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​ 

July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More