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

May 27, 2013

Invention Secrecy in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Patent law hinges on the disclosure of secrets. To be granted a patent, an inventor is required to publicly disclose his or her invention—often in great detail—in exchange for the exclusive rights to the patented invention for a limited period of time. In theory, this disclosure of secrets benefits society by fostering a wider sharing of knowledge and know-how, accelerating the overall pace of scientific and industrial development. The awarding of patents, meanwhile, provides a continued incentive to innovate.

However, some inventions contain sensitive information whose publication or disclosure could be detrimental to national security and defense. Governments therefore have a vested interested in keeping those inventions secret, regardless of the inventors’ intentions.

Invention Secrecy

In Vietnam, Ordinance No. 30/2000/PL-UBTVQH10, effective from April 1, 2001 (the Ordinance) requires that inventions related to the contents of state secrets must be registered with a competent state authority. Subsequent guidelines on implementation issued in Decree No. 33/2002/ND-CP of March 28, 2002 (Decree 33) designated the state science and technology management agency as that competent state authority, and assigned it the responsibility of “keeping and preserving” such inventions placed under secrecy orders. However, the Ordinance and Decree 33 provided no further details on the examination and classification of these inventions, or the rights conferred from them.

Consequently, further guidelines were issued in Decree No. 122/2010/ND-CP of December 31, 2010 (Decree 122), which amended and supplemented Decree No. 103/2006/ND-CP of Sept. 22, 2006, guiding the implementation of the 2005 Law on Intellectual Property. Decree 122 defines a “secret invention” as an invention classified by the competent state authority as a state secret in the field of national defense and security under the laws on protection of state secrets (mainly the rules in the Ordinance and Decree 33).

Decree 122 also notably introduced the concept of patent secrecy for classified inventions. Inventions that are subject to secrecy restrictions, and any patents granted on such inventions, are not published and must be kept confidential under the law. The rights to use, license, and assign these secretive patents must be approved by the competent state authority. Compensation for an owner whose patents are withheld is not specified.

If the information about an invention subject to a secrecy order is disclosed or is determined to no longer be sensitive to national security and defense, details of the invention can then be published in the same manner as a normal invention application, and patented as usual. The identification and disclosure of secrecy orders is conducted by the Ministry of Public Security in coordination with the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Applicants may wonder specifically what kinds of inventions will be subject to secrecy restrictions in Vietnam. Unfortunately, the criteria for assessment have not been revealed.

According to an official at the National Office of Intellectual Property, the Ministry of Public Security, in coordination with the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Science and Technology, is planning to issue a Circular with operational guidelines for the implementation of Decree 122. It is expected that the practice of invention secrecy will be outlined in detail in this Circular.

Foreign Filing License

Article 23(b) of Decree 122 raised for the first time the issue of foreign filing licenses. Under this provision, inventions of Vietnamese organizations and individuals and inventions created in Vietnam must first be filed in Vietnam if the owners wish to seek patent protection in Vietnam. This is to ensure that all Vietnamese inventions will be examined to determine whether they should be subject to secrecy restrictions.

If an invention is not deemed a threat to national security or defense, it can be filed outside Vietnam after six months from the Vietnam filing date. Otherwise, if the invention must be kept secret, the applicant must obtain a license to file abroad, in addition to first filing in Vietnam. Registration is only permitted in countries which also recognize the protection of invention secrecy.

If an owner does not plan to seek patent protection in Vietnam, it is not necessary to initially file the patent application in Vietnam. But because it is difficult to determine whether an invention must be kept secret and the Ordinance requires all secret inventions to be registered, it is a best practice for owners of Vietnam-origin inventions to register in Vietnam first in all cases.

Unanswered Questions

Foreign investors are understandably concerned about Decree 122, as it leaves a number of unanswered questions. For example, if a Vietnamese inventor assigns an invention to a foreign investor, will it be deemed an “invention of Vietnamese organizations and individuals” under the Decree? And more fundamentally, what are the specific criteria for assessing whether an invention may be subject to secrecy, so that foreign investors can avoid planning projects that will be deemed “secret inventions”?

Decree 122, on its own, is not adequate to put these contents in practice. Recently, some experts have proposed that the rules governing invention secrecy should be introduced to the Law on Intellectual Property. This would increase the perceived importance of invention secrecy and foreign filing licenses and would likely result in expanded regulations following the amended law, so as to clarify the requirements. If not, it is hoped that detailed clarifications will be provided through upcoming regulations in additional decrees and circulars, so that some of these uncertainties can be put to rest.

Download Full Article
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