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 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for