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

October 28, 2016

Utilizing Patent Valuation to Achieve Your Business Goals

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

It has become common practice for companies to sell and license out patents, and even use patents as collateral, in order to secure loans from financial institutions or attract capital from investors. As a result, patent valuation has been thrust into the spotlight, challenging potential buyers of patents and lenders. This article discusses what buyers of patents should consider, and what lenders should take into account when providing loans with patents used as collateral.

Considerations for Potential Buyers

In considering whether or not to purchase a patent, the potential buyer should consider the patent from both a legal and a business perspective. From the legal perspective, the buyer should try to determine the patent’s strength, based on factors such as the duration of protection, the breadth of potential patent claims and how courts are currently interpreting these claims, court practices, the patent’s risk of being challenged in court, and its susceptibility to infringement.

From the business perspective, the buyer should try to determine the patent’s market potential, potential competitors, commercialization potential, suitability to the needs of its business, and alternative technologies, as well as general economic conditions.

Other considerations include government regulations, as these will govern the use and period of exclusivity of the patent and may also have an impact on its value. These broad considerations need to be balanced against one another at the beginning of the valuation process.

Case Studies

These legal and business considerations were taken into account by a major Internet technology company that recently purchased a multinational telecommunications company for USD 5.5 billion. The motivation behind the purchase was the telecom company’s mature patent portfolio. Although the Internet technology company never released the exact details of how it arrived at the price, a look into its U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings offers some insights.

The company stated that the acquisition of the patent portfolio complemented its software expertise with hardware expertise, and the purchase would protect its operating system from lawsuits. In other words, the technology company saw this patent portfolio as a way to stay competitive and as a deterrent against patent litigation.

Another example is the recent purchase of a communications and IT company’s patent portfolio by a mobile technology company. According to the mobile company’s SEC filings, it agreed to purchase a portfolio consisting of more than 500 patents and numerous patent applications covering a wide range of cellular phone infrastructure technology for USD 22 million.

Certain statements in the SEC filings indicate that the patents would benefit the mobile company’s expansion into mobile applications for business-to-business and business-to-consumer transactions. It also looked at the profitability of the patents if damages arose from litigation, and what the revenue would be from licensing out the patents.

Loans with Patents as Collateral

If a borrower wants to use a patent as security for a loan, the lender should ascertain that the borrower is the actual owner of the patent. This is a straightforward task, unless the patent has been assigned. In jurisdictions where recordation of assignment is not required, tracing the owner may be difficult.

The lender should only accept that the borrower is the actual owner of the patent if the borrower can show a clear chain of title. The lender should also ensure that the borrower has addressed any liens and encumbrances against the patent.

The lender should then value the patent by determining what exactly is being offered (the invention, the patent, or both) and ascertaining the legal characteristics of the patent rights. The lender should also look at the capability of the borrower to utilize the patent rights in a commercial context.

In practice, a professional valuator will be involved at the request of either the lender or the borrower, and he or she will use a methodology based on a cost approach, an income approach, or a market approach. The lender should be satisfied not only that the borrower owns the patent, but that the patent is free of liens and encumbrances. In addition, the borrower should be responsible for paying for the valuation.

Every patent purchase is unique. Buyers have distinct needs and expectations. These should be well-formulated before beginning to value a patent. Understanding what there is to gain from purchasing a patent allows a buyer to focus on patents in the target market, before having to delve into more detailed valuation techniques.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 15, 2026
The Myanmar Investment Commission (MIC) has issued a notification that gives investors with projects in Myanmar clearer guidance for securing approval and for changing, expanding, or exiting an approved project. Issued on August 19, 2026, MIC Notification No. 5/2026 replaces MIC Notification No. 26/2021 and sets procedures for state or regional investment committees to review, approve, and supervise investment projects, including project amendments, investment increases, land-use rights applications, compliance inspections, and suspension or termination of approved businesses. Endorsement Application Timeline and Deemed Acceptance In Myanmar, prospective investors seeking approval under the Myanmar Investment Law generally do so through an MIC permit or an MIC endorsement, depending on the nature of the investment. While certain large-scale investment projects require an MIC permit, projects that are not required to obtain an MIC permit may instead apply for an MIC endorsement. Investors seeking MIC endorsement for their planned projects typically submit their applications to the relevant state or regional investment committee. These committees are established under the Myanmar Investment Law and are authorized to approve investments of less than USD 5 million, subject to the project’s nature and location. MIC Notification No. 5/2026 specifies that upon receiving an endorsement application, the relevant investment committee office will check it for completeness and determine whether it can be considered at the state or regional level or must be referred to the MIC; if it must be forwarded to the MIC, this will be done within 10 working days. If an application is within its purview, the committee may reject the endorsement application within 15 working days of receipt; otherwise, the application is deemed accepted. If approved, the endorsement certificate will be issued within 10 working days of the approval decision, subject to applicable procedures. Endorsement Certificate Amendment The notification clarifies which amendments a state
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More