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

February 23, 2017

Vietnam: Improving Pharmaceutical IP Protection

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Vietnam’s IP enforcement system has seen great improvements over the last several years. In particular, the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) has handled many complex disputes in the pharmaceutical sector related to patent infringement, unfair competition, and trademark infringement. Rights holders have generally been quite pleased with the decisions reached by MOST, as well as the expert opinions provided in various cases by the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP) and the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI), which are often a precursor to a MOST administrative enforcement action. Nevertheless, with a few tweaks when Vietnam amends its Law on Intellectual Property this year, the system can be improved even further to help better protect IP in the pharma sector. Below are a few suggestions for improvement.

Patent linkage: At present, there is no strong or efficient route to have a marketing authorization blocked or withdrawn in the event of patent infringement. Even when the Drug Administration of Vietnam is notified about a drug’s potential infringement, an MA for the drug in question may still be approved. An MA may only be ordered withdrawn after a lengthy administrative or civil suit for patent infringement. In this regard, there needs to be stronger coordination among the IP enforcement and health agencies.

Preliminary injunctions: So far, preliminary injunctions have not been granted in pharmaceutical patent infringement cases, even in a case where the rights holder submitted to the court three decisions/opinions (from MOST, the NOIP, and VIPRI) affirming infringement. The infringer is still being allowed to participate in and win drug tenders at state-owned hospitals, and the rights holder cannot stop the sale despite overwhelming proof that it faces imminent, irreparable damage and will succeed on the merits of the case. Preliminary injunctions should be made available in these situations.

Fast-tracking of invalidation actions: In some cases, such as a case involving agrochemical patents, the court has ruled on patent infringement even though an invalidation action was pending. However, in other cases, the filing of a frivolous invalidation action by the defendant has resulted in a stay being imposed on an administrative or civil action. However, such invalidation actions may take years to resolve, while damages continue to be incurred by the rights holder. Vietnam should adopt systems employed in other countries where invalidation actions heard by the patent office are fast-tracked, and/or a stay is not granted if the invalidation action is not considered to have a high chance of success on its merits.

Damage calculations: In order to effectively deter patent infringement, Vietnam should adopt a system where patent damages can be trebled in the event that the infringer knowingly infringes a patent (such as by continuing to infringe after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, or after an administrative decision finding patent infringement has been issued). Moreover, the burden of proof of damages in IP cases is higher in Vietnam than in most countries. As mentioned, there are several hurdles in patent litigation in Vietnam, and it is therefore inappropriate that damages should be low if a rights holder can successfully overcome these hurdles and has suffered damages.

Specialized IP court: Vietnam would be wise to consider adopting a specialized IP Court. When Thailand established its IP Court, a strong message was sent to investors that the country was focusing on improving IP enforcement, and also helped consolidate the best experts in IP jurisprudence under one court for consistent handling of cases.

Compulsory licensing: Vietnam is considering draft regulations on compulsory licensing. However, the draft regulations are missing several key components, such as allowing the rights holder to take part in the proceedings, and not requiring failed license negotiations as a prerequisite to a compulsory license being granted. Compulsory licensing has not been granted in Thailand since 2007, and has never been granted in Japan; thus, Vietnam should reconsider whether it is truly needed, and in any case needs to ensure that any regulations comply with international commitments.

Parallel imports: Vietnam should consider adopting stricter regulations on parallel imports in the pharmaceutical sector. Pharmaceuticals can be imported from countries with different storage conditions (for example, different climates) and other regulatory requirements, or misleading information on origin, which can result in pharmaceuticals being imported into Vietnam that do not meet quality standards, or which mislead consumers. The Market Management Bureau of Hanoi should be commended for its stance against parallel-imported pharmaceuticals when regulatory violations are involved, as demonstrated in one case in 2016 when it raided a pharmacy, seized the medicines and imposed a fine.

Special import quotas (SIQ): Many IP-infringing pharmaceuticals are imported via fast-tracked special import quotas. There is rarely any public information available on the application or decision to grant the SIQ. As a result, the rights holder cannot take action until the market has already been flooded by the infringing product, thus adding to the damages to the rights holder. Further transparency is needed.

Trademarks incorporating INNs: Vietnam’s trademark registry contains many trademarks that inappropriately incorporate INNs. The registry should adopt a trademark examination system where objections can be raised automatically in certain circumstances involving INNs, and the burden is placed on the applicant to rebut the inference of non-registrability.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Intellectual Property

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
Read More
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of
Read More