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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,