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

March 4, 2016

Avoiding Patent Infringement Using Freedom-to-Operate Analyses

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

In today’s business world, patents are increasingly used by innovative companies as a tool to support technology transfer and to create opportunities for commercial success. Owning a patent provides a competitive advantage, and it often leads to possibilities to license or sell the patented technology and expand into international markets.

However, patents alone do not guarantee commercial success. A patent grants a right to a specific technical feature or set of technical features that may only form part of a product or process. These products and processes often include a number of features that are protected by multiple patents.

Therefore, if an inventor or company wants to develop and commercialize a product, but it only has the rights to a patent that covers one aspect of the production process, the company will not have the freedom to make, use, sell, or bring the product to the market without first gaining permission to use the other patented processes.

Assume that an innovative company obtains a patent on a new composite product. If it plans to manufacture and sell the product by using a proprietary polymer as a raw material, the owner of the patented polymeric material could take action to stop the company from using this material.

As another example, if the company plans to use its patented product to manufacture a membrane material, the owner of a patented process for manufacturing the membrane material could prevent the company from using the material produced by the patented process.

In short, even if a company can obtain a patent over a product, it may not be able to commercialize it.

It is therefore important to understand the difference between “patentability” and “freedom to operate.” Patentability refers to the extent to which an invention meets the requirements to receive protection as a patent—how useful, novel, and non-obvious in view of the current state of the art the invention is.

On the other hand, freedom to operate refers to the process of determining whether the use of an invention in practice infringes on the rights of other patent holders.

Understanding the difference between patentability and freedom to operate is especially important, because when the patent office examines a patent application, it will only consider whether the invention in the application meets the requirements of patentability, and not whether the applicant has the right to use the invention in practice without infringing the rights of other patent holders.

Therefore, an inventor or company, as the patent applicant, should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis as well as a patentability analysis.

A freedom-to-operate analysis focuses on analyzing existing patents in the country where the patent applicant wants to commercialize its invention.

The applicant will analyze unexpired blocking patents, as well as published patent applications, to help determine whether the utilization of the patent will infringe on the rights of other patent holders if the patented subject is commercialized in the territory.

Much like a patentability analysis and many other patent processes, however, a freedom-to-operate analysis does not establish with absolute certainty whether the applied-for patent will infringe on other patent rights. It only reduces this risk, and improves the chance of commercial success.

Freedom-to-operate and patentability analyses provide important but different information to companies looking to invest in new technologies, and ideally they should both be done together.

A freedom-to-operate analysis should be done very early on to allow a company to guide product or process designs in a direction that avoids blocking patents and therefore disputes over patent rights with other companies.

Another freedom-to-operate analysis should be conducted after a change is made to a product or process design to ensure that the new design does not infringe on others’ patent rights. And if changes cannot be made, a company may consider obtaining a license to use the patented design.

Depending on the number of patents to be analyzed, these analyses can be costly. If a company has budget constraints, it should first conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis. Afterward, it should conduct a patentability analysis, if the budget allows for it.

A freedom-to-operate analysis is more crucial than a patentability analysis because companies have a legal duty not to engage in a business that infringes the patent rights of other parties.

In contrast, there is no legal duty to seek patent protection for technology that a company intends to use. In all cases, it is important to seek the advice of local counsel who understand your business and industry.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More