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

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Intellectual Property

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 21, 2020
As we continue to await the Thai Food and Drug Administration (TFDA)’s promulgation of its medical cannabis application guidelines, the Thai Ministry of Public Health (TMoPH) has helpfully issued several notifications to further clarify the 2019 amendment to the Narcotics Act that initially paved the way for cannabis liberalization in the kingdom. Cannabis (both marijuana and hemp) has been classified as a Category 5 Narcotic since the enactment of the Narcotics Act in 1979. All activities related to the plants and their derivatives had been strictly restricted until the recent rise of the cannabis legalization movement, which began in Thailand with an amendment to the Narcotics Act in February 2019 to legalize medical marijuana. The Thai government has since been working to reclassify cannabis products and lay out the regulatory pathways to accommodate these new “economic plants.” A notification in August 2019 further carved modern drugs, cosmeceuticals, nutraceuticals, cosmetics, and food containing hemp or a certain amount of CBD out of the scope of Narcotics Act. The most recent TMoPH Notification was published in the Government Gazette on December 14, 2020, and has expanded the delisting of cannabis from the Narcotics Act to include nearly all parts of the cannabis plant, as set out below. Type of Plant Detailed Components Marijuana (plants in the cannabis family) Stalks, stems, fibers, branches, roots, leaves without the tip and inflorescence, extracts comprising CBD with less than 0.2% THC by weight. Hemp Stalks, stems, fibers, branches, roots, seeds, seed oils, seed extracts, leaves without the tip and inflorescence, extracts comprising CBD with less than 0.2% THC by weight, and residues from extraction with less than 0.2% THC by weight. The Narcotics Act and its notifications must be reviewed carefully by anyone seeking to take part in his industry, and items that are conspicuous
Read More
December 7, 2020
It is strongly recommended that entities which are considering entering the Thai cannabis market file applications to protect their marks and patents in Thailand as soon as possible. Cannabis Trademarks Thailand operates under a first-to-file trademark system. The Thai Trademark Office has verbally confirmed that trademark applications which include goods or services relating to medical cannabis are registrable. That being said, recent developments indicate that the Trademark Office will require applicants who file specifically for medical cannabis goods or services to submit proof that the applicant has permission to produce drugs containing cannabis from the Thai Food and Drug Administration. In addition, the Trademark Office is taking a conservative approach when it comes to the words and images that are registrable as trademarks. The Trademark Office has advised that words or images relating to cannabis will be refused based on Section 8(9) of the Thai Trademark Act, which states that a trademark that is contrary to public order, morality, or public policy shall not be registered. Given the above, applicants should carefully consider the trademarks that they would like to protect in Thailand to avoid unnecessary refusals. If the applicant does not yet have such permission from the Thai Food and Drug Administration, it is recommended that the applicant’s mark make no reference to cannabis, either visually or verbally, and that the list of goods and/or services does not specifically refer to cannabis or related terminology. In short, we urge applicants to enter into the Thai market early, with carefully-chosen marks and deliberately-worded descriptions of goods and/or services. Cannabis Patents Cannabis-related products and processes are now eligible for patent protection in Thailand, with some restrictions. A cannabis plant, including its parts and crude extract, are considered mere products of nature and thus not patentable. Another important restriction applies to
Read More
December 7, 2020
Vietnam’s efforts against the outbreak of COVID-19 in the country have been largely successful, and despite two distinct spikes of local transmission, in both cases the spread was halted relatively quickly. As these complications from the COVID-19 pandemic have been playing out in Vietnam throughout 2020, it became clear that effective and strong enforcement of healthcare regulations, especially those related to disease control, was crucial. On September 28, 2020, the government of Vietnam took action on this by issuing Decree No. 117/2020/ND-CP (“Decree 117”), which provides penalties for administrative violations in the healthcare sector. Some provisions of Decree 117—mostly those related to disease control and epidemic situations—took effect immediately, with the remainder taking effect on November 15, 2020. The decree, which was based on a draft proposed by the Ministry of Health, replaced Decree No. 176/2013/ND-CP on the same matter. The main administrative penalties under Decree 117 are reprimands and fines. Depending on the severity of the violation, violators may also be subject to additional penalties such as suspension of a certificate of eligibility for pharmaceutical business (CEPB), a license for healthcare operation, or other licenses and practicing certificates for up to 24 months; confiscation of illegal items; suspension of operations for up to 24 months; or deportation. Furthermore, remedial measures such as forced return of illegal earnings, compulsory quarantine and medical examination, public correction, or compulsory payment of treatment fees may also be applied. Some key highlights of Decree 117 are discussed below. In relation to disease control, the maximum fine for failure to comply with quarantine is doubled to VND 20 million (USD 855) for infected people of type-A contagious diseases, and VND 10 million (USD 427) for those who are not infected but are asked to quarantine. Failure to declare one’s contagious disease to a doctor
Read More
November 30, 2020
Vietnamese cuisine has a growing reputation internationally, and a visit to Vietnam will quickly reveal that food plays a very important role in the country’s identity and culture, as well as its economy. More than 80% of the population makes a living through some form of agriculture, and approximately 35% of household income in Vietnam is spent on food and beverages. As food is the most essential of necessities, and thus the first priority in household spending, this percentage tends to be high in developing countries, declining as incomes rise.
Read More