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 3, 2016

Data Exclusivity for Biologics in Vietnam: Present and Future Regulations

Biologics are composed of complex, large molecules, as opposed to the small molecules that make up conventional chemically derived drugs. Because of the complex nature of biologics, clinical trials and data collections are expensive to produce and require a heightened level of data exclusivity protection beyond those of a patent to incentivize biologic producers to continue research on new biologics.

Vietnam has a period of data exclusivity for all drugs including biologics; however, this period does not consist of complete data exclusivity, rather only the protection of physical data from the assessment of other generic companies. In practice, such data protection periods do not help to prevent the granting of Marketing Authorization for generics, including biosimilars.

Under current legislation in Vietnam, biologics are broadly defined as medicinal products of biological origin used for the purposes of prophylaxis, therapy, and the diagnosis of human diseases. Consequently, both biologics and biosimilars are considered to be biologics and have the same data exclusivity management by competent authorities. Accordingly, both biologics and biosimilars must have clinical data to apply for a Marketing Authorization; therefore, biosimilar companies do not need to use the clinical data of biologics companies for regulatory submissions. Because of this, the “data exclusivity” period in Vietnam is not practical in practice.

The National Assembly of Vietnam passed the new Law on Pharmacy, which provides different definitions and management measurements for biologics and biosimilars. Consequently, biosimilars manufacturers may not be required to provide clinical data because they can rely on the clinical data of innovative biologics producers to prove the safety and efficacy of the drugs. Overall, Vietnam’s increased level of involvement in trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the European Union-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), and the new Law on Pharmacy will require slight (but important) changes  in Vietnam’s current data exclusivity protections of biologics.

Current Protections

Currently, Vietnam does not have any specific regulations enacted that protect data exclusivity for biologics; however, biologics are subjected to the same data protection as small molecule drugs. There are two different Vietnamese regulations that address data exclusivity for drugs:

  1. Article 128 of the Law on Intellectual Property (Art. 128 of the IP Law) requires that when applicants for a license for trading in or circulating pharmaceuticals is required to supply test results or other data that the applicant requests to be kept secret, the licensing body must not grant licenses to subsequent applicants who use the secret data without the prior applicant’s consent.
  2. Circular No. 05/2010/TT-BYT (Circular 05) allows for a five-year period of data exclusivity from the granting of marketing authorization for drugs that are new chemical entities (NCE). Parties who file their registration dossier by referring to the data of a previous party that is protected under Circular 05, will be denied marketing authorization by the DAV if they file the data without the permission of the previous party and without proof that the NCE was created independently of the previous party’s data.

There is some debate in Vietnam as to whether Art. 128 of the IP Law and Circular 05 are in conflict. Circular 05 only prevents the DAV from granting marketing authorization to parties who refer to the data in the dossier of a previous party. To get around this regulation, subsequent parties can simply not refer to the previous party’s dossier and have marketing authorization granted.

Under Circular 44/2015/TT-BYT, all biologics, including biosimilars, are required to have their trial data submitted in registration dossiers for marketing authorization. In practice, however, the data protection regulations are of little help in protecting biologic reference products for the following two reasons:

  1. By their nature, biosimilars are not identical copies of their originators. In addition to a thorough analytical assessment, head-to-head clinical studies against the originator are needed to establish comparability to the originator; therefore, biosimilars are often required to have their own trial data for regulatory submissions. Consequently, there is no need to use the protected data of the originator.

  2. Vietnam has no definition of biosimilars or specific regulations about requirements for trial data for biosimilars; therefore, some biosimilars with very limited trial data may be approved for marketing authorization.

Expected Challenges in Protection: TPP

Article 18.50 of the TPP protects undisclosed tests and other data submitted as a condition for granting marketing approval for a new pharmaceutical product. This is accomplished by not allowing third parties to submit the information in the undisclosed tests and other data, without the consent of the party that submitted the data, in order to market the same or similar product.  In the TPP there is a specific provision that applies the protection afforded by Article 18.50 to biologics. In particular, Article 18.51 of the TPP provides effective market protection for new biologics through either:

  1. Data protection as indicated in Article 18.50 for at least eight years from the date of first marketing authorization; or, alternatively
  2. Data protection as indicated in Article 18.50 for at least five years from the date of first marketing authorization, combined with other measures. 


