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

January 4, 2022

Changes Expected to Computer Program Patent Examination Guidelines in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

The era of Industry 4.0 has led to a dramatic increase in corresponding computer program invention patent filings in Vietnam. However, the current patent examination guidelines for inventions related to computer programs are quite brief and vague, which inevitably causes difficulties for patent examination. Therefore, in 2021, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) considered the necessity of amending the patent examination guidelines for inventions related to computer programs.

Currently, a computer program is excluded from patentability under Article 59.2 of the Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). However, according to Article 5.8.2.5 of the patent examination guidelines issued on March 31, 2010, as amended on December 31, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 2010 Guidelines), an invention related to a computer program is eligible to mature into a granted patent if the claimed subject matter has technical features and/or produces a further technical effect going beyond the normal interactions between the software and the hardware.

From June 24 to December 31, 2021, the IP Office established a working group including members from the patent examination center, the legal and policy department, and experts from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) to detail the provisions under Article 5.8.2.5 in order to tackle the problem of “In what circumstances are applications related to computer programs patentable?” In December 2021, the preliminary guidelines for this problem were drafted in the form of an annex to the 2010 Guidelines. The group also consulted many local IP agents, state agencies, organizations, and individuals to improve the draft. On December 18, 2021, the IP Office organized an online meeting with IP agents and organizations to discuss the draft.

Basically, the draft does not make any significant changes in comparison with Article 5.8.2.5 of the 2010 Guidelines, but it adds more details. The draft visualizes the process of computer program patent applications as follows:

Formality Examination Stage:

Step 1. Does the subject matter contain technical features (hardware, data processing representing physical entities)? If not, it will be rejected (Article 59.2 of the IP Law).

Step 2. Is the subject matter named with a term like “computer program”, “computer program product”, or “signal-carrying program”? If so, it will be rejected (Article 5.8.2.5 of the 2010 Guidelines).

Substantive Examination Stage:

Step 3. Does the subject matter contain technical features producing a further technical effect? If not, it will be rejected (Article 5.8.2.5 of the 2010 Guidelines).

Similar to Article 5.8.2.5 of the 2010 Guidelines, any claims presented as “computer program”, “computer software”, “computer program/software product”, or “signal-carrying program” should be eliminated by the examiners. However, the draft also prescribes that, in the formality examination stage, there are three types of claims that could be accepted: a method performed by a computer for a purpose; a processing apparatus adapted to perform the method; or a computer-readable storage medium containing a computer program to perform the method.

In current practice, the troubles often arise during examination of inventions combining a computer program with a business method or a calculation method, making it necessary to consider comprehensively if the invention has any technical features, or if it produces a further technical effect going beyond the normal physical interactions between the software and the hardware. In the December 2021 draft of the annex, the IP Office’s approach in the formality examination stage has been sufficiently clarified, but the approach in the substantive examination stage still needs more explanation, especially more interpretation of examples of “further technical effect.” If the approach in the substantive examination stage is solved, the examination process will be accelerated.

It is expected that the amended guidelines will be released in the near future.

Related Professionals

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
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
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