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​ 

October 14, 2022
Interest in organic farming, soil health, and regenerative agriculture has increased rapidly in recent years, and the demand for biological and organic fertilizers has accordingly undergone dramatic growth. Biological fertilizers contain specific levels of microorganisms (such as nitrogen-fixing bacteria); organic fertilizers similarly contain microorganisms and typically come from animals and plants, such as livestock manure and crop residues. Although responsible fertilizer use is still necessary to prevent unintended effects, these “living fertilizers” can boost yields and promote plant productivity without many of the adverse environmental effects and safety concerns of chemical fertilizers. This makes them highly sought after for organic farming, and prized by agricultural operators looking to promote soil health as a bedrock of sustainable agricultural practices. As the global trade for organic and biological fertilizers has scaled up, producers and agribusiness companies have expanded organic and biological fertilizer offerings to new markets. Not only do different countries have their own regulations for fertilizers in general, but they also often have specific requirements and rules for biological and organic fertilizers. This guide provides fertilizer producers and traders with an overview of the legal landscape for these fertilizers in three major Southeast Asian markets so that businesses can make their fertilizers available and foster sustainable agricultural practices in the region. The full Biological and Organic Fertilizers in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam guide can be downloaded through the button below.
August 25, 2022
On July 27, 2022, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Newsletter No. 8/2022 to effectively ban foreign companies and foreign joint ventures from exporting value-added beans, corn, and sesame. This newsletter repealed Newsletter No. 2/2020, which had prescribed the criteria for beans, corn, and sesame to be considered “value-added” crops. These criteria had to be fulfilled in order for these commodities to be exported in accordance with Notification No. 24/2019, which had permitted foreign companies and foreign joint ventures to purchase seven categories of commodities from local manufacturers for export, subject to certain terms and conditions. These include: Meat and fish; Value-added crops; Pulp and paper; Seeds; Refined metals; Semi-finished or finished valued-added fruit products; and Timber-based furniture. With the repeal of the conditions in Newsletter No. 2/2020, foreign exporters are left with no reference criteria for how to achieve “value-added” status for beans, corn, and sesame, and thus will not be able to submit a complete application for the necessary export license. However, exportation of the other items in the list above remains unaffected and open to foreign exporters who meet the applicable requirements. The MOC explained their decision to revoke the permitted criteria by noting that some foreign companies were not actually producing beans, corn, and sesame that fulfilled the criteria for value-added status as laid out in Newsletter No. 2/2020, but were falsely exporting their goods as “value-added crops.” The revocation of the export criteria for beans, corn, and sesame took immediate effect. For more details on these export restrictions, or on any aspect of importation and exportation regulations in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
August 23, 2022
On July 13, 2022, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 46/2022/ND-CP amending and supplementing some articles of Decree No. 13/2020/ND-CP providing detailed guidance on the Law on Animal Husbandry (“Decree 46”). The new decree took effect on the issuance date. Among the changes introduced by Decree 46 are a number related to animal feed. Recognition of Testing Methods of Exporting Countries Decree 46 clarifies the steps to recognize animal feed testing methods of laboratories in exporting countries. Under the amended regulations, the Department of Livestock Production (DLP) will organize an assessment team to appraise each dossier for recognition of animal feed testing methods within 30 days of receipt of a complete dossier. If the dossier lacks required information or authenticity, the DLP will organize a practical assessment team at the exporting country’s testing laboratory. If the dossier passes the assessment, within five working days from the completion of the assessment, the DLP will issue a decision on recognition of the testing method. The validity of this decision has been lengthened from three years to five years. State Inspection of Animal Feed Quality Process of State Inspection Decree 46 specifies the process to conduct state inspection of the quality of imported animal feed by unifying the regulations stipulated in the related legal documents listed in Decree 13. The process includes the submission of a state inspection dossier, timelines to receive feedback from the inspection authority, and further steps that can be taken upon receiving acceptance or refusal decisions from the authority. For traditional animal feed and complete compound animal feed, imported shipments are customs-cleared as soon as the importer completes the customs procedures. Within 15 days from the customs clearance date, the importer must submit the conformity assessment results. The importer has complete responsibility for the conformity assessment results, and
August 18, 2022
Practical Law has published an updated online version of Agricultural Law in Thailand, a Q&A-style guide that provides detailed overviews of Thailand’s agriculture laws and regulations. The Thailand overview is one of approximately twenty such guides to jurisdictions worldwide, covering key practical issues related to the legal environment for agricultural operations. The Thailand section, which was written by lawyers at Tilleke & Gibbins, covers the following topics: Agricultural policy Acquisition of agricultural companies Acquisition of agricultural land Crop seed business Plant variety rights Genetically modified crops Animal and animal welfare issues Agricultural safety and product liability Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is a comprehensive global legal resource for business lawyers. The platform features a wide range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The full Agricultural Law in Thailand chapter can be accessed on the Practical Law website.