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 3, 2023

A Review of the Japan-Vietnam Patent Prosecution Highway

Subscribe to Updates

Overview

Although Vietnam has a number of mechanisms for accelerating the patent examination process, most of them have not lived up to the expectations of applicants. However, a fast-track patent prosecution highway (PPH) program was opened for the first time between the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) in January 2016, creating opportunities for all applications originating from Japan.

The PPH program has been rolled out in the following stages:

After more than six years of implementation, this program is considered successful and can be extended to support Japanese enterprises in establishing patent rights in Vietnam.

Effectiveness

This program has many advantages, such as:

  • Applications originating from Japan are usually of good quality with clear and coherent specification It is possible that the IP Office’s requirements for specifications are already very consistent with Japanese applicants’ way of drafting specifications thanks to the JPO’s training programs for the IP Office.
  • Patents in Japan usually have a short examination timeline and are granted very quickly, even within the application filing timeline in Vietnam (12 months from the priority date for applications filed under the Paris Convention and 31 months from the priority date for applications filed as PCT national phase applications).
  • The coordination between the JPO and the IP Office has been very good. PPH applications are processed in a quick and efficient manner.
  • Japanese applicants and their representatives also often coordinate well with the IP Office to rectify formality shortcomings and avoid prolongation of the examination period.

Although there are no official statistics from the IP Office, according to independent statistics for applications whose PPH requests were filed by Tilleke & Gibbins’ associate firm (one of the most prolific filers under the PPH), the examination period for applications under the PPH has been significantly shortened, compared to the period for substantive examination as prescribed by law (18 months):

  • The average period for receiving the first office action as from the date of the PPH request is 8.53 months.
  • The average period for receiving a notice of allowance without an office action from the date of requesting PPH is 7.98 months.

Further, the prescribed 18-month time limit for examination is often difficult to achieve for various reasons, and the actual examination period for applications not under the PPH program is typically much longer than 18 months in practice. Obviously, the PPH has been providing a tremendous time benefit to Japanese applicants.

Current Status

Since its inception, the PPH program has attracted the attention of many Japanese enterprises and industrial property representatives in Vietnam. In fact, in the first rounds of this program, the timeline for the number of requests to reach the limit was often very short, and in many cases the limit was reached on the very first day the round was opened.

However, despite the PPH’s apparent effectiveness, recent monitoring of the number of applications as well as the time limit for filing PPH requests shows that this program has not been attracting the attention of Japanese applicants as much as before. According to the above figure, the number of days to reach the request limit has increased in every period since 2020. By 2022, the first round, which was opened on April 1, 2022, had not even reached 100 requests after six months, and the 34 remaining spots were moved to the second round, which was opened on October 1, 2022.

It is not clear why Japanese applicants have shown reduced interest in the PPH program after its initial popularity, though it is worth noting that the time period in which the number of PPH requests was slower to reach the limit (from October 2020 to mid-2022), coincided with the period when Japan and Vietnam were most affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. This may have affected the management strategy of Japanese enterprises as well as the budget for promoting IP portfolios.

Upcoming Changes

Article 114 of Vietnam’s amended IP Law, which took effect on January 1, 2023, allows the IP Office to use the results of substantive examination of a patent application claiming the same invention filed with a foreign patent office in the process of assessing the patentability of the corresponding Vietnamese application. The latest draft of a circular to replace Circular 01/2007, which guides the implementation of the IP Law, also includes provisions intended to allow an applicant to proactively request the IP Office to proceed in this manner. Also according to this draft circular, if the IP Office accepts the applicant’s request, a communication on substantive examination results must be issued for the Vietnamese application within 12 months from the date of the request.

As such, Article 114 of the IP Law seems to open a new door for patent applicants in accelerating the examination process in Vietnam. This program is expected to be equally effective and possibly even more effective than existing acceleration programs. The scope of expedited examination is extended to applicants from all countries and is not limited only to applications originating from Japan and South Korea (which has its own PPH with Vietnam) or applications with equivalent applications filed in ASEAN countries under the ASPEC program.

Although on the positive side, the expedited process will give applicants more options, on the other hand, because of the overlap in the results that can serve as basis for examination, this new program will “steal” applications from the PPH program. Thus, once the new program goes into effect, Japanese applicants will no longer have a significant advantage over applicants from other countries that can use foreign results. However, according to the statistics cited above, the average examination period of the PPH program may still be shorter, and the PPH program has been operating in a stable manner; hence, in the early period once the new program is in place, the Japan PPH may still be more attractive.

As Vietnam currently does not have a mechanism for extending the protection term of a patent, the early granting of a protection title is still an advantage. The PPH remains an effective channel for Japanese applicants in expediting the examination and granting of patents in Vietnam.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More