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​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More