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​ 

November 23, 2022
The delisting of cannabis as a controlled narcotic in Thailand on June 9, 2022, was a breakthrough moment for the industry.  Not only are farmers and others in the industry elated that such a step was taken, it has triggered the establishment of an abundance of cannabis dispensaries in Bangkok and other popular domestic and international tourist destinations in Thailand, including Chiang Mai, Pattaya, Phuket, and many islands. Vulnerable populations, such as children, accessing cannabis has also become a hot-button issue. Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) was initially criticized by some for its policy of allowing cannabis to be sold with few restrictions. On June 17, 2022, the MOPH followed up with the Announcement Re: Controlled Herbs (Cannabis) under the Thai Traditional Medical Knowledge Act, which seemed to implement a viable mechanism to regulate cannabis dispensaries. This announcement contained prohibitions on selling cannabis to vulnerable populations (minors, expectant women, and breastfeeding mothers) and on smoking cannabis in public. Furthermore, the draft Cannabis and Hemp Act includes provisions related to sales and distribution channels and advertisements for particular dispensaries. However, the draft act has been delayed due to disagreements among some political parties during the reading of the legislation, and is unlikely to be implemented in 2022 as had been widely expected.  The tug-of-war among the political parties has caused concerns about whether the country’s recent liberalized cannabis policy will be revisited and cannabis relisted as a narcotic. With this uncertainty over when the draft Cannabis and Hemp Act will be implemented, the MOPH has focused on identifying gaps in current regulation that might allow the misuse of cannabis. The minister of the MOPH has announced that the MOPH announcement of June 17, 2022, will be repealed and replaced by the November 11, 2022, Announcement Re: Controlled Herbs (Cannabis).
November 14, 2022
Following the delisting of cannabis grown in Thailand as a narcotic substance on June 9, 2022, many have explored the applications of cannabis in various fields, including medicine, healthcare, food products, cosmetics, and animal feed. For example, a poultry farm in northern Thailand conducted an experiment jointly with Chiang Mai University, mixing crushed cannabis into poultry feed and water. The experiment showed several benefits of this cannabis feed. Birds that were fed cannabis had lower mortality rates and achieved superior body mass, with increased levels of protein, fat, and moisture in the meat, leading to this method of organic bird farming yielding higher profits. Despite the results of this experiment, the mechanisms and action of cannabis in animal feed are still not yet fully understood, and there are concerns about the possible effects on human health of consuming cannabis-fed poultry. Until recently, cannabis regulations focused solely on the safety of use by humans, and there were no regulations on the use of cannabis in animals. However, on October 11, 2022, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) published Notification Re: Guidelines on the Use of Hemp and Marijuana as Especially Controlled Animal Feed or Their Use as Ingredients in Especially Controlled Animal Feed in the Government Gazette. In general, the DLD notification requires that animal feed containing cannabis be shown to benefit the animals without causing concern for their safety. According to the Animal Feed Quality Control Act B.E. 2558 (2015), especially controlled animal feed must be registered before it can be manufactured domestically or imported into Thailand. The DLD notification lays down the following evaluation criteria for registration of animal feed containing cannabis: It is prohibited to use cannabis (both hemp and marijuana) apexes (i.e., leaf tips), inflorescence, or seeds—including extracts from apexes, inflorescence, or seeds—as especially controlled animal
October 14, 2022
Interest in organic farming, soil health, and regenerative agriculture has increased rapidly in recent years, and the demand for biological and organic fertilizers has accordingly undergone dramatic growth. Biological fertilizers contain specific levels of microorganisms (such as nitrogen-fixing bacteria); organic fertilizers similarly contain microorganisms and typically come from animals and plants, such as livestock manure and crop residues. Although responsible fertilizer use is still necessary to prevent unintended effects, these “living fertilizers” can boost yields and promote plant productivity without many of the adverse environmental effects and safety concerns of chemical fertilizers. This makes them highly sought after for organic farming, and prized by agricultural operators looking to promote soil health as a bedrock of sustainable agricultural practices. As the global trade for organic and biological fertilizers has scaled up, producers and agribusiness companies have expanded organic and biological fertilizer offerings to new markets. Not only do different countries have their own regulations for fertilizers in general, but they also often have specific requirements and rules for biological and organic fertilizers. This guide provides fertilizer producers and traders with an overview of the legal landscape for these fertilizers in three major Southeast Asian markets so that businesses can make their fertilizers available and foster sustainable agricultural practices in the region. The full Biological and Organic Fertilizers in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam guide can be downloaded through the button below.
August 25, 2022
On July 27, 2022, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Newsletter No. 8/2022 to effectively ban foreign companies and foreign joint ventures from exporting value-added beans, corn, and sesame. This newsletter repealed Newsletter No. 2/2020, which had prescribed the criteria for beans, corn, and sesame to be considered “value-added” crops. These criteria had to be fulfilled in order for these commodities to be exported in accordance with Notification No. 24/2019, which had permitted foreign companies and foreign joint ventures to purchase seven categories of commodities from local manufacturers for export, subject to certain terms and conditions. These include: Meat and fish; Value-added crops; Pulp and paper; Seeds; Refined metals; Semi-finished or finished valued-added fruit products; and Timber-based furniture. With the repeal of the conditions in Newsletter No. 2/2020, foreign exporters are left with no reference criteria for how to achieve “value-added” status for beans, corn, and sesame, and thus will not be able to submit a complete application for the necessary export license. However, exportation of the other items in the list above remains unaffected and open to foreign exporters who meet the applicable requirements. The MOC explained their decision to revoke the permitted criteria by noting that some foreign companies were not actually producing beans, corn, and sesame that fulfilled the criteria for value-added status as laid out in Newsletter No. 2/2020, but were falsely exporting their goods as “value-added crops.” The revocation of the export criteria for beans, corn, and sesame took immediate effect. For more details on these export restrictions, or on any aspect of importation and exportation regulations in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].