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​ 

November 27, 2023
The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed the landscape for innovators and creators. As many legal practitioners have pointed out, it’s imperative for both developers of AI and artists using generative AI to understand the intricacies of intellectual property (IP) strategies so they can navigate this evolving terrain successfully. This article lays out some essential considerations relating to the major types of IP for both developers and creators in the realm of generative AI. IP Strategies for Developers of Generative AI Developers of generative AI technologies play a pivotal role in the innovation landscape. There are three overarching IP-related issues to consider: protecting their own intellectual property, mitigating the risk of violating other people’s IP rights, and IP commercialization. Key aspects of these concerns, along with suggested approaches for developers, are outlined below. Protecting IP Copyrights. One of the primary considerations for AI developers is the protection of AI-generated works, such as art and source code. The good news is that in most countries, these creations enjoy copyright protection without the need for registration. As a result, the works are automatically protected from the moment of creation. However, it’s crucial to maintain comprehensive records of your work to establish your ownership. Trademarks. Trademarks are vital for AI developers looking to establish and protect their brand. Pay close attention to Nice classifications, particularly class 9 (for software), class 35 (for business management and online marketing), and class 42 (for software design and development). Registering trademarks in these classes can provide robust protection for your brand and products. Patents. For truly innovative AI algorithms, techniques, or processes, consider the option of patenting. Patents offer strong protection, but they require a thorough application process and the documentation of your innovation, including evidence that the invention is novel, non-obvious, and practically
Read More
November 21, 2023
In this article originally published by World Trademark Review, Tilleke & Gibbins senior associate David Mol shares advice on how to collaborate effectively with customs officials at Cambodian border points and ports, offering a guide on how to successfully monitor for—and enforce against—counterfeit and grey market goods.   Can rights holders record trademark and brand-related IP information with Customs and, if so, how?   At present, there is no formal customs IP recordal system in place in Cambodia. However, rights holders may consider: a request letter to Customs; or recordal of an exclusive distributorship. Request letter to Customs A request letter to Customs would be an effective measure in cases where a rights holder is aware of a specific customs checkpoint that is being used to smuggle infringing goods. The rights holder may request to set up a meeting with Customs at the checkpoint to provide officials with: guidance on the issue; the IP rights involved; and information on product identification. The rights holder may further request the official’s assistance in monitoring shipments for certain goods. Customs has been open and cooperative in the past, setting up direct communication lines between rights holders and border officials. Officials then: monitor shipments; exchange sighting reports; and set up inspections where applicable. However, this option is not directly regulated under any laws or regulations, and can only be considered as an ad hoc approach in cases where the rights holder is aware of issues at a specific checkpoint. We usually do not recommend using this approach to alert all checkpoints in Cambodia, as it is rather time-intensive, requiring close cooperation and active liaison with officials. Instead, targeting specific checkpoints has proven to work in our experience. A request letter to Customs may apply to all types of intellectual property. However, a recently issued regulation that addresses suspensions
Read More
October 30, 2023
A Resounding Victory The last days of October brought some excitement for one of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, Novartis, when its patent litigation case in Vietnam against a local generic manufacturer, which had stretched over more than eight years, finally came to an end. The background of this case is quite simple. Novartis was the owner of a patent protecting the active ingredient vildagliptin, which was commercialized through its Galvus® product, a medicine used to treat type 2 diabetes. In 2015, the company found that a drug manufacturer in Vietnam’s Binh Duong province on the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City was producing a medicinal product containing the vildagliptin active ingredient—an infringement of its patent. Novartis first submitted a request to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to apply administrative sanctions on this infringer. Subsequently, the MOST Inspectorate concluded in July 2015 that the defendant had committed patent infringement and ordered them to stop producing the infringing drugs and recall them from the market. However, the defendant did not comply with the conclusion, and sought an appeal while it continued to produce the infringing medicine. Realizing that administrative sanctions were not strict enough to deter the defendant, Novartis continued to protect its legitimate rights and interests by initiating a lawsuit at the provincial court where the defendant was headquartered, Binh Duong. Novartis claimed that the defendant had infringed the patent and requesting the defendant to compensate for damages at the highest level allowed by law, pay attorney fees, and publicly apologize to Novartis in specialized newspapers. This began a long journey full of challenges that finally ended with the second appellate judgment declared by the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City on October 17, 2023. The court accepted all claims raised by the
Read More
October 30, 2023
In its ongoing efforts to enhance Indonesia’s intellectual property e-filing system, the country’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has consistently introduced improvements to the online system. In recent months, the DGIP has implemented several noteworthy changes that differ from previous versions of the system. These changes bear significant importance for applicants who intend to file IP applications, and include the changes highlighted below for designs, patents, and trademarks. Designs File format and view limitation. Under current rules, all design drawings must be submitted in JPG format, and only one view is permitted per page. No refund requests. Once the application payment has been made, refund requests are no longer an option. Figure limitation. Only one figure is allowed for each design view, with an exception made for reference and perspective views. Patents Title consistency. If an invention is already registered outside Indonesia through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the title in the Indonesian registration application must match the title registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Bibliographic data matching. In national phase applications, it is essential for all bibliographic data to mirror the information from the PCT international phase as listed on WIPO’s website. This conformity is crucial for a seamless application process. Excess claim fees. A new requirement stipulates that excess claim fees must be paid at the time of filing the patent application. Trademarks Goods and services selection. The DGIP requires applicants to choose their desired goods and services from a predefined list, and the provided list is not editable. The DGIP periodically updates this list, but there is no fixed schedule for these updates. Moreover, these updates can sometimes entail removal of items from the list, and requesting the addition of goods or services is often challenging, especially if a similar alternative already exists
Read More