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​ 

October 10, 2023
As part of its continual work to improve Indonesia’s intellectual property (IP) e-filing system, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) makes regular updates and upgrades to the system. In recent months, the DGIP has implemented several important changes from previously used versions that applicants should be aware of when filing IP applications. Below is a summary of some key changes and updated requirements for applications using the IP e-filing system, grouped by IP type. Designs Drawings must be in JPG format only, and only one view is allowed per page. Once payment for the application has been made, no refund request is available. Only one figure is allowed for each design view, except for reference and perspective views. Patents For inventions already registered outside Indonesia through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the title of the invention in the application for registration in Indonesia must match the title of the invention as registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). All bibliographic data in the national phase application must match the information from the PCT international phase as listed on WIPO’s website. Excess claim fees must be paid at the time of filing the patent application. Trademarks Applicants must choose their desired goods and services from the list, and the wording used in the provided list is not editable. The DGIP frequently updates the list of goods and services, but there is no regular schedule for the updates to this database. It is very difficult to request the addition of goods or services to the list, especially if a similar alternative exists. Therefore, it is crucial for applicants to decide on the goods or services to indicate in the application as soon as possible before the list is updated, as goods and services are sometimes deleted from the list.
Read More
September 28, 2023
Protecting the aesthetic features of consumer items, such as household appliances, is essential for businesses looking to gain a competitive edge, particularly in the dynamic markets of Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand. Industrial design registrations (or design patents in Thailand) provide an effective means to protect the unique and ornamental designs of products, ensuring that their distinctive appearance is not imitated by competitors. This article provides a general overview of design systems in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand, as well as some key considerations for businesses and rights holders. All three of these countries use an examination system for assessing applications to protect designs. While all three jurisdictions are members of the Paris Convention, only Vietnam has fully completed the process of becoming a member of the Hague Agreement. The table below offers a general comparison of the three countries’ design systems, with additional details provided in the subsequent sections. Vietnam Owners of a household appliance design may seek design rights in Vietnam by filing a national design application at the Vietnam IP Office or by filing an international design application designating Vietnam either directly with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or indirectly through the office of the applicant’s contracting party under the Hague Agreement. Vietnam’s 2022 IP Law redefines “industrial design” as the external appearance of a product or part thereof to be assembled into a complex product, represented by shapes, lines, colors, or a combination thereof, and visible in the process of exploiting the utility of the product or complex product. The two options for obtaining design rights in Vietnam are detailed below. Vietnam National Design Application As Vietnam is a signatory to the Paris Convention, applicants are entitled to a six-month convention priority period from the filing date of the corresponding application in another jurisdiction. Under Vietnam’s
Read More
September 22, 2023
The most familiar and well-protected IP rights are copyrights, patents, and trademarks. However, geographical indications (GIs) are also protected by TRIPS, and are perhaps the most contested rights worldwide. Like a trademark, a GI identifies the origin of goods, but refers to a particular region which yields product qualities that cannot be replicated elsewhere. In practice, most GIs relate to agricultural products, and many originate from Europe, such as the terms Champagne, Mozzarella, and Parmesan. Due to the fundamental relationship between place and product, there have been major arguments that producers outside a specified region are not permitted to use the place name on product labels, no matter how similar their product is to the GI-protected product. A few years ago, a series of European GIs for cheese products were opposed in Vietnam by U.S. producers who considered the terms common names that should not be monopolized under the GI protection scheme. In addition, the overlapping rights between trademarks and GIs and their historically tempestuous relationship add more trauma to lawmakers and IP practitioners. Amid this controversy, Vietnam has joined many international agreements with regard to IP and GI rights, including the TRIPS Agreement, the CPTPP, and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA). Although Vietnam’s IP Law has been amended to reflect these agreements, Vietnamese lawmakers still bear a heavy responsibility in drafting and issuing legislation to further guide the implementation of the amended law, to not only correctly reflect Vietnam’s international commitments, but also to balance the rights of many sides with conflicting interests regarding GIs and trademarks. This legislation includes an upcoming circular regarding industrial property rights (the “draft Circular”). Information Transparency The CPTPP requires GI applications or petitions to be published for opposition, and provides procedures for opposing such GIs. In addition, it requires Vietnam to
Read More
September 4, 2023
With Vietnam’s entertainment industry booming, the demand for music to be used in films and video games has sharply increased. Sometimes a song featured in a movie’s soundtrack can become as popular as the movie itself. In order to use a song in a film, the producer of the film will typically need to enter into an agreement with the owner of a copyrighted work to have permission to use that work – with an agreed amount of royalty. Otherwise, their use could be considered a copyright infringement. However, what happens if the producer enters into an agreement with a song’s purported copyright owner, only to later find that such person does not really own the song entirely? A recent high-profile case in Vietnam brought this issue to light. The Dispute and Court Rulings The film “Face Off 4 – The Walking Guests,” financed and produced by Ly Hai Promotion Co., Ltd (“Ly Hai”) premiered in April 2019, and soon became a big success. In this film, Ly Hai used a song called “Ganh Me” on the basis of a March 2019 contract to use the song signed with the musician Quach Beem, who was recognized as the song owner in a copyright certificate issued on 24 April 2019 by the Copyright Office of Vietnam (COV). The dispute arose in November 2019 when an individual named Truong Minh Nhat discovered that the lyrics of “Ganh Me” were almost identical to a poem he had written and posted on his Facebook page in June 2014, well before the COV had issued the copyright certificate to Quach Beem. Mr. Nhat initiated a lawsuit against two defendants, Quach Beem and Ly Hai, for copyright infringement. In his petition, Mr. Nhat requested the court to, among other things, recognize him as the author
Read More