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

June 29, 2012

Patent Maps Provide a Key Tool for Strategic Decisions

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Approximately half of all patented inventions are never commercially exploited. This can be attributed to the several difficulties faced by companies that rely heavily on research and innovation, particularly in devising strategic patent management schemes, and in identifying business opportunities.

Moreover, research-driven companies, such as those focusing on technology or medicine, must consider the legal aspect of patents and protect them in order to avoid intellectual property infringement—a serious issue in Thailand.

To ensure legal compliance while at the same time maximizing commercial value, companies now utilize Patent Maps, which provide a visual representation of information relevant to patent documents, as well as an intuitive element to the strategic decision-making process.

Essentially, companies focused on research and development must take the necessary steps to accurately gauge the current market and its technological demand, at the same as focusing on “White Space” fields (areas in which patents have not been created), in order to enhance continuous technological development while ensuring their innovation is patented and protected.

The general process begins with a careful study of the legal implications of the relevant legislation in the country. Subsequently, companies select a patent strategy aligned with their own research capabilities, which should include the following steps:

  • Assessing the range of their competitors’ technology
  • Analyzing the differences between the company’s technology and those belonging to its competitors
  • Selecting countries and/or markets of interest that are attractive targets in which to introduce the company’s technology

Usually, a specialist or researcher is required to carry out an assessment and analysis of the technology used by the competitor to minimize or eliminate any possibilities of infringement before deciding whether to launch the product into the market. When using a Patent Map, however, some of the more detailed procedural requirements can be made simpler and can assist in the process from technological R&D to legal necessities. Once a Patent Map is created in the correct form and with a rich representation of statistical data, the maturity of certain technologies and trends can be identified.

To begin with, R&D departments use a Patent Map to select themes for conducting their research and development, to pick out new ideas, and to gain a detailed understanding of the development of the competitors’ technology. By showing the areas where research activities are clustered (or scattered), the Patent Map also enables researchers to comprehend market needs and analyze patent information to minimize the risk of wasting investment funds on a fruitless idea.

Furthermore, intellectual property management departments of companies, research institutes, and universities can use a Patent Map in order to acquire strong and extensive exclusive rights. For example, when drafting claims, which typically involves making comparisons between the relevant invention and any relevant prior art, a Patent Map can be utilized to reveal the relationships existing between them.

Also, when assessing a patent for the purpose of filing a patent application, a Patent Map can be used to review and respond to an examiner’s notification, which cites the reasons for rejecting such application. The IP departments can thus use a Patent Map as an alternative to the otherwise unsophisticated traditional patent information searches to uncover the rights of other companies that may prevent the company from successfully obtaining a patent.

When evaluating patent applications, Patent Maps can even be used to reveal the overall standing of the relevant invention and the existence of other patents that could significantly influence the chances of successful registration of the patent in question. When monetizing a patent via a transaction, the Patent Map can be used to identify the company that is most likely to be willing to make the acquisition, and essentially, to guarantee the patentability of the patent to be offered.

For large businesses, counterfeit goods not only pose the problem of a reduction in sales of the legitimate rights holder, but they also heavily damage the reputation and the brand image of the company, and potentially their other product lines. Being vigilant in identifying IP infringers is generally not an easy task, but it can be facilitated by a Patent Map. They are effective in identifying competitors who develop products that are even likely to infringe the company’s patent, regardless of their intention.

Many companies face difficulties in respect of pursuing a management strategy that targets both overseas and domestic markets. A Patent Map can help a company formulate such a strategy, as it enables it to identify the status of global intellectual property networks, the status of new entrants, as well as the key needs in several local markets.

Each market will present different challenges and costs in terms of the prosecution of the patent application, the duration of protection, and the timeline for examinations and payment of annuity fees, among other issues.

Fundamentally, the information gleaned from utilizing a Patent Mapping tool is crucial when arriving at a final decision on which country a company should penetrate, the legal requirements and patentability of the prototype, and thus whether to pursue introducing the technology domestically or internationally, if at all.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More