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

December 30, 2025

Vietnam Aims to Update Patent Examination Guidelines for Pharma and Biotech Inventions

Subscribe to Updates

The Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office), with support from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), is drafting additional annexes to its Guidelines for Patent Examination, focusing on the examination of patent applications in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. The new annexes are expected to be officially issued in early 2026 as Annexes III and IV, following the successful issuance in 2023 of Annexes I and II addressing computer program-related inventions.

The IP Office recently organized a seminar to gather feedback on the draft annexes from intellectual property representatives, academic institutions, research institutes, and other interested parties, emphasizing its intention to receive further constructive opinions to refine the guidelines for pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

Why These Guidelines Matter

Patent examination in Vietnam has traditionally relied on the Guidelines for Patent Examination issued under Decision No. 487/QD-SHTT (2010), recently supplemented by Annexes I and II. While these documents provide a solid foundation, they do not fully address practical challenges in examining pharmaceutical and biotech inventions, particularly issues related to clarity, sufficiency of disclosure, enablement, features of function and utility, combination therapies, and inventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) applications in these fields.

Annexes III and IV aim to close these gaps by introducing structured principles and illustrative examples.

Guidance on Patent Specification Requirements

Annex III provides detailed guidance on the requirements for patent specifications in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, covering two main parts:

  • Part A addresses sufficiency of disclosure, clarity of specifications, and consistency between claims and descriptions.
  • Part B covers inventions related to Markush-type compounds, claims containing exclusion statements (disclaimers), and additional experimental data submitted during examination.

The Guidelines outline specific disclosure requirements for subject matters such as compounds, formulations, pharmaceutical compositions, genes, polypeptides, proteins, vectors, transgenic organisms, modified organisms, and hybrid cells.

Annex III emphasizes that disclaimers are not accepted if they introduce new technical features, alter the nature of the subject matter, or extend beyond the original disclosure.

Regarding supplementary experimental data, the specification must still meet the requirements of sufficiency of disclosure, clarity, and enablement. Such data should only serve to clarify or demonstrate the technical effects already described in the original specification, particularly when proving an inventive step against prior art.

The inclusion of disclaimers and supplementary data in Annex III—previously absent from general guidelines—will facilitate both applicants and examiners in drafting and processing applications. Numerous examples are also provided to illustrate assessment in specific scenarios.

Novelty and Inventive Step

Annex IV addresses two critical aspects of patentability:

  • Novelty: Principles for assessing inventions with functional, utility, or purpose-related features, combination inventions, and biotech inventions regarding proteins, antibodies, and genetically modified organisms.
  • Inventive step: Principles for selection inventions, combination inventions, biotech inventions, genetically modified organism inventions, and inventions involving AI applications in biotech, medicine and pharmacy fields.

Overall, the principles for evaluating novelty and inventive step in Annex IV remain consistent with the general standards of patent examination and, for the most part, have already been reflected in the current Guidelines. Annex IV also provides numerous examples illustrating the principles.

Some notable points mentioned in Annex IV are as follows:

  • Functional, utility, or purpose-related features are disregarded in the examination of novelty unless they imply changes to the structure of the claimed subject matter.
  • When assessing novelty, the disclosure of inherent properties of a combination or its components is also considered, even if these properties are not explicitly stated in the prior art at the time of publication.
  • Applying AI technologies or AI-based systems to methods in biotechnology, medicine, and pharmaceuticals for data analysis or management, without changing the nature of the methods, does not produce an effect beyond what would be expected based on the state of the art at the filing date.
  • The assessment of an inventive step for a product or process involving steps performed by AI requires analyzing the correlation between input and output data of the claimed subject matter compared to the prior art. The evaluation of products created or predicted with AI assistance is carried out in the same way as for conventional products created by humans.

Conclusion

Annexes III and IV mark a major step toward a more transparent and predictable patent examination framework in Vietnam. Their primary objectives are to strengthen and improve management methods in examination activities, establish clear guidance for assessing inventions in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, and enhance both the quality and consistency of patent examination in these fields. By addressing disclosure standards and clarifying novelty and inventive-step assessments, these annexes aim to ensure rigorous and uniform practices.

