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​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
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
Read More