Accounts from inventors, research offices, and companies who have worked through one or more of our patent filing services.
← Back to Home240+
Applications Filed
8+
Years in Practice
4.7
Average Client Rating
18
Jurisdictions Served
Wichai Prasertsuk
Independent Inventor, Chiang Mai
"I had been developing an agricultural processing device for two years before approaching Anantara Counsel for a patentability assessment. The written opinion gave me a clear picture of the prior art and identified a specific feature that the existing patents had not covered. I went ahead with a full Thai filing based on that foundation."
April 2025
Supawit Thongchai
R&D Manager, Electronics Firm, Bangkok
"Our company needed a Thai filing for a circuit protection method, and we also wanted the option to enter Japan and Germany through PCT later. The disclosure form was thorough — it took about two hours to complete, which is more than I expected, but the draft specification we received in return was clearly built on what we had actually described, rather than generic language."
March 2025
Nattaporn Limtrakul
Technology Transfer Office, Kasetsart University
"We have used Anantara Counsel for three separate application filings now — two agricultural chemistry inventions and one food processing method. The fixed fee structure works well for our budget planning, and we receive clear written updates at each stage without needing to request them. The quarterly reports for our PCT programme in particular are genuinely useful documents."
April 2025
Ratree Kanjanapongporn
Co-founder, Biotech Startup, Bangkok
"As a startup, we needed to understand whether our fermentation process was worth filing before we committed the capital. The patentability assessment was a sensible starting point. The opinion identified two prior art documents we had not found ourselves and explained clearly why our modification was likely to be considered distinct. That gave us the basis to decide to proceed."
February 2025
Panya Srisawat
Mechanical Engineer, Rayong
"The DIP examination raised an objection to my independent claim based on a Japanese prior art document. Anantara Counsel prepared the response with a reasoned argument distinguishing my method on technical grounds rather than just narrowing the claim. The examiner accepted the response at the first attempt. That kind of careful prosecution work was what I was paying for."
March 2025
Anchana Chaiyasit
Senior Researcher, Chulalongkorn University
"Our polymer composite formulation was developed for medical device applications. We needed protection in Thailand, the US, and South Korea. The PCT programme managed by Anantara Counsel made this considerably more manageable than I had expected. The disbursement schedule meant there were no unexpected fees, and the quarterly reports kept our research committee properly informed without requiring them to follow up."
April 2025
Challenge
A manufacturing SME in the Eastern Economic Corridor had developed a sealing device for fluid transfer equipment. The technical team was uncertain whether the modification they had made over a known design was sufficient to obtain patent protection, and needed guidance before committing to filing costs in multiple markets.
Solution
Anantara Counsel conducted a patentability assessment that identified the distinguishing technical feature and found no close prior art in the patent literature. Based on the opinion, the client proceeded with a Thai patent application followed by a PCT application claiming Thai priority. National phase entries were made in Japan, Germany, and the US.
Outcome
The Thai application proceeded through examination without substantive objection. The PCT international search report found one potentially relevant document, which Anantara Counsel distinguished in the international preliminary examination response. National phase entries were completed within the 30-month deadline across all three jurisdictions.
"The structured approach meant there were no surprises. We knew what was happening at each stage and what the next step would cost." — Client, Manufacturing Sector, EEC
Challenge
A university technology transfer office needed to file a patent application for a crop treatment formulation developed by a research team. The IP budget was constrained, and the office needed a clear view of cost at the outset. Previous experience with full-service IP firms had involved billing surprises.
Solution
A patentability assessment was completed first (฿4,800), followed by a Thai patent application at the fixed fee. The disbursement schedule provided at the start of the engagement allowed the technology transfer office to budget the total cost including DIP fees in advance of seeking internal approval.
Outcome
The application was filed within three weeks of completing the disclosure form. Two rounds of inventor review were incorporated into the drafting process. The university subsequently commissioned two further applications for inventions from the same research group over the following 14 months.
"Having the fee schedule in writing before we sought budget approval made the internal process much more straightforward." — Technology Transfer Office
Challenge
A sole inventor had developed a control system modification for industrial fans that reduced energy consumption in high-humidity environments. The patentability assessment indicated novelty, but the inventive step threshold for a standard patent was uncertain. Speed of protection was a priority.
Solution
On the advice in the patentability opinion, the client opted for a Thai petty patent rather than a standard patent. The petty patent route offered registration without substantive examination and faster protection. Anantara Counsel drafted and filed the petty patent specification and managed the registration process through to grant.
Outcome
The petty patent was registered within the expected timeframe. The inventor was able to reference the registered patent number in commercial discussions with potential licensees within eight months of the initial filing. A standard patent application covering the broader invention was subsequently filed to provide longer-term protection.
"The patentability opinion made it clear which route made more sense for my situation. That guidance was worth the assessment fee many times over." — Independent Inventor
Telephone
+66 2 116 4928Address
519 Asoke Montri Road, Watthana, Bangkok 10110
Hours
Mon–Fri 9:00–18:00
Sat 10:00–13:00
Send a brief description of your invention and we will provide a written response outlining the appropriate service and fee structure.
Contact the Practice