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 25, 2016

Effects of the TPP on Vietnam’s Pharmaceutical Industry

Vietnam Pharma Update

On February 4, 2016, Vietnam and 11 other countries signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP includes Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, the United States, Vietnam, and Singapore—countries which represent 36 percent of global GDP and more than 25 percent of world trade. Though the prospects of a quick and smooth ratification of the treaty have dimmed considerably, thanks to election-year politicization in the United States, if and when the TPP is finally ratified by its various participants, it will have a major impact on business in Vietnam—including the pharmaceutical industry.

The TPP will affect the pharmaceutical industry largely through its investment protections and intellectual property regime. Like other free-trade agreements, the TPP promotes foreign investment by requiring its member states to provide protections over investments originating from other TPP member countries. Importantly, intellectual property rights are considered a “covered investment” under the TPP. In other words, Vietnam is obligated to protect a pharmaceutical company’s IP rights in accordance with the TPP. In addition to these investment protections, the TPP also contains an entire subchapter dedicated to the pharmaceutical industry, including the treatment of patents.

Investment Protections

While most of the investment protection under the TPP would apply to all companies equally, pharmaceutical companies should pay particular attention to the following.

National Treatment and Most-Favored Nation Treatment. The TPP requires Vietnam to treat investors from other TPP member states (TPP Investors) the same way it would treat domestic investors in similar circumstances. In other words, Vietnam is required to give “national treatment” to TPP Investors. In addition, Vietnam must treat such covered investments the same way it would treat locally owned projects. The TPP also requires Vietnam not to discriminate against any foreign investor. For example, if an American pharmaceutical company owns a patent in Vietnam, that patent must be treated the same way as if a Vietnamese party held the patent. 

Expropriation. The TPP prohibits member states from expropriating investments. In other words, Vietnam would generally be prohibited from expropriating or nationalizing a pharmaceutical company’s IP rights. However, expropriation is allowed if it is for a “public purpose,” such as compulsory patent licensing in a public health emergency. In such case, Vietnam must promptly provide compensation to the investor that is equivalent to market value. The TPP further mandates that any expropriation must be done without discrimination.

Performance Requirements. The TPP prohibits Vietnam from requiring an investment project to use or implement certain “preferred” commitments or content. For example, Vietnam cannot enact legislation requiring a foreign pharmaceutical company to use only locally sourced materials or technology in its toll manufacturing, or to export a specific percentage of goods. Other prohibitions include forcing an investor to adopt a specific royalty rate under a license contract or a specific term of a license contract.

Important exceptions to this provision exist. The license restrictions do not apply to license agreements between a foreign investor and the Vietnamese government. In addition, the government is allowed to mandate performance requirements with regard to government procurement, certain investment privileges and benefits, and preferential tariffs or quotas. Other general exceptions also apply, such as legislation to protect human and environmental health.

Patents

Under Article 5.3 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property, if a regulation in an international convention of which Vietnam is a member differs from the respective regulation of the IP law, then the regulation in the convention would apply. Based on this, the Law on Intellectual Property will likely be adjusted to be consistent with the TPP. The following articles in the current regulations are not consistent with the respective regulations of the TPP:

Patentable Subject Matter. Under the TPP, patents are available for “use inventions,” that is, those claiming at least one of the following: new uses of a known product, new methods of using a known product, or new processes of using a known product. A member state may limit those new processes to those that do not claim the use of the product. Currently, the Vietnam Patent Office rejects use inventions in general, though it lacks convincing legal grounds. In light of the TPP, Vietnam’s Patent Office should change its treatment of use inventions. However, it is unclear—even with the change—whether new indications or new methods, such as new dosing, will be patentable.

Patent Term Adjustment for Patent Office Delays. According to the TPP, a patent term can be adjusted to compensate for unreasonable delays in a member state’s issuance of patents. The transition period is five years, which can be extended for up to one additional year, meaning that it could become effective in 2023 or 2024. This issue is not addressed in Vietnam’s current regulations.

Data Protection for Drugs. The provisions of the TPP on data protection for drugs differ from current Vietnamese law. Under the current regulations, within five years from the date of marketing authorization of the data-protected drug, no marketing authorization can be granted for other dossiers referring to the protected trial data. The TPP also provides a period of at least five years from the date of marketing authorization during which a third party cannot market a product on the basis of: (1) protected data; or (2) the marketing approval granted. Therefore, there could be some adjustments in the applicable laws of Vietnam related to data protection for drugs to make the data protection more reliable in practice. The transition period is ten years, which can be extended for up to two additional years, meaning that it could become effective in 2028 or 2030.

Outlook

The TPP is expected to create new business opportunities in Vietnam for pharmaceutical companies. The investment protections will reduce risk and increase confidence, which will add to investment inflows. Pharmaceutical companies would also have increased predictability and protections with respect to their IP rights. Both Vietnam and pharmaceutical firms will benefit.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of