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​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More