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​ 

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