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​ 

September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More