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​ 

March 2, 2021
The cannabis plant has fascinated many civilizations, societies, and individuals through the centuries with its unique properties, and many have learned how to benefit from these, finding a variety of therapeutic and industrial uses of the plant that, in turn, enhanced domestic economies worldwide. In Thailand, cannabis plants and their derivatives have been used since ancient times as treatment for many diseases, and the plant forms a key ingredient in many Thai traditional medicinal remedies. However, over the past few decades, cannabis usage was seen to change in a way that became incrementally more abusive, resulting in outright prohibition in almost all countries. Thailand was no exception, and in 1979 the Thai government officially enacted the Narcotics Act forbidding the use of cannabis and listing cannabis plants and their derivatives—most notably marijuana (cannabis with psychoactive properties) and hemp (cannabis with limited or no psychoactive properties)—as category 5 narcotics (i.e., prohibited substances). Despite these restrictions, many Thais continued to use cannabis illegally, and some urged the government to legalize personal and commercial use of cannabis plants and their derivatives. Eventually, some in the Thai government agreed that it was time to consider steps toward legalization, As a result, the government has been taking action to delist cannabis plants from the list of prohibited narcotics since 2018, when a regulation allowed the cultivation of hemp for industrial and non-commercial purposes, such as household cooking and research and development. The next significant step came in February 2019, when the Narcotics Act (No. 7) was amended, legalizing medical marijuana within certain limitations. In national elections the following month, the Bhumjaithai political party, whose election campaign included a pledge to decriminalize and legalize cannabis plants, won substantial support in parts of the country and chose to join the coalition government, with the Bhumjaithai party
February 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension