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

January 13, 2016

New Avenue for Accelerated Patent Examination in Vietnam

Tilleke & Gibbins

In October 2015, the National Office of Intellectual Property of Vietnam (NOIP) signed its first Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) agreement with the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) to enable accelerated patent examination. The PPH will be implemented on a trial basis beginning on April 1, 2016. During the test period, the number of requests under the PPH will be limited to 100 per year.

At present, there are two accelerated examination procedures available in Vietnam. Firstly, the standard procedure requires an applicant to file a request for accelerated examination. In practice, in addition to the request, the applicant needs to receive the approval of the responsible examiner for an accelerated examination on a case-by-case basis. The NOIP will accept or refuse the request depending on the results of a quick assessment of patentability, and the NOIP’s backlog.

Requests are typically only accepted under the following circumstances:

  1. A highly reputable patent office such as the EPO, JPO, or USPTO has allowed the corresponding patent; and
  2. The applicant agrees to file a preliminary amendment to conform the claims of the Vietnamese application to the granted claims of the corresponding foreign patent.

As the backlog is usually large, the NOIP tends to refuse such requests.

The second procedure is the ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation (ASPEC) program. An applicant can file a request under the ASPEC program if:

  1. The Vietnamese application links to one or more applications filed in the other participating patent offices (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, or Thailand) by one or more priority applications; and
  2. A search report and an examination report have been issued by any of the other participating patent offices, and at least one claim is considered to be allowable in accordance with the examination report.

When such a request is filed, the examination processes at the NOIP can be advanced out of turn for the patent application in question.

However, Vietnamese examiners have been reluctant to rely on the examination results of smaller, less experienced ASEAN patent offices. As stated above, Vietnamese examiners tend to pay greater deference to the examination results of large patent offices such as the EPO, JPO, USPTO, and SIPO, if available. Specifically, if a patent is granted by one of the large patent offices on a corresponding application, examiners would suggest the applicants to conform their application to the granted patent. If the application is thus amended, a Vietnamese patent will soon be granted on the application. As a result, the ASPEC program so far has not been as effective as hoped. Few requests have been submitted so far.

As the two existing procedures have had limited effectiveness, the PPH may be a route to meet the increasing needs of applicants who wish to obtain patents quickly, and may also help to reduce the backlog at the NOIP and improve the quality of examination.

Hopefully, the PPH will work well and will be expanded after the trial period, so that more and more PPH requests per year can be accepted by the NOIP. If the Japan-Vietnam PPH is successful, it is believed that the NOIP will consider signing additional PPHs with other patent offices.

In the meantime, practitioners in Vietnam continue to proactively contact examiners to inform them when corresponding patents are granted abroad and offer to conform to the granted patents in seeking  the acceleration of patents informally.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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
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.
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