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

May 27, 2022

The Thai Bayh-Dole Act: A New Dawn for Government-Funded Research in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates

The Thailand Research and Innovation Utilization Promotion Act B.E. 2564 (2021) (TRIUP Act), which is also referred to as the Thai Bayh-Dole Act, came into force on May 7, 2022. The enactment of the TRIUP Act is a culmination of years of deliberation by the Thai government and various stakeholders, and is modeled after the success of the adoption of the Bayh-Dole Act in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, Japan, and Korea.

Under existing intellectual property laws in Thailand, patentable inventions are owned by the employer, hirer, or commissioning party by default, unless they explicitly agree to a different arrangement with the inventor. Public research organizations and government agencies in Thailand have always had their own institutional policies addressing the ownership, management, and exploitation of intellectual property rights. While certain government funding agencies may co-own such intellectual property rights with the relevant research institutes, some have adopted a more restrictive approach by retaining full ownership of any intellectual property rights arising from research and development efforts carried out using their funds. Instead of allowing the inventors to have full ownership rights over their inventions, these funding agencies would grant them a license instead.

The promulgation of the TRIUP Act changes this. Under this new law, inventions made with the government’s funding belong to their inventors (e.g., universities and research institutes).

Overview

The TRIUP Act requires fund recipients and researchers (usually represented by their employing institution) who wish to own their research or innovation results to disclose them to the funding government agency or organization within a specified period, and to notify the funding party of their intention of ownership together with a commercialization plan. If a fund recipient or researcher fails to do so, the research or innovation results will belong to the funding party instead. The funding government agency or organization is also granted delayed march-in rights, which are rights allowing them to intervene in the commercialization of the research and innovation results if the funding recipient fails to do so within two years or within a period specified by the Science, Research, and Innovation Promotion Committee.

Notwithstanding the ability of fund recipients and researchers to secure ownership of their research and innovation results under the TRIUP Act, if a government agency jointly funds the research with other government agencies or private organizations, the ownership of the research and innovation results will be as stipulated in the relevant joint research funding agreement. Similarly, when a public higher education institution engages in research and development work using their own funds or other private funds, the ownership of the ensuing research and innovation results will be as stipulated in the relevant research funding agreement.

Similar to existing provisions on compulsory licensing and national emergency exceptions under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), as amended up to 1999, the TRIUP Act also empowers the prime minister to issue compulsory licensing orders for the exploitation of research and innovations resulting from the use of government grants in times of national emergency, such as needing to maintain the security and safety of the country, or preventing or mitigating public disasters. Further, the Science, Research, and Innovation Promotion Committee also reserves the right to order the transfer of ownership of research and innovation results to a government agency upon payment of fair compensation to the fund recipient, if the committee deems that this would better benefit the general public and society.

Practical Implications

The enactment of the TRIUP Act is a remarkable development for Thailand, as the law empowers universities and research institutes to own and manage their intellectual property rights. With ownership comes the freedom and autonomy to negotiate licensing terms, thereby encouraging commercialization of research findings and new technologies. The shift of the incentive structure under the TRIUP Act further incentivizes researchers and scientists to carry out research and development activities driven by market demand.

Apart from the inherent potential to democratize access to new technology across Thailand, the empowerment of the country’s higher learning institutions will also elevate their research performance and therefore improve and further solidify the leadership of Thai institutions in global university rankings and ratings by members of the academic community.

With the decentralization of intellectual property ownership, the TRIUP Act is expected to encourage the creation of more technology startups and spinoffs in Thailand, in line with the country’s goal to move toward a value-based economy driven by innovation, technology, and creativity (as laid down in the Thailand 4.0 strategy, for example).

Nevertheless, there are exemptions to the application of the TRIUP Act. For example, the law does not apply to research and innovations related to military technology, or research and innovations that are deemed to bring great benefit to society or to compatriots—a provision that is arguably broad and subjective in its definition. The rights granted to fund recipients by the TRIUP Act are also not absolute in nature, since the funding agency’s consent must be obtained before the fund recipient is allowed to assign ownership of the research and innovation results to third parties.

It is therefore important for universities and research institutes to now review their existing policies governing the management and commercialization of intellectual property rights to ensure that these policies align with the requirements and obligations imposed by the TRIUP Act, and to harness the full potential of their institutional research and innovation efforts.

Related Professionals

Practices

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