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

May 18, 2012

Patent Search Options for Technology Firms

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Protection of intellectual property (IP) in the form of trademarks, copyrights and patents is on the rise, as greater awareness of IP laws in Thailand has led to increasing numbers of business proprietors seeking to safeguard their valuable IP assets.

In particular, patent protection has become hugely significant in technology-related businesses. It plays a major role in safeguarding newly invented technology. Since patents are protected on a country-by-country basis, it is essential to file a patent application in all countries in which protection is necessary.

To be patentable, an invention must be new (to the world), involve an inventive step (in view of what is already known) and be capable of industrial application. A patent search is a key tool in identifying whether the invention, for which you wish to seek patent protection, has already been made known to the public. The search may be classified into two main categories according to its purpose: (1) prior art search; and (2) non-infringement or freedom-to-operate search.

A prior art search is carried out to determine the patentability of an invention and the grounds for patent invalidation. Such searches are especially beneficial if you are a business owner seeking patent protection for your invention. The results derived from a prior art search provide information on relevant inventions that are known in any prior art documents, including patents, books, journal articles, publications, presentations, and other forms of prior public use.

When you are applying for a patent, you can use such inventions as background art for your own invention. Furthermore, you can review similarities between your invention and known inventions, in order to accurately assess whether your invention is patentable (i.e., new and involving an inventive step). Otherwise, your invention may require further modification. It is also possible to use the disclosures on the known inventions to identify defects and undertake necessary improvements to enable your invention to obtain protection under patent law.

While many technology companies would like patent protection for their own invention, some merely wish to utilize their technology without infringing the patent rights of other businesses. If this applies to your business, you should conduct a patent search in the country where you intend to utilize your invention, and obtain a legal opinion on whether any valid patents exist that would encompass your invention. These opinions, referred to as either “non-infringement” or “freedom-to-operate” (FTO) opinions, can be classified into the second category.

The patent search for a non-infringement or FTO opinion is focused on the country where your invention is to be used or commercialized and includes only unexpired patents and patent applications that are under prosecution in that country.

The search duration is usually limited to the patent protection term, which means that it covers 20 years prior to the date the search is conducted. The search examines the language in claims of third-party patents and patent applications, to determine if the claims cover aspects of the invention in question or raise any risk of potential infringement.

Therefore, the keywords used in the search need to be carefully selected so that they encompass all the specific terms (and synonyms) to identify an existing invention in the claims. Once the search result is obtained, a non-infringement or FTO opinion can be prepared, depending on the purpose of the search.

While non-infringement and FTO opinions are very similar, there is one key distinction. On one hand, a non-infringement opinion focuses on a specific patent(s) that you, as the business owner, have become aware of and provides assurance that your invented technology will not infringe such patent(s). A non-infringement opinion is usually recommended when you plan to commercialize an invention that is similar to an existing patented one.

On the other hand, an FTO opinion has a broader scope and addresses the possibility of infringing any patents in force, regardless of whether these are known or unknown to the business owner. This opinion can offer you a degree of assurance that no relevant patents exist that will affect the commercialization of your invention. This means you are “free to operate” without risk of infringing any third-party patents.

In Thailand, although a patent search can provide information on inventions that are publicly available, it cannot ensure that there are no other similar inventions, even if the search reveals zero hits. This is because the patent search does not reveal all the inventions filed with the Thai Patent Office; it only reveals those inventions that were allowed to proceed to publication in the official Patent Gazette.

Therefore, it is conceivable that some of the relevant inventions may not be uncovered by a patent search. Nevertheless, a search remains the most important and practical tool in assessing potential patentability and non-infringement of an invention. The scope and depth of the search must be properly determined and carried out in order to give effective and meaningful results that will help your business determine whether to patent.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
February 26, 2026
Thailand is preparing to offer new tools for intellectual property enforcement as the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) recently released for public consultation a draft notification requiring social media platforms to verify user identities and conduct know-your-customer (KYC) checks on advertisers. The draft Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers, which is to be issued under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended in 2025, primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes. However, its new obligations also provide IP owners with valuable tools to identify anonymous infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The draft notification imposes several verification requirements on social media platforms operating in Thailand. These requirements also strengthen IP rights holders’ ability to identify anonymous infringers, as platforms must: Verify user identities through registered phone numbers and link all accounts to verifiable identities. Conduct KYC checks on advertisers, including individuals, companies, and any third-party payers. Perform heightened identity checks for high-risk or repeat offenders before publishing advertisements. Promptly remove content flagged by the Anti-Technology Crime Division and prescreen advertisements for prohibited or high-risk content. How IP Owners Can Use This Notification for Enforcement The phone number–based verification requirement enables IP owners to work more effectively with enforcement authorities in tracing individuals or entities responsible for infringing content. The comprehensive advertiser KYC obligations, including mandatory disclosure of third-party payment sources, create a clear audit trail even when bad actors attempt to obscure their identity through intermediaries or shell accounts. This traceability is essential for pursuing damages and dismantling organized counterfeit operations. The ETDA is now considering adjustments to the draft notification after receiving comments during the public consultation period, which ended on February 2, 2026. Following finalization
February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,