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

December 23, 2016

Using Patent Searches to Add Commercial Value to Your Design or Invention

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

A patent is a type of intellectual property that can provide protection for a design, the invention of a product, or the process of making an invention. For a patent to be granted, one of the key requirements is that it must be new or novel. But beyond its novelty, a patent also has commercial value. As innovation and technology and development continue to grow in prominence in today’s modern world, individuals and companies are focusing more and more of their attention on developing and commercializing inventions and are becoming more aware of the importance of patents and their potential to add value to their business and products.

A patent application represents the forefront of design and technology. Each year, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) receives an increasing number of patent applications, most of which have been filed first in another country, with the Thai application claiming priority from the original application.

A patent application submitted to the DIP is not disclosed until it has been published. Therefore, the DIP hosts a library of published patent applications which is accessible to anyone and does not require a membership fee. Likewise, other patent offices around the world, such as the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japanese Patent Office (JPO), and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), also have databases of published patent applications for the public to use free of charge.

You can conduct a patent search within these published patent databases to learn more about the applications that have been published and the patents that have been granted. However, the scope of your search will depend on the objectives you are trying to achieve. At Tilleke & Gibbins, our clients typically ask us to conduct three very different types of patent searches:

  1. Prior Art Search

You should conduct a prior art search before drafting the specification for your new patent. The prior art search report consists of worldwide patents or published patent applications obtained from various databases online and other relevant publications, scientific journals, and other media existing in the public domain. The objective of the prior art search is to evaluate the novelty of your invention—in other words, this search confirms whether your invention is actually new and can be protected as a patent.

When conducting a prior art search, you need to have the design or know the invention in detail in order to create the key strings that are used in the search. Because this search aims to evaluate the novelty of the design or invention, you need to conduct this search worldwide. Most worldwide database search engines require membership fees, although this additional cost can be avoided by conducting patent searches in multiple databases.

Importantly, not all designs/inventions may be disclosed in databases of published patent applications, so you should also conduct searches in non-patent literature.

  1. Patent Search

The objective of a patent search is to locate relevant patents or published patent applications in a particular patent database. This is the most customized type of search, in which you can set the search on a particular applicant, the inventor’s name, or the date the patent was filed, published, or granted. Most commonly, businesses focus these searches on the name of the applicant in order to keep an eye on the activities of their competitors.

Another objective of this type of search is to understand the number of published patent applications in a certain time span or to understand which applicant has been active in that field.

It is crucial that you determine the right search strings—that is, the criteria used to focus your search—to meet your objectives. A patent agent well trained in your specific design or invention would be able to accurately help you determine the search strings.

  1. Freedom-to-Operate Search

If you want to import, manufacture, sell, or offer for sale an unpatented invention, you should conduct a freedom-to-operate (FTO) search before introducing the product into the market. This search, which needs to be conducted country by country, provides a list of designs or inventions that are protected in each country, allowing you to understand what designs or inventions are already covered by existing patents. Because patents have tremendous commercial value, many patent owners are prepared to take aggressive action against anyone who infringes their patent, so it is important to conduct an FTO search for the countries where the unpatented invention will be manufactured, sold, and imported.

The FTO search strings will be based on the unpatented invention and searched in the databases of the selected countries. Thus, the unpatented invention must be well defined. The FTO search will be conducted on patent applications that are active and will not include those whose period of protection has already lapsed. In Thailand, for example, the FTO search will be conducted on applications filed within the past 10 years for designs, 10 years for petty patents, and 20 years for invention patents. Once the FTO search has been completed, further analysis on the risk of infringing any registered patents or published patent applications would be required.

Patent searching on a well-defined subject is not difficult. In fact, you can get started by trying to conduct a patent search on your own using any of the free patent databases offered by various patent offices around the world. Reading the existing patents and published applications can provide insight for your business on how to obtain value around your innovations or make you aware of the risk of infringing a possible patent. It may even spark a new idea that will lead to a new invention that can help drive your company forward into the future.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on