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

March 3, 2017

What Is a Patent Worth?

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

When deciding how much to invest in their intellectual property rights, product manufacturers often ask, “What is a patent worth?” This is a reasonable question, given the costs required to obtain patent protection. But manufacturers need to understand that unless a product with high value and risk of being imitated is patent-protected, the product owner could lose potential profits by not possessing exclusive rights to the product. Investing in a patent will help protect you and your investors, and enable you to produce and sell your product, while preventing others from doing the same.

A patent is a limited monopoly right granted under the authority of the government, which will issue a patent for an invention that is a new, useful, and unobvious product or process, or an improvement on such an existing product or process. A patent lasts for 20 years from the date of application filing. The rights to a patent are granted in exchange for a complete and enabling disclosure or description of the best mode of implementing the invention.

Once you are granted a patent, it is the government’s obligation to prevent others from making, using, selling, or importing your invention. During this 20-year period, once the patent is approved and remains validly registered, you can go to court and obtain damages against any infringers of your patent, and in most circumstances, apply for an injunction to prevent ongoing infringement of your patent during the term of validity.

Valuing Your Patent

So what does this mean for the value of a patent? You may look at the profits that you currently earn on the sales of your product and ask yourself, “Would I lose my profits if I do not have a patent?” This lets you quantify, in monetary terms, what the patent may be worth. By reevaluating this amount each year for the remaining life of the patent, you will be able to generally determine the value of your patent.

A patent is necessary and has a value only when a product or process covered by the patent currently exists or will exist in the market. This concept also extends to improvements or upgrades to your invention, because if you do not obtain a patent for these items, then your competitor might. If they possess such a patent and you do not, then you may be unable to sell your improved or upgraded product or process in the future.

Licensing

When you own a patent, you can make the products protected by the patent and prevent others from doing so. But beyond this, you can also license or sell your patent, which further qualifies it as a valuable asset. For example, if someone were to make a claim for infringement against you, you could offer to cross-license your patent, or you could counterclaim or countersue based on your patent. In this instance, having multiple patents or building a patent portfolio can be a very profitable business model.

Valuation Methods

When you are looking to license or sell your patent, you will need to have a starting point for negotiations by determining the value of the patent. In general, you can assess the patent’s value in a couple of different ways—one of which is the “calculated value.” There are several different methodologies that you can employ to derive a calculated value, such as the cost method, market method, and income method, which are based on discounted cash flow. Then there are more sophisticated methodologies, such as the probability adjusted income method, Monte Carlo analysis, and binomial lattices and real options method. There is no shortage of methodologies that can be applied. These models allow a patent owner to draw an estimate of the value of the patent.

Another, less formal, method involves the “story” value. There can be either a good story behind a patented invention or an unattractive story. In discussions between a patent owner and any potential buyers, the story—or reasons behind why the owner is selling the patent—will have an effect on the ultimate value received for the patent from the buyer.

There is also the element of competition among potential buyers who wish to obtain your patent to consider. If several well-funded companies are competing to obtain your patent, or even if there is only one company that is highly motivated in acquiring it, then your patent obviously commands a high valuation.

As the patent owner, you may be a brilliant innovator, who has spent the past 20 years working very hard on an invention, which grew in value over time. But if you are a poor negotiator, you could destroy much of the value of your invention when you license your patent. Thus, savvy negotiating skills are key to maximize the desired amount of value you want from your patent.

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