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 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More