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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with