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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 22, 2026
On January 20, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) issued Decision No. 96/QD-BTC to formally launch pilot administrative procedures for licensing crypto asset trading market services in Vietnam. The decision took immediate effect and implements the government’s pilot crypto asset market program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP. Notably, competent authorities have now begun accepting license applications, marking the first time Vietnam has operationalized a licensing pathway for crypto trading market operators. Administrative Procedures and Applications The decision stipulates procedures for (i) granting, (ii) adjusting, and (iii) revoking licenses to provide services for organizing crypto asset trading markets. It provides detailed, step-by-step guidance for each procedure, including dossier composition, internal review stages, coordination mechanisms, and statutory timelines. These procedures apply specifically to entities seeking to organize and operate crypto asset trading markets within Vietnam’s pilot regulatory framework. The MOF is the authority responsible for reviewing and deciding on the above procedures, with the State Securities Commission acting as the receiving, coordinating, and procedural focal point. For licensing applications, the MOF will coordinate with multiple authorities, including the State Bank of Vietnam and the Ministry of Public Security, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering, cybersecurity, system safety, and risk control requirements. Applications may be submitted in person, by post, or electronically via the National Public Service Portal or the administrative procedure information system, in line with applicable regulations. Statutory processing timelines vary depending on the specific procedure and stage involved. For applications to obtain a license to organize a crypto asset trading market, the process is conducted in multiple phases: The MOF will issue an initial written response within 20 working days from receipt of a complete and valid initial dossier, following which, upon submission of the full set of required documents, the MOF will complete substantive review and issue the license
Read More
January 21, 2026
On January 16, 2026, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Committee released for public comment a draft notification that would require social media platforms operating in Thailand to implement identity verification for all user accounts and advertisers, with enhanced scrutiny for high-risk advertising activities. If finalized in its current form, the Notification on Measures to Prevent Technology Crime for Social Media Service Providers would take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, fundamentally changing how platforms verify users and monetize advertising services. The public comment period is open through February 2, 2026. Mandatory User and Advertiser Identity Verification The draft establishes a universal requirement that all social media service providers implement identity verification measures for every user account. The draft imposes stricter verification obligations for advertisers than for general users. Before publishing any advertisement, platforms must verify the advertiser’s identity at a level sufficient to identify the advertiser, unless the advertiser has previously completed verification. Risk-Based Advertisement Verification The identification requirements for advertisers will be more stringent in the following cases: The advertiser has a history of user complaints or has previously violated the platform’s terms of service. The advertisement involves finance, investment, loans, sensitive personal data, or content flagged as potentially involving cybercrime. The advertisement specifically targets vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or other at-risk demographics. In such cases, platforms must conduct identity verification using government-issued identification documents and must confirm the accuracy, authenticity, and currency of these documents with the issuing government agencies. Alternatively, platforms may verify identity through an eligible digital identity verification and authentication system provider. Information Retention Platforms must retain specific information for each advertiser, including the name of the individual or juristic person and any representatives, government-issued identification documents such as ID cards, passports, or certificates of incorporation, and reachable contact information including
Read More
January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 13, 2026
On January 9, 2026, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) against five individuals for unauthorized operation of a digital-asset dealer business under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This precedent-setting case signals that the regulator is willing to pursue crypto enforcement against natural persons even in the absence of a licensed platform entity. Background and Implications The case follows the SEC’s October 2025 public warning about the use of iris-scanning technology in exchange for certain digital tokens. In its warning, the SEC cautioned that exchanging or trading these specific tokens with unlicensed service providers exposes users to heightened fraud, scam, and money laundering risks. Unlike prior regulatory enforcement matters, which involved platform-level administrative fines for operational or compliance failures, this case targets misconduct by individuals who may not be professional traders but openly advertised their willingness to buy these tokens from the public, opened individual over-the-counter (OTC) trade channels for these tokens, and facilitated off-exchange transactions in a manner resembling ordinary commercial dealing. This enforcement action establishes a clear precedent that natural persons engaging in public-facing digital-asset dealing may face criminal liability under Thai law, even without operating through a corporate or licensed platform structure. Outlook The alleged offenders may not settle this crime by payment of fines. Following the SEC’s referral, the ECD will undertake further investigation, after which prosecutors may review the case and proceed to court. The SEC has stated that it will cooperate fully with enforcement agencies throughout the criminal enforcement process.
Read More