The main difference between the TPP and Vietnam’s current regulations is that for biologic drugs, the TPP provides an extended term of data protection, eight years as opposed to five years, or alternatively, five years combined with other additional measures. It is anticipated that the corresponding provisions of the IP Law and the Pharmacy Law of Vietnam will likely be amended to provide measures to prevent generic drug producers from applying for marketing authorization, instead of only maintaining confidentiality of the clinical data of innovators. The five-year duration of data protection is likely to be preserved. Actually, the DAV had plan to build a legislation to provide measures to prevent generic drug producers from applying for marketing authorization.

Expected Challenges in Protection: EVFTA

In Article 9 of the EVFTA, the agreement requires the parties to issue the legal framework for protecting “undisclosed test[s] and other data” against unfair commercial use. The agreement also requires that the period for protection shall not be less than five years from the date on which the Party grants approval to the patent owner that produced the data. In Vietnam, only undisclosed tests and trade secrets are currently protected, while the EVFTA requires that the parties open their scope of protection to include not only undisclosed tests, but also “other data.”

In response to Article 9 of the EVFTA, the DAV should consider amending domestic regulations to protect all data that applicants of new drugs submit to the DAV while requesting marketing authorization, not just the submitted trial data.

Conclusion

Overall, biologics manufacturers, both internationally and domestically, can expect to see no increase in the amount of time the DAV will grant data exclusivity for biologics. In comparison to data exclusivity protections in countries like the U.S., where the period of exclusivity is granted for twelve years, biologic manufacturers are at a bit of a disadvantage in Vietnam due to the lessened time of protection; however, biosimilar producers will be able to release their products in much shorter periods of time, thus allowing for biologics to be available at lower prices.

