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

The Importance of Patents in Drug Tenders in Vietnam

Vietnam Pharma Update

With a population of over 90 million, fast-paced economic growth, and an increasing standard of living, Vietnam has become a market with great potential for original brand name drugs. These drugs are marketed through numerous channels, with drug tenders called by health facilities being one of the most prominent and profitable.

For drug tenders, an original brand name drug can be offered in either a bidding package for generic drugs or a bidding package for original brand name drugs. The latter is more lucrative, of course, due to the higher prices. However, to qualify for the more lucrative bidding package, the drug must first be included in one of the following lists issued by the Ministry of Health (MOH):

  • List of original brand name drugs;
  • List of drugs therapeutically equivalent to original brand name drugs; or
  • List of rare drugs.

As discussed below, for a company to get its drug added to the list of original brand name drugs in Vietnam, the most important factor is being able to prove that the drug is covered in the protection scope of a registered patent. This can be a difficult and time-consuming process without the assistance of an experienced patent expert in Vietnam.

Legal Background

Under Article 2.19 of the currently in force Law on Pharmacy of 2005, “brand name drugs” are defined as drugs with manufacturer-created trade names which differ from their international nonproprietary names or international generic names. There is no further definition, however, of “original brand name drugs.” This term appeared for the first time in Joint Circular No. 01/2012/TTLT-BYT-BTC of the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Finance, dated January 19, 2012, guiding tenders for drug procurement at health facilities (Joint Circular 01). According to Article 3.1 of Joint Circular 01, an “original brand name drug” is a drug permitted for circulation for the first time based on sufficient data regarding its quality, safety, and effectiveness. The same definition is retained under Circular No. 11/2016/TT-BYT, which took effect on July 1, 2016, and replaced Joint Circular 01 and the new Law on Pharmacy which is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2017. Sometimes, such drugs are referred to as “innovator drugs.”

The procedural requirements for getting a drug recognized as an original brand name drug are found in Decision No. 2962/QD-BYT of the MOH dated August 22, 2012, providing interim guidance on the required documents for recognition of original brand name drugs, drugs with therapeutic equivalence to original brand name drugs, and drugs having documents on bioequivalence, as amended by Decision No. 1545/QD-BYT on May 8, 2013 (collectively, Decision 2962). Accordingly, applicants need to submit an application dossier to the MOH which includes:

  • The standard form requesting the MOH to recognize a drug as an original brand name drug;
  • The patent and an accompanying letter indicating the specific claims which protect the original brand name drug;
  • The patent license agreement if the applicant is not the patent holder;
  • A Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product, Free Sale Certificate, or Marketing Authorization; and
  • Other documents, as necessary.

It is very important to note the requirement of accurately indicating the specific claims of the patent protecting the original brand name drug. The subject of this granted patent, which can be valid or expired, must be: (1) an active compound, if the drug contains one active substance; (2) a combination (mixture) of active compounds, if the drug contains more than one active compound; or (3) a pharmaceutical composition or preparation or formulation for injection, infusion, ocular treatment, spray, implant, transdermal patch, or gel. In addition, this patent must have been granted by the patent office of Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Finland, Germany, Israel, Japan, Korea, Russia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, or Vietnam.

Application dossiers will be examined by a special committee including patent experts from the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP) of Vietnam and pharmaceutical experts from the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) under the MOH. Successfully registered drugs will be added to the lists of recognized original brand name drugs (also called “innovator lists” or “IP lists”) issued by the MOH. The first list of original brand name drugs was issued on January 11, 2013. As of August 23, 2016, the MOH has issued 15 lists including 1,041 original brand name drugs, of which three products have been removed.

The Challenge of Proving Patent Coverage

Under the procedural requirements of Decision 2962, it is clear that to be included in the list of “original brand name drugs,” a drug must have been granted a patent, even if that patent is not still valid, and that the granted patent must satisfy certain requirements of subject type and territory.

