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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It