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

April 5, 2020

An Overview of Utility Solutions in Vietnam

Under Vietnam’s intellectual property law, patent protection is available for both inventions and utility solutions. Both must meet novelty and industrial applicability criteria to qualify for protection, but utility solutions, unlike inventions, do not need to prove an inventive step. They must simply be “not ordinary knowledge.” As the patentability criteria are less stringent, the term of protection for a utility solution is not as long as for an invention.

What is called a utility solution patent in Vietnam goes by different names in other countries, such as utility model (the original term in the Paris Convention), innovation patent, petty patent, or utility certificate. The regulations may also differ from country to country. In seeking patent protection by means of utility solution in Vietnam, applicants should consider the following points.

1. Overall

While some countries restrict protection by utility solution to certain types of technical solutions, there is no such restriction in Vietnam. Accordingly, any fields—chemical processes, for instance—that are eligible for invention patents are also eligible for utility solution patents.

In turn, it is not unusual in Vietnam to file an application for utility solution claiming priority to an invention application, and vice versa, under the Paris Convention. Also, a PCT application can enter the national phase in Vietnam as a utility solution application.

Because of the similarity of utility solutions and inventions, there is no overlap between utility solutions and designs. Further, it is not possible to file a design application in Vietnam claiming priority to a utility patent application.

During prosecution, a patent application for invention may be converted into a patent application for utility solution, and vice versa, either as a voluntary conversion or response to an office action (normally objecting to the inventive step of the application).

2. Application and Timelines

The application documents for utility solutions, including the patent specification, are the same as those for inventions. The application will be examined as to formalities, published, and substantively examined. There is no alternative for the procedure.

The fees are also the same. Therefore, the filing of a utility solution application is not a measure to seek patent protection with a lower fee.

The most significant differences between utility solutions and inventions are that (1) a request for examination of a utility solution must be lodged within 36 months from the priority date, compared to 42 months for invention, and (2) the protection period for utility solutions is only 10 years from the filing date, compared to 20 years for inventions.

Because of the short protection term and the fact that, under the regulations, the time period for issuing examination results for utility solutions is 18 months (the same as for inventions), public comments have been raised for Vietnam to consider changing the system from an examination system to a no-examination system. However, there have been no signals showing that the system will be changed. Instead, the patent office tends to handle utility solution applications sooner, so that the patents would be granted sooner.

One technique applicants can use to shorten prosecution time is to file a request for early publication. In general, a non-PCT utility solution application will be published in the 19th month from the priority date, and substantive examination will only start when the application is published; therefore, such request is advisable.

3. Substantive Examination

For a utility solution application to be patented, it must satisfy three requirements: (1) novelty, (2) industrial applicability, and (3) not being ordinary knowledge. (As previously mentioned, an inventive step is not required.)

While the novelty requirement is clear (absolute novelty, worldwide), the requirement of not being ordinary knowledge is not clarified in the legal documents. The Vietnam Guidelines for patent examination provide only an example of a solution that would be considered ordinary knowledge: “The subject-matter claimed is a method of protecting a steel structure by covering the surface of the structure with anti-rust paint.” Though this requirement is inherently subjective, the implication is that the solution must be “unusual” to some degree, and not something that can be easily observed.

The Vietnamese examiners often consult foreign examination results for corresponding applications when examining Vietnamese applications. However, many countries do not substantively examine utility solutions, so the consultation is limited. Therefore, if the applicant obtains a patent granted on a corresponding application in a country where utility solutions are substantively examined, the applicant should provide the information on the patent to the Vietnamese patent office to accelerate the examination in Vietnam.

4. Situation in Vietnam

Vietnam’s capacity for technological innovation, while improving, is not yet strong, with many small and medium-sized enterprises engaged in “mature” industries like agriculture and food processing, where the pace of innovation is relatively low.

This can be seen in the main fields for patent applications filed by Vietnamese applicants (fields with more than 70 applications filed in 2018), which are, according to the International Patent Classification (Source: IP Office of Vietnam):

  • A01: Agriculture; forestry; animal husbandry; hunting; trapping; fishing
  • A23: Foods or foodstuffs; their treatment, not covered by other classes
  • A61: Medical or veterinary science; hygiene
  • C12: Biochemistry; beer; spirits; wine; vinegar; microbiology; enzymology; mutation or genetic engineering
  • E02: Hydraulic engineering; foundations; soil-shifting.

In these fields, protection of utility solutions is often appropriate. Meanwhile, companies in high-tech areas like information technology and electronics—a higher percentage of which are foreign companies—are more likely to seek invention patents.

The statistics in the table below clearly reflect this—while foreign applicants file the vast majority of all invention applications, domestic applicants file almost two-thirds of all utility solution applications. (It should be noted, however, that Vietnamese invention applications are increasing at a greater rate than foreign applications.)

Patent Applications Filed in Vietnam in 2018 (Source: IP Office of Vietnam)

Summary

In sum, due to the many similarities to inventions, including the fees, utility solutions in Vietnam should only considered as a measure to seek patent protection for technical solutions not meeting the inventive step requirement. In all other respects, invention patents provide an equivalent or better option.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear