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

June 29, 2012

Patent Maps Provide a Key Tool for Strategic Decisions

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Approximately half of all patented inventions are never commercially exploited. This can be attributed to the several difficulties faced by companies that rely heavily on research and innovation, particularly in devising strategic patent management schemes, and in identifying business opportunities.

Moreover, research-driven companies, such as those focusing on technology or medicine, must consider the legal aspect of patents and protect them in order to avoid intellectual property infringement—a serious issue in Thailand.

To ensure legal compliance while at the same time maximizing commercial value, companies now utilize Patent Maps, which provide a visual representation of information relevant to patent documents, as well as an intuitive element to the strategic decision-making process.

Essentially, companies focused on research and development must take the necessary steps to accurately gauge the current market and its technological demand, at the same as focusing on “White Space” fields (areas in which patents have not been created), in order to enhance continuous technological development while ensuring their innovation is patented and protected.

The general process begins with a careful study of the legal implications of the relevant legislation in the country. Subsequently, companies select a patent strategy aligned with their own research capabilities, which should include the following steps:

  • Assessing the range of their competitors’ technology
  • Analyzing the differences between the company’s technology and those belonging to its competitors
  • Selecting countries and/or markets of interest that are attractive targets in which to introduce the company’s technology

Usually, a specialist or researcher is required to carry out an assessment and analysis of the technology used by the competitor to minimize or eliminate any possibilities of infringement before deciding whether to launch the product into the market. When using a Patent Map, however, some of the more detailed procedural requirements can be made simpler and can assist in the process from technological R&D to legal necessities. Once a Patent Map is created in the correct form and with a rich representation of statistical data, the maturity of certain technologies and trends can be identified.

To begin with, R&D departments use a Patent Map to select themes for conducting their research and development, to pick out new ideas, and to gain a detailed understanding of the development of the competitors’ technology. By showing the areas where research activities are clustered (or scattered), the Patent Map also enables researchers to comprehend market needs and analyze patent information to minimize the risk of wasting investment funds on a fruitless idea.

Furthermore, intellectual property management departments of companies, research institutes, and universities can use a Patent Map in order to acquire strong and extensive exclusive rights. For example, when drafting claims, which typically involves making comparisons between the relevant invention and any relevant prior art, a Patent Map can be utilized to reveal the relationships existing between them.

Also, when assessing a patent for the purpose of filing a patent application, a Patent Map can be used to review and respond to an examiner’s notification, which cites the reasons for rejecting such application. The IP departments can thus use a Patent Map as an alternative to the otherwise unsophisticated traditional patent information searches to uncover the rights of other companies that may prevent the company from successfully obtaining a patent.

When evaluating patent applications, Patent Maps can even be used to reveal the overall standing of the relevant invention and the existence of other patents that could significantly influence the chances of successful registration of the patent in question. When monetizing a patent via a transaction, the Patent Map can be used to identify the company that is most likely to be willing to make the acquisition, and essentially, to guarantee the patentability of the patent to be offered.

For large businesses, counterfeit goods not only pose the problem of a reduction in sales of the legitimate rights holder, but they also heavily damage the reputation and the brand image of the company, and potentially their other product lines. Being vigilant in identifying IP infringers is generally not an easy task, but it can be facilitated by a Patent Map. They are effective in identifying competitors who develop products that are even likely to infringe the company’s patent, regardless of their intention.

Many companies face difficulties in respect of pursuing a management strategy that targets both overseas and domestic markets. A Patent Map can help a company formulate such a strategy, as it enables it to identify the status of global intellectual property networks, the status of new entrants, as well as the key needs in several local markets.

Each market will present different challenges and costs in terms of the prosecution of the patent application, the duration of protection, and the timeline for examinations and payment of annuity fees, among other issues.

Fundamentally, the information gleaned from utilizing a Patent Mapping tool is crucial when arriving at a final decision on which country a company should penetrate, the legal requirements and patentability of the prototype, and thus whether to pursue introducing the technology domestically or internationally, if at all.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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