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 3, 2021

Filing a Divisional Patent Application in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
BRICS & Beyond

In Vietnam, divisional practice is fairly flexible.  Specifically, one or more divisional applications can be filed: (1) in response to a lack of unity rejection; and/or (2) at any time for any reason (e.g., voluntary divisionals are permitted).   The specification of a divisional application must not go beyond the original specification of the parent application.  In other words, no new matter can be added in a divisional application.

Time Period for Filing a Divisional Application

A divisional application can be filed any time during the pendency of the parent application, namely, before the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Vietnam) issues a final decision regarding the grant or refusal of the parent application.  In practice, a divisional application should be filed no later than at the time of paying the grant fees of the parent application.  Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law (IP Law) does not indicate whether a divisional application can be filed off of a pending divisional application once the parent application has issued.  Currently, IP Vietnam is not rejecting divisional applications filed off of a divisional application.

Requirements for Filing a Divisional Application

According to Vietnam IP Law, the requirements for filing a divisional application are as follows:

  1. Submission of a copy of the specification (including the abstract), claims and drawings of the divisional application as well as an entry form indicating the name, address and nationality of each inventor;
  2. The divisional application cannot include any subject matter not originally disclosed in the parent application; and
  3. The parent application and the divisional application cannot claim the same (e.g., identical) subject matter.

The priority and filing dates of each divisional application will be identical to the priority and filing date of the (original) parent application.

Claims of a Divisional Application

A divisional application may be filed with the claims as originally filed in the parent application or PCT application.  However, the claims of a divisional application filed with the same claims as a parent or PCT application must be amended prior to or during examination to ensure that neither the parent or divisional application claim identical subject matter.  As will be discussed in more detail below, if the claims of two patent applications or a patent and a pending application have identical scope, they the application(s) will be considered to be an identical invention and rejected for double patenting.

Double Patenting

Article 90 of the Vietnam IP Law states that if more than one application has been filed for the same or “equivalent” inventions, then only one patent will be granted for the application having the earliest priority or filing date (i.e., if the application does not claim priority).  Article 24 of the Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications (Guidelines) provides a series of steps that should be performed in determining whether two sets of claims recite “the same invention”.

According to the Guidelines, the first step involves determining the scope of protection of the invention based on the terms and concepts recited in the two sets of claims (with the description and drawings being used to interpret the scope of protection).  Next, the claims in the first application or patent must be compared with the claims in the second application (The claims of the first application or patent must not be compared with the specification of the second application).  If the scope of protection of a claim in the first application or patent is identical to the scope of protection of a claim in the second application, then the inventions will be deemed to be “identical” inventions.  If the specifications of the first application or patent and the second application are the same, but the scope of protection of the claims in each are different, then the two inventions will be deemed not to be identical.  For example, if the specification of a first application or patent and a second application disclose the same product and process but the claims in the first application or patent are directed to the product and the claims of the second application are directed to the process, then the two inventions will not be deemed to be identical (e.g., there is no double patenting problem).  Likewise, if the scope of protection of the claims of a first patent application or patent and a second application partially overlap, then the two inventions will also be deemed to be identical.  For example, if the claims of a first application or patent recite a pH range of 1.0 to 6.0 and the claims of a second application recite a pH range of 3.0 to 5.0,  then the two inventions will be considered to overlap and will be considered to be identical, since the pH range of 3.0 to 5.0 is encompassed within the broader pH range of 1.0 to 6.0.

Unfortunately, the Guidelines do not provide any information about what is meant by an “equivalent invention”.  However, the issue of “equivalent inventions” often arises when the claims in a first application or patent recite a genus and the claims in a second application recite species encompassed within the scope of a claimed genus.  If the genus claims are patented, then in practice, the second application claiming the species will be rejected for double patenting (as being encompassed within the scope of the patented genus).  However, if the claims of the species are patented, then a second application claiming a genus would be allowable provided that the claims in the second application are amended to include a disclaimer to the species claimed in the patent. However, Applicants should be aware that the requirements for specification support of a disclaimer under Vietnam IP Law are similar those of the European Patent Office.

Examination of Divisional Applications

A divisional application is accorded the same filing date as the parent application but is treated as a new patent filing.  As such, the divisional application:

  1. Is allotted its own (new) application number;
  1. Requires payment of its own filing fees (separate from the filing fees paid in the parent application) and all back annuities;
  1. Requires the filing of a request for examination (separate from the filing of a request for examination in the parent application);
  1. Is prosecuted separately from the parent application; and
  1. Results in a patent that is independent from the parent application.

The fees for a divisional patent application are similar to those for a parent application except that the payment of fees for a priority claim are not required in a divisional application.

The term of a patent issuing off of a divisional application is twenty years from the filing date of the parent application.

This post was written by Thanh Phuong Vu and U.S.-based patent attorney Lisa Mueller, and was first published in Ms. Mueller’s BRICS & Beyond blog as Part 13 of a 16-part series examining divisional practice in various countries.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More