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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one