As a practical matter, the most important factor in getting recognition of original brand name drugs is proving that the subject drug falls within the protection scope of the patent(s) being referred to. A drug may relate to a number of patents granted in various jurisdictions, and therefore, it may be difficult for pharmaceutical companies to determine which patents are suitable for recognition purposes. Pharmaceutical companies are advised to follow the process below:

Step 1:  Choose patents granted by any of the 17 patent offices accepted for such purpose in Vietnam.

Step 2:  Screen these patents by reviewing the granted claim sets for the accepted subject types (i.e., compound, combination, or composition patents).

Step 3:  To prove that the patent(s) covers the drug, select a basic compound patent (for drugs with one active substance) or a combination patent (for drugs with two or more active substances).

For drugs containing active substances of a chemical nature whose relevant compound patents are characterized by names or structures of the compounds, registration dossiers are likely to go smoothly and will be accepted within about six months. For other drugs, especially biological drugs, the MOH is often very reluctant to examine their registration dossiers, leading to a delay. Therefore, applicants in those cases should submit detailed documentary references (e.g., claim analysis, reliable evidence for structures and other features of active substances in drugs, documents comparing each feature cited in particular claims to the corresponding feature of the active substances in the drugs and comments on the identicalness/similarity of these features, etc.). These references can be helpful in convincing the competent authority that the drugs are or were protected by particular claims in particular patents and to shorten the registration timeline.

Other challenges often arise in proving the chain of title to patents, especially in cases where patent holders have been merged or dissolved.

Summary

Being included in the list of original brand name drugs plays a vital role in tenders called by public health facilities. The later a drug is added to the list of original brand name drugs, the fewer opportunities it will have to participate in original brand name drug tenders. In other words, pharmaceutical companies may miss opportunities to build market share in Vietnam.

To improve the transparency and efficiency of drug tenders, the MOH should complete the legal regulations regarding procedural requirements for getting original brand name drugs recognized. Additionally, the NOIP and the DAV should cooperate to hold seminars or training courses to help pharmaceutical companies get a deeper understanding of patent aspects related to original brand name drug tenders. In the meantime, as a proactive step for their benefit, pharmaceutical companies should consider seeking appropriate assistance from patent experts to effectively handle their patent matters in getting their drugs recognized on the lists of original brand name drugs.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 2, 2021
The cannabis plant has fascinated many civilizations, societies, and individuals through the centuries with its unique properties, and many have learned how to benefit from these, finding a variety of therapeutic and industrial uses of the plant that, in turn, enhanced domestic economies worldwide. In Thailand, cannabis plants and their derivatives have been used since ancient times as treatment for many diseases, and the plant forms a key ingredient in many Thai traditional medicinal remedies. However, over the past few decades, cannabis usage was seen to change in a way that became incrementally more abusive, resulting in outright prohibition in almost all countries. Thailand was no exception, and in 1979 the Thai government officially enacted the Narcotics Act forbidding the use of cannabis and listing cannabis plants and their derivatives—most notably marijuana (cannabis with psychoactive properties) and hemp (cannabis with limited or no psychoactive properties)—as category 5 narcotics (i.e., prohibited substances). Despite these restrictions, many Thais continued to use cannabis illegally, and some urged the government to legalize personal and commercial use of cannabis plants and their derivatives. Eventually, some in the Thai government agreed that it was time to consider steps toward legalization, As a result, the government has been taking action to delist cannabis plants from the list of prohibited narcotics since 2018, when a regulation allowed the cultivation of hemp for industrial and non-commercial purposes, such as household cooking and research and development. The next significant step came in February 2019, when the Narcotics Act (No. 7) was amended, legalizing medical marijuana within certain limitations. In national elections the following month, the Bhumjaithai political party, whose election campaign included a pledge to decriminalize and legalize cannabis plants, won substantial support in parts of the country and chose to join the coalition government, with the Bhumjaithai party
February 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension