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, 2024
Experts from Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property team have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam to Thomson Reuters Practical Law, a high-level comparative overview of  laws and regulations across multiple jurisdictions. Intellectual Property Transactions focuses on business-related aspects of intellectual property, such as the value of intellectual assets in M&A transactions, and the licensing of IP portfolios. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trademarks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names. IP licensing: Scope and formalities for licensing patents, utility models, trademarks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations. IP audits. IP aspects of M&A: Due diligence, warranties/indemnities, and transfer of IPRs. Employee and consultant agreements. 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, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. 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
July 24, 2024
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Thailand have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Thailand overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand overview was authored by Darani Vachanavuttivong, managing partner of Tilleke & Gibbins and managing director of the firm’s regional IP practice; Titikaan Ungbhakorn, senior associate and patent agent; and San Chaithiraphant, senior associate. The chapter delivers a high-level examination of critical aspects of IP law, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), securing loans with intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee-related IP issues, 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, trademarks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names. IP licensing: Scope and formalities for licensing patents, utility models, trademarks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Management of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP. IP aspects of M&A: Due diligence and critical considerations during mergers and acquisitions. 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, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Thailand overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More
July 22, 2024
Appeals of unfavorable decisions on protection in the IP field are very common in Vietnam. In 2023, there were 845 appeals filed at the IP Office, including 780 trademark appeals. In most cases, however, applicants view the appeal procedure as almost a last resort, as the lengthy examination process can lead to serious delays in appeal settlement. In fact, it can take four to seven years, or even longer, for an appeal to be resolved, and a disappointingly low number of cases are settled each year, despite the towering number of appeals pending. Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Inspection and Appeal Department On 1 July 2024, the IP Office issued Decision No. 575/QD-SHTT promulgating the Regulations on Organization and Operation of the Inspection and Appeal Department – formerly the Enforcement and Appeal Department – whose functions include, among others, advising and assisting the Director General of the IP Office in resolving appeals related to the process of establishing IP rights. The Inspection and Appeal Department has the duty to handle appeals and denunciations related to the process of establishing IP rights, as well as requests for termination and cancellation of the validity of registrations. In addition, it can provide expert opinions, and appoint knowledgeable personnel to participate in the IP Office’s Advisory Council to settle appeals. While the renamed department’s responsibilities do not differ greatly, on paper, from those of the previous Enforcement and Appeal Department, the issuance of new regulations indicates the IP Office’s renewed focus on the importance of improving the appeal procedure. Scope of IP appeals expanded In addition, in November 2023, the Ministry of Science and Technology issued Circular No. 23/2023/TT-BKHCN (“Circular 23”) providing further guidance for implementation of the amended 2022 IP Law and its subordinate legislation. Article 35 of Circular 23 has
Read More
July 5, 2024
The landscape of intellectual property (IP) has transformed alongside advancements in technology, transitioning from traditional methods to modern online approaches. A growing number of IP infringers are moving their illegal activities to the online sphere, particularly through the sale of counterfeit goods on their websites, social media, or e-commerce platforms. In response to these shifting pressures, Thailand implemented the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2550 (CCA) on July 18, 2007, and amended it in 2017, aiming to enhance the effectiveness of combating online infringement by empowering government officials to request that the court block computer data (called “website-blocking”) that infringes upon other parties’ intellectual property rights, as per section 20(3) of the CCA. From 2018 to May 2024, Thailand’s Criminal Court and Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court have issued 53 orders to block more than 1,779 infringing URLs. One significant recent development is the Criminal Court’s establishment of the Technology Crime Division, which has been operating since April 1, 2024. Its purpose is to address criminal offenses that occur through electronic means, which should then be handled in an effective and prompt manner by judges who have expertise on technological crimes. In addition, several current measures to combat technology crime, including section 20(3) of the CCA, require court orders for the prevention of electronic criminal offenses or online infringement. The Technology Crime Division has the jurisdiction to consider and grant these orders, which will help expedite the approval process and ensure review by specialized judges. Scope of the Technology Crime Division The announcement of the establishment of the Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court was published in the Government Gazette on March 18, 2024, with operations commencing on April 1, 2024. The Technology Crime Division is empowered to: Consider and adjudicate technology crime cases, except cases falling
Read More