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

February 27, 2014

Enforcement of Patent Rights for Pharmaceuticals in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Patents are engines of growth and are critical to the vitality of the pharmaceutical industry. They create the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to maintain their investments to find new and better cures for global health issues, and to improve the health of people around the world. From an economic perspective, patents also give their holders an upper hand over other competitors. For this reason, many generic pharmaceutical companies try to illegally use others’ patented inventions in their own products, in order to gain an unfair advantage and compete with the patentees’ drugs. In this article, we will address the process of enforcing patent rights in the pharmaceutical sector in Vietnam.

Enforcement Options

The overall goal of all pharmaceutical patent holders when carrying out enforcement measures is to force the infringers to cease the infringement, to get the market authorization of the infringing drug withdrawn or revoked, and to ultimately claim compensation for any damages incurred. These objectives can be achieved only if the patentee can select the most appropriate measures and strategies, while understanding that patent enforcement in the pharmaceutical sector in Vietnam is relatively new.

The available enforcement actions against patent infringers include administrative measures, border control measures, and civil litigation. Administrative measures, which are carried out by administrative bodies, not judicial bodies, are the most common, as they are both cost-effective and time-saving. However, only the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology and customs are entitled to handle patent infringement through the administrative route. Border control measures, which, to some extent, are considered to be administrative in nature, are applied by customs at the borders of Vietnam. Civil litigation is also an option, although it takes a high degree of commitment to pursue this route due to the local courts’ lack of IP expertise.

The Role of the Expert Witness

In Vietnam, the role of the expert witness in patent enforcement, especially in the realm of pharmaceuticals, is of great importance. Agencies offering such services, through their expert opinions and conclusions on infringement, provide guidelines for the competent authorities to resolve the case. Despite the opinions of expert witnesses being non-binding, they are almost always followed by enforcement agencies, which often lack experience in such matters. They also help to expedite enforcement actions.

Despite the importance of expert opinions, rights holders do not have many options available to them in terms of requesting assistance from examination agencies or agencies that provide expert advice, as the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI) is, for the moment, the only functional agency authorized to provide expert opinions. Though the National Office of Intellectual Property now and then issues expert opinions upon the request of the enforcement bodies, in practice, its main role is to facilitate the procedures for establishing IP rights in Vietnam.

In most cases, to assess the possibility of patent infringement, VIPRI requests a prior physical testing of the putative infringing drugs. In some cases, however, VIPRI can judge the infringement based on the ingredients on the packaging and/or the inserts alone.

Complementary and Preventive Measures

Though some jurisdictions ensure “patent linkage” whereby marketing approval for generic drugs is not granted until the original drug’s patent has expired, there is no such regime in Vietnam. Therefore, parallel to or even before conducting any enforcement measures, patent rights holders in the pharmaceutical sector are advised to undertake certain measures at the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV). Specifically, according to Article 15 of Circular No. 22/2009/TT-BYT, patentees are encouraged to notify the DAV of their patents. Once notified, the DAV will then send a notice to its drug examiners for them to consider the patents in the process of deciding on the marketing authorization of drugs belonging to other applicants.

After the dossiers of drug-related patents have been filed, if there are potential conflicts or potential patent infringements found in any drug registration dossiers, the DAV will require the applicants to clarify the legal status and/or contact the patent owners in order to resolve these conflicts. This process, however, is not mandatory for management agencies and the DAV may nonetheless grant drug market authorization. This is because, in practice, the overriding spirit of Circular No. 22/2009/TT-BYT is that issues that arise in relation to patents are the responsibilities of the parties involved, and the DAV does not play a role in review, arbitration, or adjudication of these disputes. The DAV is bound only to withdraw the market authorization of a medicinal product (if the authorization has been granted) or refuse to issue a market authorization (if the application is in the review process) once a decision confirming the infringement has been issued by the competent patent enforcement authorities, such as the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology, customs authorities, or the court.

At present, Vietnam is actively participating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, and one of the agenda items relating to the TPP that has been put on the table is whether or not a pre-review mechanism should be created with respect to patents for medicinal products for which applications for circulation licenses have been filed. The majority opinion in Vietnam, however, is in opposition, due to worries about negative impacts on the time taken for people to get access to a supply of cheap drugs, as well as intellectual property barriers that the Vietnamese government wishes to avoid. Therefore, it is uncertain whether the TPP can live up to the expectations of pharmaceutical companies that are advocating a more effective enforcement mechanism in Vietnam. In any case, pharmaceutical companies should fend for themselves and employ a comprehensive and long-term enforcement strategy to protect their patent rights effectively in Vietnam’s still-emerging patent enforcement regime.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
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
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More