Nevertheless, stakeholders should note that certain issues remain unresolved, such as double patenting and multi-subject matters. These points are likely to be supplemented in subsequent versions of the Guidelines, ensuring that the framework remains practical, comprehensive, and adaptable to future needs.

Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
For businesses in Thailand’s regulated industries, the problem of “too many licenses” is one of the most familiar hurdles to getting a product to market. Take a simple example: importing the materials necessary to sell teriyaki chicken skewers. To legally do this, a business may need approvals from several different agencies—separate permits for the chicken (Department of Livestock Development), the dipping sauce (Thai FDA), the wooden skewers (Department of Forestry), and other ingredients, each under a different authority. This kind of overlap is often cited to argue for a “regulatory guillotine”—a systematic review to cut outdated or duplicative rules that slow investment and business activity. The Facilitation of Licensing and Public Service Consideration Act B.E. 2569 (2026) (Licensing Facilitation Act 2026) is Thailand’s most significant response yet to that concern. This article looks at the Facilitation Act 2026 through a life sciences and regulatory affairs lens—what it may mean for the manufacturers, importers, and distributors of food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and similar products who routinely deal with several regulators to bring a single product to market. The Super License: One Approval Standing in for Many The reform with the clearest potential for regulated-product businesses is the law’s “super license” mechanism, referred to as a “main license” in the statute. Once a business obtains the main license for a regulated activity, it is automatically deemed to hold all related sublicenses issued by other agencies for that same activity, provided the activity has been designated as eligible in the Government Gazette. The Licensing Facilitation Act 2026 also creates a central application center, allowing applicants to submit a single application and pay all relevant fees at one point of contact, with the center routing the application to each agency through a shared information system. The potential benefits of this for businesses
Read More
July 13, 2026
Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance Agency (BPJPH) has issued new regulations establishing clearer procedures for imposing administrative sanctions on businesses that violate halal product assurance requirements. BPJPH Regulation No. 2 of 2026 on the Imposition of Administrative Sanctions for Violations of Halal Product Assurance Implementation, issued on June 5, 2026, strengthens Indonesia’s halal compliance framework, as mandated under Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Assurance and Government Regulation No. 42 of 2024 on the Implementation of Halal Product Assurance. BPJPH Regulation No. 2/2026 also supports the upcoming mandatory halal compliance deadline of October 17, 2026, which will apply to a broad range of products and services, including imported food and beverages, slaughtering products and services, natural and quasi-drugs, health supplements, cosmetics, chemical and genetically engineered products, clothing and accessories, household goods, prayer equipment, stationery, and class A medical devices. Scope BPJPH is authorized to impose administrative sanctions for violations of halal product assurance requirements committed by businesses, halal inspection agencies (LPH), halal auditors, halal product process companion institutions (lembaga pendamping PPH), and halal product process companions (pendamping PPH). The head of BPJPH has authority to determine, cancel, or amend the imposition of administrative sanctions, including upon receipt of objections. This authority covers revocation of Halal Certificates (including foreign halal certificate registration numbers), withdrawal of goods from circulation, freezing of LPH operations, freezing of halal product process companion institutions, revocation of PPH companion institution registration numbers, revocation of halal auditor registration numbers, and revocation of LPH accreditation status. Administrative Sanctions Businesses may be subject to any of the following administrative sanctions: Written warning; Administrative fine; Revocation of the halal certificate, including revocation of foreign halal certificate registration numbers; and Withdrawal of goods from circulation. The regulation sets out the types of violations that may trigger these sanctions, with each
Read More
July 1, 2026
Obtaining marketing authorization is a fundamental requirement for bringing pharmaceutical products to the Thai market. Companies must navigate the Thai Food and Drug Administration’s registration procedures while also complying with post-approval pharmacovigilance obligations, licensing requirements for manufacturing and importation, data protection rules, and other regulatory requirements. This guide provides an overview of Thailand’s regulatory framework for pharmaceutical marketing authorization, including available registration pathways, review timelines, application fees, postmarketing surveillance obligations, licensing requirements, exemptions, data exclusivity, freedom of information, and parallel import considerations. It is intended as a practical reference for pharmaceutical companies, regulatory affairs professionals, and others involved in bringing medicinal products to the Thai market. Download the guide below for a concise overview of the current requirements and procedures governing pharmaceutical marketing authorization in Thailand.
Read More