Influencer marketing and the creation of sponsored content is an increasingly popular way for brands to reach their target audience. Although there is no universal definition of an “influencer,” the term is broadly used to describe people who are able to affect purchasing decisions of others through their relationship with their audience. In the context of social media and the creator economy, influencers are usually people with significant followings on platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Twitch, or YouTube who are viewed as celebrities, opinion leaders, trendsetters, or experts in their respective field. Based on a study conducted by Nielsen in 2022, 80% of social media users in Asia who follow influencers are likely to purchase products recommended by the influencers. Brand owners should be aware of five key legal considerations when entering into influencer marketing agreements. 1. Making informed decisions through due diligence Every collaboration with an influencer is a business relationship. Brands must conduct thorough due diligence on potential influencers prior to engaging them. This may include deep dives into the individual’s old social media posts, as well as requests for disclosure of prior controversial incidents and existing brand associations. For example, a health and fitness brand may not want—for both legal and commercial reasons—to be publicly associated with an influencer who is a brand ambassador of electronic cigarettes, no matter how impressive the latter’s Instagram following or deadlift record is. Brands should also ensure that their influencer marketing agreements include relevant representations and warranties that the influencer has not and will not commit a crime or act in a way that may cause negative publicity for the brand. This may include racist, extremist, homophobic, violent, or misogynistic acts, or any other acts that are obscene or against public order. 2. Clearly defining the scope of engagement Brands

For most in-house counsel, the thought of defending a civil case brought against the company is typically an unpleasant proposition—even more so when the matter is proceeding in a foreign or unfamiliar jurisdiction in which the substantive law and court procedures differ from those in one’s home jurisdiction. But different procedures, even if unfamiliar, can sometimes be advantageous to a defendant. This is particularly true with respect to certain aspects of the discovery process in Thai civil court proceedings. For in-house counsel in certain jurisdictions, the specter of litigation not only entails the potential risks posed to the company and the time and financial costs inevitably incurred, it can also mean lengthy and costly discovery battles. However, as discussed in more detail below, due to the nature of Thai discovery procedures, these types of discovery battles are typically rare in Thai civil court proceedings. Further, due to the limited scope and mechanisms for discovery practice in Thailand, the whole discovery process tends to be rather expedient and straightforward, particularly when compared to that in jurisdictions with extensive discovery practice. In this article, the authors provide an overview of some of the more notable features of the process for discovery under the Thai Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”), particularly those that may differ from those in jurisdictions with a more vigorous and wide-reaching discovery process. (We note that this article addresses only discovery procedures in civil proceedings in Thai courts; the discovery process in criminal proceedings is subject to the Thai Criminal Procedure Code and differs from the process in civil courts in some respects.) Rules of Evidence Before taking a closer look at some of the discovery provisions in the CPC, it is important to understand a few fundamental principles of Thai evidence law, as these provide the general guidelines

On February 20, 2023, the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam submitted a Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts, as well as a Draft Amendment of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts to seek online comment from interested parties. Notably, the Supreme People’s Court has expressed a desire to establish specialized courts such as an IP court and a bankruptcy court. Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts The Supreme People’s Court reviewed the implementation over the past eight years of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts (“LOPC”), which took effect in 2015. Some highlights of the implementation process, as set out in the Supreme People’s Court’s practical report, are as follows: Re-systematization of all levels of courts: The LOPC systematized the court system in Vietnam, including four levels: Supreme People’s Court Three Superior People’s Courts 765 first-instance trial courts (including 702 district courts and 63 provincial courts) 66 appellate courts (including 63 provincial people’s courts and the three Superior People’s Courts) In addition, the Supreme People’s Court established four adjudicating agencies for cassation and reopening (including three Judicial Committees of the Superior People’s Court and the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court). Support departments for the court have been strengthened, and policies have been developed to train judges. Trial results: From June 1, 2015, to April 30, 2022, the courts have settled 3,187,285 cases of all kinds out of a total of 3,334,915 cases handled (95.57%). Most of the remaining cases are newly accepted and still within the time limit for settlement as prescribed by law. On average, the courts have had to deal with about 476,416 cases each year. Draft Amendment of Law on Organization of People’s Courts Despite the notable

To improve its patent application processing capacity, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office), with the support of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), is continuing to develop a draft amendment to the patent application examination guidelines for inventions related to computer programs. After issuing Annex I to the patent application examination guidelines in 2021, which covered subject-matters related to computer programs that are protected as inventions, the IP Office’s Patent Examination Center, with the support of experts from the JICA, has now developed a draft of Annex II. This draft provides guidance on examination related to a sufficient disclosure of the substance of claimed subject-matters and an assessment of the protection criteria (novelty and inventive step) of subject-matters related to computer programs, along with illustrative examples. In addition, the draft introduces the concepts of “sub-combination inventions” and “mixed-type inventions”, an assessment of the clarity of sub-combination inventions, and the assessment of novelty and inventive step of mixed-type inventions. To evaluate the amendments in the draft, in conformity with the legal regulations and the examination practice, the Patent Examination Center organized a discussion of the draft on February 4, 2023, with the contribution of opinions and comments from IP representatives, organizations, schools, institutes, and individuals. The Patent Examination Center announced that it wishes to receive further constructive opinions from interested parties to improve the amendments of the guidelines. In the context that inventions related to computer programs are closely related to new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), and noting the many difficulties arising in the examination process, we hope that the amendments to the guidelines, specifically as outlined in the draft of Annex II, will soon be finalized and officially released. This annex will certainly facilitate the examination of inventions related to computer programs, as well as