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​ 

November 23, 2022
The delisting of cannabis as a controlled narcotic in Thailand on June 9, 2022, was a breakthrough moment for the industry.  Not only are farmers and others in the industry elated that such a step was taken, it has triggered the establishment of an abundance of cannabis dispensaries in Bangkok and other popular domestic and international tourist destinations in Thailand, including Chiang Mai, Pattaya, Phuket, and many islands. Vulnerable populations, such as children, accessing cannabis has also become a hot-button issue. Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) was initially criticized by some for its policy of allowing cannabis to be sold with few restrictions. On June 17, 2022, the MOPH followed up with the Announcement Re: Controlled Herbs (Cannabis) under the Thai Traditional Medical Knowledge Act, which seemed to implement a viable mechanism to regulate cannabis dispensaries. This announcement contained prohibitions on selling cannabis to vulnerable populations (minors, expectant women, and breastfeeding mothers) and on smoking cannabis in public. Furthermore, the draft Cannabis and Hemp Act includes provisions related to sales and distribution channels and advertisements for particular dispensaries. However, the draft act has been delayed due to disagreements among some political parties during the reading of the legislation, and is unlikely to be implemented in 2022 as had been widely expected.  The tug-of-war among the political parties has caused concerns about whether the country’s recent liberalized cannabis policy will be revisited and cannabis relisted as a narcotic. With this uncertainty over when the draft Cannabis and Hemp Act will be implemented, the MOPH has focused on identifying gaps in current regulation that might allow the misuse of cannabis. The minister of the MOPH has announced that the MOPH announcement of June 17, 2022, will be repealed and replaced by the November 11, 2022, Announcement Re: Controlled Herbs (Cannabis).
November 14, 2022
Following the delisting of cannabis grown in Thailand as a narcotic substance on June 9, 2022, many have explored the applications of cannabis in various fields, including medicine, healthcare, food products, cosmetics, and animal feed. For example, a poultry farm in northern Thailand conducted an experiment jointly with Chiang Mai University, mixing crushed cannabis into poultry feed and water. The experiment showed several benefits of this cannabis feed. Birds that were fed cannabis had lower mortality rates and achieved superior body mass, with increased levels of protein, fat, and moisture in the meat, leading to this method of organic bird farming yielding higher profits. Despite the results of this experiment, the mechanisms and action of cannabis in animal feed are still not yet fully understood, and there are concerns about the possible effects on human health of consuming cannabis-fed poultry. Until recently, cannabis regulations focused solely on the safety of use by humans, and there were no regulations on the use of cannabis in animals. However, on October 11, 2022, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) published Notification Re: Guidelines on the Use of Hemp and Marijuana as Especially Controlled Animal Feed or Their Use as Ingredients in Especially Controlled Animal Feed in the Government Gazette. In general, the DLD notification requires that animal feed containing cannabis be shown to benefit the animals without causing concern for their safety. According to the Animal Feed Quality Control Act B.E. 2558 (2015), especially controlled animal feed must be registered before it can be manufactured domestically or imported into Thailand. The DLD notification lays down the following evaluation criteria for registration of animal feed containing cannabis: It is prohibited to use cannabis (both hemp and marijuana) apexes (i.e., leaf tips), inflorescence, or seeds—including extracts from apexes, inflorescence, or seeds—as especially controlled animal
October 14, 2022
Interest in organic farming, soil health, and regenerative agriculture has increased rapidly in recent years, and the demand for biological and organic fertilizers has accordingly undergone dramatic growth. Biological fertilizers contain specific levels of microorganisms (such as nitrogen-fixing bacteria); organic fertilizers similarly contain microorganisms and typically come from animals and plants, such as livestock manure and crop residues. Although responsible fertilizer use is still necessary to prevent unintended effects, these “living fertilizers” can boost yields and promote plant productivity without many of the adverse environmental effects and safety concerns of chemical fertilizers. This makes them highly sought after for organic farming, and prized by agricultural operators looking to promote soil health as a bedrock of sustainable agricultural practices. As the global trade for organic and biological fertilizers has scaled up, producers and agribusiness companies have expanded organic and biological fertilizer offerings to new markets. Not only do different countries have their own regulations for fertilizers in general, but they also often have specific requirements and rules for biological and organic fertilizers. This guide provides fertilizer producers and traders with an overview of the legal landscape for these fertilizers in three major Southeast Asian markets so that businesses can make their fertilizers available and foster sustainable agricultural practices in the region. The full Biological and Organic Fertilizers in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam guide can be downloaded through the button below.
August 25, 2022
On July 27, 2022, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Newsletter No. 8/2022 to effectively ban foreign companies and foreign joint ventures from exporting value-added beans, corn, and sesame. This newsletter repealed Newsletter No. 2/2020, which had prescribed the criteria for beans, corn, and sesame to be considered “value-added” crops. These criteria had to be fulfilled in order for these commodities to be exported in accordance with Notification No. 24/2019, which had permitted foreign companies and foreign joint ventures to purchase seven categories of commodities from local manufacturers for export, subject to certain terms and conditions. These include: Meat and fish; Value-added crops; Pulp and paper; Seeds; Refined metals; Semi-finished or finished valued-added fruit products; and Timber-based furniture. With the repeal of the conditions in Newsletter No. 2/2020, foreign exporters are left with no reference criteria for how to achieve “value-added” status for beans, corn, and sesame, and thus will not be able to submit a complete application for the necessary export license. However, exportation of the other items in the list above remains unaffected and open to foreign exporters who meet the applicable requirements. The MOC explained their decision to revoke the permitted criteria by noting that some foreign companies were not actually producing beans, corn, and sesame that fulfilled the criteria for value-added status as laid out in Newsletter No. 2/2020, but were falsely exporting their goods as “value-added crops.” The revocation of the export criteria for beans, corn, and sesame took immediate effect. For more details on these export restrictions, or on any aspect of importation and exportation regulations in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].