. Goods involving forced labor fall under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, as of the date of this article, no corresponding list has been published specifying the goods to which the forced-labor prohibition applies, leaving businesses without official guidance on how the prohibition will be applied or enforced in practice. Nevertheless, this absence does not suspend the prohibition’s application. As Decree 292 has already taken effect, goods involving forced labor remain subject to the general legal framework applicable to goods prohibited from importation. In particular, Decree 169/2026/ND-CP provides for administrative penalties for the importation or transportation of prohibited goods into Vietnam. Depending on the nature and circumstances of the violation, criminal liability may also arise under the Criminal Code. In practice, enforcement is likely to depend on the
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More