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​ 

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
February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many