Opinions & Disputes

The questions we help answer

Clients involve us when they need to understand:

• whether a contemplated product or process can be commercialised in Türkiye;
• whether a competitor’s patent may cover a particular implementation;
• whether an accused embodiment fulfils every feature of an asserted claim;
• whether a credible non-infringement or design-around position exists;
• whether an asserted patent can withstand a validity challenge;
• which prior-art disclosures genuinely threaten the claim;
• whether an expert report correctly reflects the patent and the technology; or
• which technical issue is likely to become decisive in a dispute.

Freedom to operate

Broad enough to find the risk.
Focused enough to explain it.

Freedom-to-operate analysis is not the same as a patentability search.

A patentability search asks whether an invention may be new and inventive. An FTO analysis asks whether a contemplated commercial activity may fall within the scope of an enforceable third-party right.

Patent rights are territorial. A patent family relevant in one country may have no enforceable counterpart in Türkiye, or its Turkish counterpart may contain materially different claims.

Our FTO work may include:

• defining the technically and commercially relevant features of the proposed product;
• identifying potentially relevant Turkish patents and international patent families;
• reviewing jurisdiction-specific legal status;
• analysing independent and dependent claims;
• mapping claim features against the contemplated product or process;
• assessing technically relevant equivalents;
• distinguishing material risks from patents that are only superficially similar;
• identifying possible design-around routes; and
• explaining residual uncertainties and practical next steps.

A useful FTO opinion should not produce the largest possible list of patents.

It should identify the rights that genuinely deserve attention.

Infringement & non-infringement

The question is not whether two products look similar.
The question is whether the claim reads on the accused embodiment.

We prepare infringement and non-infringement analyses based on a structured comparison between the asserted claim and the relevant product, process or system.

The analysis may address:

• construction of disputed claim language;
• literal fulfilment of each claim feature;
• structural and functional relationships between claim elements;
• limitations that may be overlooked when individual words are read in isolation;
• technical equivalence;
• prosecution history, where relevant;
• dependent-claim exposure;
• alternative technical implementations; and
• potential design-around positions.

Where useful, the reasoning is presented through feature-by-feature claim charts.

This keeps the decisive technical analysis visible and prevents it from disappearing behind a general conclusion.

Claim first.
Accused embodiment second.
Conclusion last.

Validity & invalidity

An asserted patent may appear broad. Its technical and legal foundation must nevertheless withstand scrutiny.

Validity and invalidity analysis may address:

• novelty;
• inventive step;
• sufficiency of disclosure;
• added matter;
• entitlement to priority;
• claim interpretation;
• amendment and prosecution history; and
• the technical compatibility of proposed prior-art combinations.

An invalidity search is fundamentally different from an FTO search.

FTO asks:

Which enforceable rights may stand in the way?

Invalidity asks:

What had already been made available before the patent’s relevant date, and what does it disclose against the asserted claim?

A long list of prior-art documents does not establish invalidity. The decisive work is the mapping:

• Which claim features are actually disclosed?
• Which features are missing?
• Is the disclosure explicit or necessarily implicit?
• Does the document teach the claimed technical relationship?
• Would the skilled person have had a reason to combine the relied-upon teachings?
• Does the distinguishing feature produce the alleged technical effect?

Prior art is not a bibliography.

The prior art must meet the claim.

Litigation & expert-report support

The technical record must be built before it can be argued.

We prepare patent-law and technical analyses for use in infringement, invalidity and related proceedings in Türkiye.

We may work directly with clients and, where appropriate, alongside Turkish or international litigation counsel. Our role is to structure the patent, prior-art and accused-technology analysis so that the technically decisive issues remain visible throughout the proceedings.

Our work may include:

• infringement and non-infringement opinions;
• validity and invalidity opinions;
• claim charts and prior-art mappings;
• technical comparison of accused embodiments;
• analysis of equivalence;
• inventive-step and technical-effect analysis;
• sufficiency and added-matter analysis;
• review of opposing-party submissions;
• review of court-appointed or party-submitted expert reports; and
• technical rebuttal of conclusions that do not follow from the patent, prior art or accused technology.

The objective is not merely to add another document to the court file.

It is to make the decisive issue identifiable, testable and difficult to overlook.

What we deliver

Depending on the assignment, the work product may include:

• an executive risk summary;
• a claim-by-claim opinion;
• annotated claim charts;
• patent-family and legal-status tables;
• prior-art mappings;
• technically reasoned infringement or validity conclusions;
• design-around observations;
• review of expert findings and opposing submissions; and
• a structured technical record for management, patent counsel or litigation counsel.

The form of the opinion is adapted to its purpose. A pre-launch commercial assessment, an internal risk memorandum and a document intended to support contentious proceedings do not require the same structure or level of detail.

Searching Turkish patents

Turkish patent searching presents particular linguistic, classification and data-access challenges.

Relevant documents may use alternative Turkish translations, uncommon technical terminology or functional descriptions rather than the expected engineering term. A national record may also lead to earlier PCT, EP or foreign family publications containing more searchable text or materially relevant prosecution history.

Our searches therefore combine terminology, classification, patent-family information, legal status and technical claim concepts rather than relying on a single keyword query.

Read more about our Turkish patent search methodology →

A technical question before it becomes a legal position

The earlier the relevant claim, product architecture and prior art are examined together, the more options will usually remain available.

If you are assessing a product launch, responding to a patent allegation, reviewing an expert report or testing the strength of an asserted patent, you may contact us with:

• the relevant patent or publication number;
• the jurisdiction concerned;
• a short description of the product or technical question; and
• any known commercial or procedural deadline.

Discuss an opinion or dispute
info@stanadvoka.com

Please do not send confidential or unpublished technical material before the scope of the engagement and the appropriate communication channel have been confirmed.