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​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More