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​ 

February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many
February 1, 2021
The latest edition of Practical Law’s Life Sciences Global Guide features contributions from Tilleke & Gibbins attorneys in the firm’s Yangon office. One of the sections they have provided for the Myanmar chapter of this Q&A-style guide to life sciences regulatory frameworks worldwide is “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar.” The section includes discussion of a range of regulatory issues related to the marketing and selling of pharmaceutical products, including the following topics: Regulatory overview: Authorities, scope, and general procedures for pharmaceuticals, biologicals, and medical devices and health care IT Pricing, government funding, and reimbursement: National health care system, price regulation, and reimbursement Clinical trials Manufacturing and distribution Marketing: Authorization for marketing medicinal products, parallel imports and cross-border trade in medicines Restrictions on dealings with health care professionals Selling restrictions Advertising and promotion Data privacy Packaging, labeling, and tracking Product safety, quality, and liability Local establishment, representation, and residency requirements Reform The full “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar” section can be accessed on the Practical Law website. Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. Tilleke & Gibbins also supplied “Pharmaceutical IP and Competition Law in Myanmar,” which was published in the Life Sciences Global Guide  at the same time.
February 1, 2021
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins in Myanmar have contributed to the latest edition of Practical Law’s online Life Sciences Global Guide. The guide is a Q&A-style overview of the regulatory frameworks for the life sciences industry across multiple jurisdictions worldwide, and this year the Myanmar chapter includes two sections, one of which is “Pharmaceutical IP and Competition Law in Myanmar.” This section runs through the country’s legal and regulatory environment for patents and trademarks—particularly as they relate to pharmaceutical business in the jurisdiction. The section then turns to IP and competition law issues, with questions and answers focusing on how the country’s competition laws and regulations affect the pharmaceutical sector. Readers are also given information on how to properly comply with Myanmar law on competition, including when it comes to licensing of medicines and pharmaceutical technology. The full Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Myanmar guide can be accessed on the Practical Law website. Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. Tilleke & Gibbins also supplied the “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar,” which Practical Law published in its Life Sciences Global Guide  at the same time.