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​ 

November 25, 2025
Food safety incidents can emerge without warning, requiring businesses to act swiftly to protect consumers and comply with regulatory obligations. Across Southeast Asia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia have each developed comprehensive food recall frameworks designed to ensure rapid removal of unsafe products from the market while holding businesses accountable for compliance failures. While these three jurisdictions share common objectives—protecting public health and ensuring food safety—each has crafted distinct regulatory approaches reflecting their unique administrative structures, enforcement priorities, and legal traditions. Understanding these differences is essential for food businesses operating in the region, as recall procedures, timelines, reporting requirements, and penalties vary significantly across borders. This guide, available through the button below, examines the food recall regulations in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam, providing practical guidance on legal requirements, procedural steps, and compliance obligations in each market.
Read More
October 15, 2025
The Indonesian Food and Drug Administration (BPOM) has introduced more stringent oversight of health supplements containing probiotics with new guidelines that require clinical trials for certain products and expanded documentation standards. BPOM Regulation No. 17 of 2025 replaces the previous 2021 regulation and establishes a comprehensive framework for evaluating probiotic strains used in health supplements. Assessment Requirements The new regulation expands the scope of assessment to include not only categorization and documentation but also technical procedures, strain classification, and clinical trial requirements. Unlike the previous regulation, which provided general guidance, the updated framework creates a comprehensive system for evaluating both registered probiotic strains and new or combined strains. Manufacturers must now submit supporting documentation covering strain identification and functional characterization, safety, efficacy, and product quality. The previous regulation required documentation only on safety, efficacy, and quality. Clinical Trials One of the most significant changes is the requirement for clinical trials conducted in Indonesia for applications that include benefit claims other than maintaining digestive health, or where there are modifications to benefit claims. The regulation specifies that phase 1 trials must demonstrate safety, while phase 2 trials must validate efficacy using statistically valid methods such as double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies). In addition, phase 3 and phase 4 trials may be required, and postmarket surveillance data must be submitted. Technical Assessment Framework Annex 4, a newly introduced section, establishes technical procedures for assessing health supplements containing probiotics in Indonesia. This comprehensive framework outlines criteria for evaluating new probiotic strains, including strain identification, functional characterization, safety, efficacy, and product quality. The annex introduces a clear classification of claims for health supplement products containing probiotics: General claims(e.g., maintaining digestive health). Functional claims(e.g., normal biological function or activity in the body). Risk reduction claims(e.g., lowering disease risk). The regulation restricts use of the term
Read More
October 3, 2025
On September 26, 2025, the Contract Committee under Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board issued a regulation that aims to standardize contracts and enhance consumer protection within the beauty and wellness industry. The Notification on Prescribing the Beauty Service Business as a Contract-Controlled Business B.E. 2568 (2025), which takes effect on January 24, 2026, requires business operators to use a prescribed standard contract in Thai and adhere to strict mandatory provisions and prohibitions. These regulations apply to operators across all in-person and online service channels, including via digital platforms. “Beauty services business” is defined as the provision of services under an agreement allowing consumers to receive a series of treatments, either over a set number of sessions or within a set period. This includes massage, spa, other methods for cleanliness, beauty, or care of facial or body skin, and weight control and body shaping—including services offered electronically. The law excludes surgery, liposuction, and medical treatments performed by licensed practitioners. The notification establishes the following key requirements: Mandatory contract and formatting. All contracts with consumers must use the standard contract form, in Thai, with clear, readable text (minimum font size of 2 millimeters, no more than 11 characters per inch), and include all essential terms from the annexed form. Contract execution. Contracts must be made in duplicate, with one copy given to the consumer at signing. For agreements concluded through electronic channels, the process must comply with the Electronic Transactions Act and use the same required terms. Digital platforms. Business operators who provide services facilitated through a digital platform as an intermediary are ultimately responsible for ensuring the consumer receives a compliant contract. Prohibited clauses. The law prohibits clauses that limit or exclude liability for damages to life, body, health, mind, or property resulting from breach of contract or a wrongful act;
Read More