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 4, 2016

Avoiding Patent Infringement Using Freedom-to-Operate Analyses

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

In today’s business world, patents are increasingly used by innovative companies as a tool to support technology transfer and to create opportunities for commercial success. Owning a patent provides a competitive advantage, and it often leads to possibilities to license or sell the patented technology and expand into international markets.

However, patents alone do not guarantee commercial success. A patent grants a right to a specific technical feature or set of technical features that may only form part of a product or process. These products and processes often include a number of features that are protected by multiple patents.

Therefore, if an inventor or company wants to develop and commercialize a product, but it only has the rights to a patent that covers one aspect of the production process, the company will not have the freedom to make, use, sell, or bring the product to the market without first gaining permission to use the other patented processes.

Assume that an innovative company obtains a patent on a new composite product. If it plans to manufacture and sell the product by using a proprietary polymer as a raw material, the owner of the patented polymeric material could take action to stop the company from using this material.

As another example, if the company plans to use its patented product to manufacture a membrane material, the owner of a patented process for manufacturing the membrane material could prevent the company from using the material produced by the patented process.

In short, even if a company can obtain a patent over a product, it may not be able to commercialize it.

It is therefore important to understand the difference between “patentability” and “freedom to operate.” Patentability refers to the extent to which an invention meets the requirements to receive protection as a patent—how useful, novel, and non-obvious in view of the current state of the art the invention is.

On the other hand, freedom to operate refers to the process of determining whether the use of an invention in practice infringes on the rights of other patent holders.

Understanding the difference between patentability and freedom to operate is especially important, because when the patent office examines a patent application, it will only consider whether the invention in the application meets the requirements of patentability, and not whether the applicant has the right to use the invention in practice without infringing the rights of other patent holders.

Therefore, an inventor or company, as the patent applicant, should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis as well as a patentability analysis.

A freedom-to-operate analysis focuses on analyzing existing patents in the country where the patent applicant wants to commercialize its invention.

The applicant will analyze unexpired blocking patents, as well as published patent applications, to help determine whether the utilization of the patent will infringe on the rights of other patent holders if the patented subject is commercialized in the territory.

Much like a patentability analysis and many other patent processes, however, a freedom-to-operate analysis does not establish with absolute certainty whether the applied-for patent will infringe on other patent rights. It only reduces this risk, and improves the chance of commercial success.

Freedom-to-operate and patentability analyses provide important but different information to companies looking to invest in new technologies, and ideally they should both be done together.

A freedom-to-operate analysis should be done very early on to allow a company to guide product or process designs in a direction that avoids blocking patents and therefore disputes over patent rights with other companies.

Another freedom-to-operate analysis should be conducted after a change is made to a product or process design to ensure that the new design does not infringe on others’ patent rights. And if changes cannot be made, a company may consider obtaining a license to use the patented design.

Depending on the number of patents to be analyzed, these analyses can be costly. If a company has budget constraints, it should first conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis. Afterward, it should conduct a patentability analysis, if the budget allows for it.

A freedom-to-operate analysis is more crucial than a patentability analysis because companies have a legal duty not to engage in a business that infringes the patent rights of other parties.

In contrast, there is no legal duty to seek patent protection for technology that a company intends to use. In all cases, it is important to seek the advice of local counsel who understand your business and industry.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
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