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

April 15, 2021

Decision 10 Sets New Criteria for High-Tech Enterprises in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

On March 16, 2021, the Prime Minister of Vietnam issued Decision No. 10/2021/QD-TTg providing the criteria for identifying high-tech enterprises (Decision 10). Companies that are classified as “high-tech enterprises” are eligible for certain incentives, as Vietnam has prioritized development and investment in the country’s technology sector. Decision 10 will take effect on April 30, 2021, replacing Decision No. 19/2015/QD-TTg (Decision 19).

To qualify as high-tech enterprises, companies must satisfy criteria prescribed in the Law on High Technology and the Law on Investment (such as manufacturing products on the list of high-tech products and meeting environmental standards), and must also meet the following criteria:

1. Revenue from high-tech products must be at least 70% of the total annual net revenue of the enterprise (unchanged from Decision 19).

2. The enterprise’s annual research and development (R&D) expenditure (as further defined in Decision 10) as a percentage of its total revenue minus input value must meet the following standards:

  1. For enterprises with total capital of at least VND 6,000 billion (about USD 260 million) and at least 3,000 employees: At least 0.5%
  2. For enterprises not meeting the above standards, but with total capital of at least VND 100 billion (about USD 4.3 million) and at least 200 employees: At least 1%
  3. For all other enterprises: At least 2%

Notably, Decision 10 now divides enterprises into three tiers rather than the two tiers (at 0.5% and 1%) under Decision 19. Small (third-tier) enterprises will need to meet higher criteria for R&D expenditure than before.

3. The number of employees working directly in R&D and holding a college (associate’s) degree or higher, as a percentage of the enterprise’s total employees, must meet the following standards:

  1. For enterprises with total capital of at least VND 6,000 billion (about USD 260 million) and at least 3,000 employees: At least 1%
  2. For enterprises not meeting the above standards, but with total capital of at least VND 100 billion (about USD 4.3 million) and at least 200 employees: At least 2.5%
  3. For all other enterprises: At least 5%

Under Decision 19, a similar clause referred to employees holding a university (bachelor’s) degree or higher, and included only two tiers, at 2.5% and 5%. Under Decision 10, the R&D personnel requirements should be reduced, or at least unchanged, for all sizes of enterprises.

For more information on Decision 10, please contact us at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Consumer Products

Technology

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Tax

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 11, 2025
On December 10, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam passed a new Cybersecurity Law, which will take effect on July 1, 2026. The new Cybersecurity Law was developed based on the consolidation of the 2018 Cybersecurity Law and the 2015 Law on Network Information Security. While the final approved version of the new Cybersecurity Law has not yet been published, according to official reports, the following notable requirements are confirmed to be included: The new Cybersecurity Law dedicates a specific article to prohibited acts related to cybersecurity, under which it strictly prohibits posting or disseminating information online that propagandizes against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The law also prohibits, among other things, (i) the appropriation, trading, seizure, or intentional disclosure of information classified as state secrets, work secrets, business secrets, personal secrets, family secrets, and private life; (ii) intentionally eavesdropping, recording, or filming online conversations without authorization; and (iii) the use of artificial intelligence (AI) or new technologies to conduct prohibited acts. The Ministry of Public Security (MPS) has the authority to require enterprises providing telecommunications, internet, and online services, as well as system administrators, to remove information violating cybersecurity laws from systems under their management. The MPS is also assigned responsibility for ensuring information security in cyberspace and data security, establishing mechanisms for IP address identity management, verifying digital account registration information, and issuing warnings and sharing information on cybersecurity threats. Information systems are classified into five levels (similar to the 2015 Law on Network Information Security) based on the degree of harm to national security and social order if an incident occurs. The MPS is the lead agency assisting the government in state management of cybersecurity. The Ministry of National Defense is responsible for managing military information systems, and the Government Cipher Committee manages cryptographic and cipher
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
December 4, 2025
Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create
Read More
December 3, 2025
Thailand’s Civil Court has issued a regulation targeting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of pleadings and other documents submitted to the court. Effective November 17, 2025, the regulation aligns with September 2025 guidance from the president of the Supreme Court, and aims to safeguard accuracy, transparency, and public confidence in civil adjudication. The regulation applies to all parties submitting pleadings or any documents to the Civil Court that are prepared using AI tools or contain AI-generated content. It subjects AI used for these purposes to strict requirements on verification, disclosure, and accountability. Core Obligations The regulation imposes four principal obligations: Lawyers who use AI remain subject to duties of honesty, responsibility to the court, professional standards, and legal ethics, including the duty to assess the appropriateness of the AI tool for the work. Parties and lawyers must verify the accuracy and completeness of all facts, legal provisions, and citations in AI-generated content before submission. Parties and lawyers must disclose to the court any AI-generated content by clearly marking the beginning and end of the AI-generated portion with prescribed statements (see below). Additionally, a certification confirming the use of AI must be provided at the end of the pleading or document, stating that AI was used for certain portions and that the party has reviewed and certifies the accuracy of factual and legal content. Parties and lawyers bear the same full legal and ethical responsibility for AI-generated content as they do for personally authored documents; they cannot evade responsibility or avoid liability by citing AI-related errors. Likewise, parties must ensure that any AI-generated content is truthful, accurate, and unbiased. Prescribed Disclosure Language Each instance of AI-generated content must be preceded by the statement “[The following content was prepared using artificial intelligence]” and must end with “[End
Read More