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​ 

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.
Read More
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
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
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