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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Intellectual Property

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 1, 2021
The latest edition of Practical Law’s Life Sciences Global Guide features contributions from Tilleke & Gibbins attorneys in the firm’s Yangon office. One of the sections they have provided for the Myanmar chapter of this Q&A-style guide to life sciences regulatory frameworks worldwide is “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar.” The section includes discussion of a range of regulatory issues related to the marketing and selling of pharmaceutical products, including the following topics: Regulatory overview: Authorities, scope, and general procedures for pharmaceuticals, biologicals, and medical devices and health care IT Pricing, government funding, and reimbursement: National health care system, price regulation, and reimbursement Clinical trials Manufacturing and distribution Marketing: Authorization for marketing medicinal products, parallel imports and cross-border trade in medicines Restrictions on dealings with health care professionals Selling restrictions Advertising and promotion Data privacy Packaging, labeling, and tracking Product safety, quality, and liability Local establishment, representation, and residency requirements Reform The full “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar” section can be accessed on the Practical Law website. Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. Tilleke & Gibbins also supplied “Pharmaceutical IP and Competition Law in Myanmar,” which was published in the Life Sciences Global Guide  at the same time.
Read More
February 1, 2021
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins in Myanmar have contributed to the latest edition of Practical Law’s online Life Sciences Global Guide. The guide is a Q&A-style overview of the regulatory frameworks for the life sciences industry across multiple jurisdictions worldwide, and this year the Myanmar chapter includes two sections, one of which is “Pharmaceutical IP and Competition Law in Myanmar.” This section runs through the country’s legal and regulatory environment for patents and trademarks—particularly as they relate to pharmaceutical business in the jurisdiction. The section then turns to IP and competition law issues, with questions and answers focusing on how the country’s competition laws and regulations affect the pharmaceutical sector. Readers are also given information on how to properly comply with Myanmar law on competition, including when it comes to licensing of medicines and pharmaceutical technology. The full Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Myanmar guide can be accessed on the Practical Law website. Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. Tilleke & Gibbins also supplied the “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar,” which Practical Law published in its Life Sciences Global Guide  at the same time.
Read More
January 15, 2021
Following the recent delisting of almost all parts of the hemp plant from Thailand’s list of prohibited narcotics (see here for further details), the Ministry of Public Health has issued a notification allowing hemp to be used in cosmetics. Prior to this development, this use of hemp (whether from natural or synthetic sources) was not allowed, as it fell under the definition of narcotics under the Notification Re: Ingredients Not Allowed for Use in Cosmetics B.E. 2559 (2016). Under the Ministerial Notification Re: Use of Hemp in Cosmetics B.E. 2564 (2021), which was published in the Government Gazette on January 11, 2021, domestic manufacturers are now allowed to produce cosmetics containing hemp seed oil or hemp seed extract, provided the cosmetics do not have a THC level exceeding 0.2% by weight. To register such products with the Thai FDA, applicants must submit a certificate of analysis, safety data sheet, and label for the agency’s evaluation. The timeline for approval of the registration (notification) of a cosmetic containing hemp seed oil or hemp seed extract is three business days. The applicant (i.e., manufacturer or toll manufacturer) must declare the amount of hemp seed extract or hemp seed oil used in the cosmetic in their notification application. Cosmetics must not use a name for the product that evokes an association with hemp flowers or narcotics, and the name of the product must be within the scope of cosmetics. For example, names containing “inflorescence,” “flower,” “CBD,” “THC” or similar will not be allowed. It should also be noted that Thailand does not yet allow the importation of cosmetics containing hemp seeds or hemp seed extract, and this regulation only applies to domestically produced hemp products—a business currently restricted to individuals or companies with Thai nationality. For more details on this development, or
Read More
January 8, 2021
Across the globe, the demand for COVID-19 vaccinations has been understandably high, with many regulatory authorities (e.g., U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in the U.K., European Medicine Agency, Swissmedic, etc.) issuing emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 vaccines. Similarly, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) has published the Notification Re: Conditional Approval for Emergency Use of Medical Products, which allows drug importers to register COVID-19 vaccines under the conditional approval scheme.  While as of the date of this article, the Thai FDA has yet to authorize any COVID-19 vaccines, this should follow shortly as clinical trials are completed and government procurement negotiations progress. Under the notification, it appears that the channel of distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine under the conditional approval scheme would be strictly controlled by the Thai FDA. This channel includes the vaccine’s distribution to relevant government agencies (e.g., Department of Disease Control of Thailand and public hospitals specified by the Thai FDA). However, questions have been raised regarding which private hospitals would be included in the distribution list and how the Thai FDA would distribute the vaccine to private hospitals. This confusion over the role of private hospitals was seen recently when one private hospital advertised that it could secure the COVID-19 vaccine from one developer whose product had already been approved elsewhere, until the Thai FDA then stepped in and claimed that the advertisement violated the Drug Act. The Thai FDA notification also enumerates several essential criteria that must be fulfilled in seeking approval for a COVID-19 vaccine, including the following: The available scientific data must substantiate both the efficacy and safety of vaccine. Further, the risk-benefit analysis must indicate that the medicine’s benefits outweigh its risks. A risk management plan, including risk minimization measures, must be submitted.
Read More