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

October 8, 2019

Court Issues Trailblazing Verdict in Vietnam Patent Case

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Intellectual property litigation attorneys, especially those in the patent field, are always looking for verdicts that can be viewed as landmarks in the interpretation and practical application of Vietnam’s laws and regulations. One such verdict was issued by the People’s Court of Binh Duong Province on July 17, 2019, in a patent infringement case between a European pharmaceutical company and one of Vietnam’s largest manufacturers of generic drugs. The court’s judgment provided a number of tantalizing “firsts” in terms of legal milestones, addressing a number of questions about provisions found in legal documents that had previously never been enforced in practice.

Validity of foreign expert opinions

The first question answered was whether expert opinions from abroad would be accepted in proceedings in Vietnam. Specifically, because the allegedly infringed patent in this case protected a chemical substance that could only be identified by x-ray diffraction, a sample of the suspect product was sent abroad for analysis, as there were no machines qualified to carry out such work in Vietnam. The analysis results were then compiled in a report which was submitted to Vietnam’s patent assessment agency, which relied on the results to issue its own expert opinion, under which the assessed product was deemed to be identical to the patented substance, and thus infringing.

The defendant asked the court to reject the opinions of foreign experts. However, in the course of preparing for the trial, the court consulted the assessment agency, and the agency responded that, within the scope of its jurisdiction, it could refer to any documents that it considered appropriate, including this expert opinion from abroad.

Of all the patent cases resolved in Vietnam so far, it seems this is the first time the legal validity of a foreign expert opinion has been raised. This verdict, with the assessment agency’s confirmation of the legal validity of foreign expert opinions, may create a precedent for other agencies to consider in similar cases.

Does statutory compensation require evidence?

Vietnam’s IP laws provide principles for determining compensation for damages in both general provisions and specific provisions—which are sometimes completely at odds with each other. For example, the general provisions on statutory compensation in tort under the current civil law state that the damages to be compensated must be, or are limited to, only actual damages, and they must be fully and promptly compensated (Article 585.1 of the 2015 Civil Code). However, the “statutory” compensation prescribed in Article 205.1(c) of the Law on Intellectual Property permits the court to set an arbitrary compensation level of not more than VND 500 million if damages cannot be quantified based on usual grounds, such as monetary damages incurred by the plaintiff, or the price of the assignment of IP rights if the defendant is an assignee.

In patent cases, where most of the plaintiffs are foreign entities and the defendants are Vietnamese companies, due to many obstacles such as a lack of accounting books or damages that cannot be specifically quantified, the plaintiffs often request the court to apply the provisions on statutory compensation levels in their judgments. However, these provisions are often interpreted and applied completely differently in practice. Even in the courts of large localities like Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City, judges tend to consider the provisions on “statutory” compensation to be the general provisions; that is, the plaintiffs are still required to prove a specific amount of damages to be accepted or rejected. Such a view clearly contains internal contradictions when the law provides specific provisions on statutory compensation for unprovable and unquantifiable damages. Therefore, the July 17 verdict is significant in that the court, after determining that patent infringement was committed, approved the application of statutory compensation at the maximum level of VND 500 million.

Relationships between general law and specialized law

Another interesting point in the July 17 verdict is that the court completely rejected the defendant’s argument to suspend the case until the patent office resolved a patent cancellation request that the defendant had filed right before the trial opened, in a last-gasp attempt. (The resolution of such a case can take years.)

At the trial, the defendant requested the court to suspend the case on the grounds of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code. However, in an unexpected action, the court compared the Civil Procedure Code to the Law on Intellectual Property to determine which law should prevail in considering whether to suspend the case. After that, both the court and the procuracy agreed that the Law on Intellectual Property should prevail, because it is a specialized law in relation to the general law of the Civil Procedure Code.

The court then concluded that there were no provisions in the Law on Intellectual Property requiring the court to suspend the case. Therefore, the court decided to move forward with the trial and issued a verdict. This method of relying on the relation between the general law and the specialized law is truly a very new point in Vietnam.

The court’s verdict in this case shows that even though IP enforcement in Vietnam has many limitations in the big picture, there are still cases that can leave positive marks.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More