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​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 26, 2026, Thailand’s Department of Land Transport (DLT) published for public consultation a draft amendment to the Ministerial Regulation on Electronic Ride-Hailing Vehicles that would, for the first time, allow juristic persons (legal entities) to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars—a right that currently belongs exclusively to natural persons, limited to one person per one vehicle. If finalized in its current form, the regulation would significantly expand the supply side of Thailand’s ride-hailing market by enabling corporate fleet operators to enter the space. The public comment period is open through June 24, 2026. Key Principles Under the Draft Regulation Under the proposed amendment, juristic persons that maintain a fleet of at least 50 vehicles will be permitted to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars. This represents a fundamental shift from the current framework, which restricts registration to individual natural persons on a one-person-one-car basis. Vehicle Specifications Corporate-owned ride-hailing vehicles must meet the following requirements: Be brand new from the factory, or no more than two years old from first registration with no more than 20,000 km of use. Not be a vehicle that has been reconstructed or repaired after involvement in a serious accident affecting safety—a standard consistent with public transport vehicles (RorYor. 6). Be classified as small, medium, or large in accordance with ministerial or director-general specifications. The vehicles may be equipped with safety devices such as interior or exterior cameras (video/photo recording) and can retain the original factory color of the vehicle body (no mandatory color change is required). License Plates Corporate ride-hailing vehicles will use license plates of the same size, characteristics, and color as those for private passenger vehicles not exceeding seven seats (RorYor. 1), rather than public transport plates. Potential Impact The government has stated that the regulation is intended to: Promote
June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review