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

October 18, 2013

Thailand Paving the Way Toward an Innovation-Driven Economy

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Industry Minister Prasert Boonchaisuk recently reiterated the government’s determination to continue promoting the Thailand Creative Economy initiative. In an attempt to rally support for Thailand’s transition to an innovation-driven country, he used rousing words such as “creative” and “sustainable” to describe his latest strategy. A three-stage, 20-year plan is now being drawn up, but it is not without its challenges.

The Three Stages

The first stage involves establishing a leading production base within ASEAN. The particular industries to be targeted have yet to be specified, but they are likely to be those related to agricultural products, energy, automotives, and electronics.

In the second stage, Thailand will develop its own intellectual property (IP) and will apply these innovations to improve production capabilities. In this way, it is hoped that Thailand can become a regional trade center from where production can be effectively managed and serviced. Additionally, Thai brands will be promoted on an ASEAN level.

The third stage involves the international development of Thai technology and brands through the support of local and regional production networks.

Potential Hurdles

The major challenge to this strategy is that foreign companies own most of the technology used in many of Thailand’s large-scale production sectors. To develop its own technologies, Thailand needs to partner with foreign companies in joint ventures or independently improve its technologies through incremental innovation.

An opportunity exists for companies in Thailand to obtain beneficial terms in partnerships with European companies through the Thai-EU Free Trade Agreement, which is now under negotiation. European owners of technology are keen to see an improvement in the IP landscape before investing further. For Thai companies, a strong IP system will provide a stable basis for growth for all, regardless of where the owner of the technology is based.

Opportunities

Thailand’s innovation must also come from within. Large enterprises such as PTT and SCG will play a key role in developing “Thai-owned” IP. They could gain an advantage over their ASEAN neighbors in the energy, chemicals and construction industries with a focus on rubber, petrochemicals and plastics, biodiesel, and ethanol.

The food science market is also an area in which Thailand can potentially dominate further. Thailand’s food export market is very strong, and global demand for consistent and reliable food sources is rising. To quote the Thai government’s Competitiveness Report of 2012:

“Research focuses on food processing and bio-based industries such as rubber and oil palm. National research centers concentrate their R&D efforts on seeds, rice, cassava, algae, post-harvest processing, greenhouse farms, longer shelf-life packaging and quality assurance. Higher-quality corn, cucumber, chili and tomato seeds have been developed for export under a Thai brand name. New types of virus-resistant prawn feed and tiger prawn brood stock have also been created.”

Innovations in crop science, food production, and supply could enable Thailand to utilize that IP itself, but also to license it to other countries. Such investments in agriculture will certainly support the “sustainability” element of the project.

Foreign pharmaceutical companies also will want to partner with local companies or the Government Pharmaceutical Organization (GPO) to produce medicines for a rapidly expanding ASEAN medical market. Bangkok is already a hub for medical tourism and improvements in medicine production, and investment in incremental innovation in this field could serve Thailand very well. Such partnerships could ensure high-quality medicines are produced, and could foster greater competition that would reduce prices. The Thai government could then embark on projects beneficial to the community, at a lower cost and with better medicines.

Ideas for the Future

To enable this to happen, the IP landscape and attitudes toward IP need to change. If IP owners cannot reasonably expect to obtain patent protection for their innovations in Thailand, then they will simply invest elsewhere. This includes Thai as well as foreign companies. Therefore, an efficient and internationally compliant patent filing system plays a significant role in moving from an efficiency-driven to an innovation-driven economy.

Incremental innovation is also best achieved by analyzing current patent landscape, followed by improvements made to “prior art” technology. Regulations must also seek to enable fast registration of products that are regulated (e.g., by the Food and Drug Administration) across all product types (and importantly, across ASEAN).

It is imperative that IP enforcement in Thailand improves, as well. We all know counterfeits of every variety are readily available in Thailand, which undeniably harms the country’s image as a destination for FDI.

In addition to legal improvements, if Thailand is to keep hold of its innovations, it must ensure that it offers favorable tax regimes for R&D and also to IP as an asset and the royalties it earns. Singapore offers lower tax rates in this regard, and Thailand may wish to follow suit to prevent businesses shifting IP assets out of the country. Certain tax breaks are already offered at the Thailand Science Park, but this policy should be expanded.

Finally, it is important that all stakeholders, including the policymakers, cooperate. The Commerce Ministry, which oversees the Department of Intellectual Property, must collaborate with the ministries of Finance, Science and Technology, Information & Communication Technology, and Public Health, to name a few. IP is present in every industry and a strong commitment to government agency cooperation improves lines of communication and presents a consistent commitment to an innovation-driven economy.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
May 13, 2026
Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters. Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights. These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions. Key Changes Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings: Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted. Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application. Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted. Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law. The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,