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 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
Read More
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
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More