If Vietnam does decide to not grant biosimilar manufacturers marketing authorization within the period of data exclusivity, biologic manufacturers will stand to benefit by being the sole producer of the biologic during that period. Biologic manufacturers will also benefit from the potential increase in the type of data protected under the EVFTA, as protections may extend from just trial data to all types of data submitted.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 29, 2023
Since the June 9, 2022, delisting of all parts of the cannabis plant according to the Narcotics Code, there has been an explosion of cannabis dispensaries operating in Thailand. The Department of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine (DTTAM) has issued more than 12,000 cannabis dispensary licenses to businesses in Thailand. A license allows a dispensary to sell cannabis flowers legally. In addition, the DTTAM requests the cooperation of dispensaries in submitting monthly reports about the sourcing, selling, and inventory of cannabis flowers. The DTTAM may suspend the selling license of dispensaries that fail to submit these reports. Apart from the enforcement duties and administrative acts of the DTTAM, the enactment of the laws and regulations pertaining to cannabis seemed to be drastically winding down. One of the reasons was that Thailand had delays in the process of forming a new government following the general election of May 14, 2023. These delays dampened Thailand’s thriving cannabis industry. In particular, the industry has concerns about the uncertainty of the nascent cannabis law. On August 11, 2023, the Narcotics Control Division of the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) posted the Draft Regulation Re: Application for Approval and Approval for Manufacture, Importation, Exportation, Distribution or Possession of Narcotics under Category 5 (Extracts from Cannabis or Hemp Plants Only). This may be the first regulation that the newly formed government implements with regard to cannabis extracts. Unlike the DTTAM’s enforcement activities, the Thai FDA requests that a domestic manufacturer, importer, exporter, or seller of cannabis extracts apply for a license. The Thai FDA, as the authority, will consider granting a license only in the following cases: For medical benefits; For commercial or industrial benefits; For the benefit of medical or scientific analysis or research; and For use by the government for preventing and
July 11, 2023
Enacted in 2009, Indonesia’s current Law on Health (Law No. 36/2009) is due for a refresh. The government realized that the law has not maintained its relevance when it comes to health trends such as digital health, which refers to the provision of health services online (also commonly known as telemedicine). While regulations and policy blueprints, such as Ministry of Health (MOH) Regulation No. 46/2017 concerning National E-Health Strategies, have addressed these shifting trends, Indonesia’s main health legislation has proved inadequate in this regard. For this reason, the government began making plans for an update to the law, and the first draft Omnibus Health Law was published in March 2023. The law addresses digital health and other important issues in today’s health landscape, and it seeks to promote the use of locally made health supplies. The draft Omnibus Health Law represents a notable step forward, but in its attempt to govern and regulate all aspects of health, there are also some issues in the draft that may overlap with some existing government regulations, such as provisions on Halal certification, compulsory licensing of patents, and addictive substances. This article outlines some of the draft law’s key aspects as well as some potential issues. Digital Health In addressing the growing health trend of telemedicine, the draft law confirms, reinforces, and fills gaps left by Indonesia’s three main regulations concerning telemedicine. namely, MOHR No. 20/2019 concerning Telemedicine, MOHR No. 24/2022 concerning Medical Records, and Medical Council Regulation No. 74/2020 concerning Telemedicine (MCR No. 74/2020). One of these regulations, MOH Regulation No. 20/2019, allows health service facilities to provide telemedicine services to other health service facilities. This covers telemedicine services related to radiology, electrocardiography, ultrasonography, and telemedicine consultancy services—including those that reflect developments in science and technology. This is the only regulation concerning
July 10, 2023
One of the more positive outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic is that telemedicine has become remarkably important as an interactive system between patients and healthcare professionals. Thailand, which ranks near the top as a world medical hub, is a highly favored destination in Asia for expat workers. Currently, the Thai market has both Thai-based and foreign-based platforms with information about healthcare providers and telemedicine readily available. “Doctor Locator,” “Weed Map,” and “Find a Teeth Aligner Dentist” are examples of online platforms connecting patients with medical and telemedicine services. These digital platforms provide information about the location of specialized clinics, cannabis dispensaries, pharmacy stores, and orthodontic practitioners in Thailand. These platforms act as intermediaries between medical care businesses and consumers. As actual medical services are not offered or provided, these digital platforms do not have to be regulated under the Medical Facility Act of Thailand. However, healthcare digital platform services that act as an intermediary or conduit managing information used to connect medical clinics or cannabis dispensaries with patients or customers via a computer network are now regulated under the soon-to-be-implemented Royal Decree on Digital Platforms, regardless of whether payment is actually made via the platform. The regulatory authority for this is the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA). Under this royal decree, digital platform providers that intend to operate a digital platform service must notify the ETDA prior to initiating operations. The extent of the details to be included in the notification to the ETDA will be more comprehensive if the digital platform: has annual revenue (before expenses) for digital platform services within Thailand exceeding THB 1.8 million (approx. USD 51,200) for an individual operator or THB 50 million (approx. USD 1.42 million) for a corporate or entity operator; or has more than 5,000 users (on average) per month. Apart
July 10, 2023
On June 30, 2023, the Ministry of Health of Vietnam issued Circular No. 14/2023/TT-BYT stipulating the process and procedure for building bidding package prices for procurement of goods and services in the field of medical devices at public health facilities (“Circular 14”). Circular 14 took effect on July 1, 2023, and will be valid through the end of 2023. Circular 14 applies to the procurement of medical devices/equipment and their accessories, spare parts, and supplies, as well as related services of repair, maintenance, inspection, and calibration. Under Circular 14, there are three methods of determining the price of bidding packages: Collecting quotations provided by suppliers of goods and services in the field of medical devices. Surveying the winning bid prices of similar goods and services on the national bidding network system (https://muasamcong.gov.vn). Using the results of price appraisal of a competent state agency that conducts price appraisal, or a specialized price appraisal enterprise. Method (i) must be used first; the two remaining methods can be applied only after method (i) has been unsuccessful. If the investor/procuring entity uses two or more methods to determine the price of bidding packages, it can select the highest price that is suitable to its financial capacity and professional requirements. Circular 14 further sets out the specific step-by-step process to build prices for procuring products and services in the field of medical devices/equipment. Transitional Provision For bidding packages that have already approved a contractor selection plan before July 1, 2023, the approved contractor selection plan will be followed. For bidding packages for which a contractor selection plan has been submitted by the investor/procuring entity but the plan has not yet been approved, the competent person can decide on the approval of the submitted plan or can request the investor/procuring entity to rebuild the bidding