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​ 

July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More