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​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More