Commissioning a private preliminary search before filing is generally not mandatory. It can, however, strengthen your filing strategy. Official search procedures are a separate stage of the patent application process.

No. A preliminary search does not replace the official search and examination; there are unpublished applications and limitations relating to the scope of the search.

It can help with an initial screening. Critical findings should be verified against official office records and other technical sources.

No. FTO examines the risks that can be identified for a specific product, country and date; it does not show that there is no risk at all.

Owning a patent does not mean that you are not infringing patents belonging to third parties. FTO should be assessed separately.

No. Patent protection is territorial. A separate analysis is needed for the target countries.

No. Because of scope and accessibility limitations, not finding a document is not conclusive proof of novelty.

Yes. Depending on the search question and the country, utility model documents may be important.

A technical description, drawings and the distinguishing features; for FTO, the concrete version of the product and information on the target market.

An update may be needed as new applications are published, as the product changes or as the target market expands.

Not for every invention; drawings should be submitted where they are needed for the technical disclosure.

They must meet the legibility and formal requirements of the office concerned.

The office’s current rules and the specific technical need should be assessed.

Yes, if a sufficient technical description and a draft are available.

Within the limits allowed by the legislation; no new technical matter should be added.

The scope of protection is determined by the claims; drawings are taken into account in interpretation.

Adaptation may be needed according to the requirements of the target offices.

It varies with the complexity of the invention and the need for revisions.

It is the regular search of published information on competitors, technical fields and patents.

It is carried out to support decisions by tracking technological developments and important patent activity.

No. A search focuses on a question at a given date, whereas watching focuses on ongoing change.

No. Infringement and FTO assessments require separate technical and legal analysis.

No. Unpublished applications cannot be seen in general patent databases.

Countries covered by the data sources can be watched; the level of detail and how up to date the data is vary by country.

Weekly, monthly or other intervals can be set according to your needs.

No. Businesses engaged in R&D and manufacturing can also use the service.

It may contain new publications, patent families, changes in legal status and follow-up recommendations.

No. Publication and grant of a patent are different stages.

No. Protection depends on national or regional procedures.

Critical findings require expert review.

It is determined by the scope, the number of countries, the interval and the depth of analysis.

The valid claims are compared with the technical elements of the product or process.

No; the scope of the claims and the specific act are decisive.

Yes, a patent is not a permission for commercial use.

No, the limits of the search scope and the uncertainties remain.

The date of the act and the status of the right on that date are examined.

It varies with the technical scope, access to evidence and the number of patents.

It is not a formal requirement in every case, but it is useful for a systematic technical comparison.

It is a technical element that differs from the claim element but may be assessed as equivalent under the statutory criteria.

No, it is a technical and legal assessment document.

The strategy should be decided after the evidence and legal risks have been assessed.

It is the systematic legal, technical, financial and strategic management of patents and applications.

All files are entered into an inventory, patent families are linked and the official register status is verified.

In Türkiye, annual fees arise from the second year onwards; specific dates are checked against current regulations.

Non-payment of fees can lead to the right lapsing; any grace period and conditions for reinstatement of rights are reviewed separately.

No. The decision should be made after assessing the commercial, technical, legal and contractual implications.

No. It is an international filing mechanism; separate procedures are required in the relevant countries.

No. FTO examines the risks from third-party patents for specific products and countries.

It can be licensed within the framework of suitable rights and contractual terms.

It helps identify unnecessary spending; however, the main aim is to manage the budget without losing critical protection.

There is no fixed number; alignment with commercial goals and the quality of protection are what matter.

Critical dates should be monitored continuously, and strategic reviews should be carried out periodically according to the business’s needs.

No. Monitoring focuses on new publications and status changes, while portfolio management covers the entire protection strategy.

Yes, but uncertainty about grant and scope is taken into account.

No, a patent is only one of the company’s assets.

No, it is an estimate based on assumptions.

Yes, it changes with market and legal conditions.

It depends on the specific dispute and the procedural conditions.

Yes, but shared income must not be counted twice.

It depends on the scope and the quality of the data.