Patent Search

A patent search establishes whether an invention has already been disclosed. "Prior art" is defined broadly: anything made available to the public anywhere in the world, in any language, in writing or orally, before the filing date. The search looks across that field for what comes closest to your invention.

The aim is not merely to answer "does something like this exist?". A good search shows which aspect of the invention is genuinely new and lets the claims be built around it. It is not an obstacle before filing but the first step of drafting.

Which search answers which question

• Novelty search. Has the invention been made available to the public before filing? This is the first and hardest condition of patentability, and it sets the direction of the file.
• Patentability search. Adds inventive step: would the invention be obvious to a person skilled in the art? A substantial share of refusals rest on obviousness rather than lack of novelty.
• Freedom-to-operate search. An entirely different question: if I launch this product, will I infringe someone’s live patent? Your invention being patentable does not mean your production is free — the two are often confused, expensively.
• Validity search. Hunting prior art that would invalidate a patent asserted against you or held by a competitor. This is the first task on receiving a cease-and-desist letter.
• Technology and competitor mapping. A map of the patent families in a field: who is working in which direction, where they seek protection, and which patents have expired into the public domain.

Expired patents: an underused resource

Patent protection is capped at twenty years, and patents whose annuities go unpaid lapse earlier. The content of an expired patent belongs to the public and may be used freely. One of the least appreciated benefits of a search is surfacing solutions in your field that have become free to use.

Where the search runs

Serious work does not stop at one database. The Turkish register, the European Patent Office’s global collection, WIPO’s international database and the US register are searched together. Alongside them, non-patent literature — academic papers, technical standards, product catalogues, conference proceedings — is frequently where the critical document appears.

What determines quality is not the number of databases but the query strategy: correct classification codes (IPC/CPC), the synonyms used in the field, equivalents across languages and patent-family relationships. A keyword-only search misses the most dangerous document — the one describing your invention in different terminology.

What the report tells you

1. Closest prior art. The nearest documents, which features they disclose and where they diverge.
2. Novelty and inventive step assessment. Which claim features survive and which would be hard to defend.
3. Claim strategy. Which technical difference protection should be built around, where the independent claim should start and which dependent claims form fallback positions.
4. Recommended decision. Patent, utility model, filing a revised invention, or keeping it as a trade secret.

What happens without a search

The usual outcome of filing blind is this: the Office’s search report cites something very close, the claims have to be narrowed, and the protection obtained is too narrow to matter commercially. By then the filing and attorney fees are spent and unrecoverable — and the invention has published at eighteen months, disclosed to everyone.

The worst case of filing without a search is therefore not ending up unprotected. It is ending up unprotected having told the world how it works.

Classification codes: the backbone of a search

Patent documents are classified by technical field under an international coding system. Those codes let a search run independently of language: an invention written in English, Japanese or German still sits under the same code. The first step of any serious search is identifying which codes the invention should be looked for in.

Code selection alone is not enough. The same solution may be classified in several fields depending on perspective — a medical device can appear both under the mechanics of the device and under a method of treatment. A search therefore combines codes with keywords and then follows the citation network of what it finds: which documents a hit cites, and which later documents cite it, is often the shortest path to the closest prior art.

Patent families and differences between offices

Applications filed for the same invention in different countries form a "patent family". The absence of a family member in Türkiye does not mean the invention is free here — and equally, refusal in one country does not mean refusal in another. Offices assess differently.

The practical value of family analysis is this: for a cited document you can read the decisions other offices reached, the objections raised and the claims that had to be narrowed. The rehearsal for the objection you will face has usually already taken place somewhere else.

When to search

• At the start of an R&D project — seeing what has already been solved redirects months of development early.
• Immediately before filing — to determine which technical difference the claims should be built around.
• Before launch — a freedom-to-operate search belongs before the manufacturing investment, not after.
• On receiving a cease-and-desist letter — to test the asserted patent’s validity before replying.
• Ahead of a funding round or acquisition — to see what the portfolio actually covers.

Ownership of inventions made during R&D needs separate structuring; see employee inventions.

Frequently asked questions

Can I search myself?

You can, and it is useful for a first impression. The limit is that keyword searching misses documents describing the same solution in other terms. Patent texts are deliberately written in general language; a search not driven by classification codes will be incomplete.

Does a search guarantee a patent?

No. A search shows what exists; it cannot prove that something does not. Applications filed before yours but not yet published appear in no database. The report is an assessment of likelihood, not an undertaking.

What if my invention turns out not to be patentable?

The options are not exhausted. A utility model, design registration for the product’s appearance, copyright for a software component and trade-secret protection for a manufacturing method are all worth weighing. For most products the answer is a combination rather than a single right.

How long does a search take?

From a few working days to a few weeks depending on scope. Freedom-to-operate searches are the longest and broadest, since live rights must be screened country by country.

Are patentability and freedom-to-operate not the same thing?

No, and confusing them is one of the more expensive mistakes in practice. Patentability asks whether your invention is new; freedom-to-operate asks whether your product infringes someone’s live patent. A product can be both patentable and infringing: your improvement may be novel while the underlying solution still falls within another party’s claims.

Which countries should a freedom-to-operate search cover?

Those where the product is manufactured, sold and transits. Because patents are territorial, a product free to sell in Türkiye may infringe in an export market. The scope is therefore set by the commercial plan, not by the technical field.

See the technical landscape around your invention — request a search or read about the filing process.

This page is general information and does not constitute legal advice. A search report is not a guarantee that a patent will be granted.