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​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
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
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation