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​ 

August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More